PGSO S1 01 (Block 1) PDF

PGSO S1 01
Sociological Perspectives and Theories
SEMESTER - I
SOCIOLOGY
PAPER - 01
BLOCK - 1
KRISHNA KANTA HANDIQUI STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY

Sociological Theories and Perspectives 1
Subject Experts
1. Professor Chandan Kumar Sharma, Tezpur Central University.

2. Dr. Sanjay Borbora, Tata Institute Of Social Sciences, Guwahati.
Course Co-ordinator : Dola Borkataki, KKHSOU
SLM Preparation Team
UNITS CONTRIBUTORS
1 Kritanjali Jaiswal, GIMT, Guwahati
2 Murchana Kaushik, Guwahati
3 Denim Deka, Mahapurusha Srimanta Sankaradeva Viswavidyalaya, Nagaon
4,5 Dr. Prarthana Barua, Cotton University, Guwahati
6 Pronoti Baglary, JNU, New Delhi
7 Maitrayee Patar, Tezpur Central University
Editorial Team
Content : Dr. Sanjay Borbora, Tata Institute Of Social Sciences,
Guwahati.
Language : Dr. Abhigyan Prasad, B.Barooah College, Guwahati
Structure, Format & Graphics : Dola Borkataki, KKHSOU

Murchana Kaushik, KKHSOU
First Edition : April, 2018
ISBN : 978-93-87940-00-0
This Self Learning Material (SLM) of the Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University
is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License
(international): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Printed and published by Registrar on behalf of Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University.
Headquarter : Patgaon, Rani Gate, Guwahati - 781017

City Office : Housefed Complex, Dispur, Guwahati-781006; Web: www.kkhsou.in
The University acknowledges with thanks the financial support provided by the
Distance Education Bureau, UGC for the preparation of this study material.
2 Sociological Theories and Perspectives

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES AND THEORIES
FIRST SEMESTER
BLOCK - 1
DETAILED SYLLABUS
Unit 1 : Emergence of Sociology-I Pages : 7-19

Meaning of Theory, Meaning of Sociological theory, Development
of Sociological theory in the context of Enlightenment, The
Industrial Revolution,Chief Features of Industrial Revolution,
Impact of Industrial Revolution on Society
Unit 2 : Emergence of Sociology-II Pages : 20-34
Introduction, Medieval Social Philosophy, Ancient Social
Philosophy, Social Forces Behind the development of Sociology,
Some pioneering scholars of Sociology
Unit 3 : Functionalism Pages : 35-47
Structural Functionalism, Talcott Parson’s Systematic View of
Society, R.K.Merton’s Systematic View of Society, Major
Criticism of Structural Functionalism, Neo-functionalism
Unit 4 : Structuralism Pages : 48-63
Structuralism as metaphysical assumption, Structuralism as
a method, A. R Radcliffe Brown’s Approach to Structuralism,
Levi Strauss’s Approach to Structuralism, Critique of
Structuralism, Post-structuralism, Structuration
Unit 5 : Conflict Perspective Pages : 64-78
Georg Simmel’s Conflict Perspective, Conflict Functionalism
of Lewis Coser, Analytic Conflict Theory of Randall Collins,
Dialectic Sociology of Ralf Dahrendorf
Unit 6 : Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology Pages : 79-92
Symbolic Interactionism, Elements of Symbolic Interactionism
and its basic principles, Mead’s Approach to Symbolic
Interactionism, Blumer’s Approach to Symbolic Interactionism
Criticism of Symbolic Interactionism, Garfinkel’s Approach to
Ethnomethodology
Unit 7 : Phenomenology Pages : 93-104
Phenomenology: Definition and Characteristics,
Phenomenology: Key Thinkers, Phenomenology as Method

COURSE INTRODUCTION:
Theoretical Perspectives, as we all know, is the most significant component of any discipline.Keeping
this in mind, this course intends to familiarize the learners with some of the important Sociological
Perspectives and Theories. In this Course, we will introduce the learners to the theoretical contributions
of the founding figures of Sociology and also provide them brief ideas on some of the basic theoretical
approaches/perspectives in Sociology.
The course comprises of 15 units. Unit 1 describes the contribution of enlightenment and industrial
revolution to the growth of sociology as a discipline. Unit 2 discusses the Contributions of Ancient and
Medieval Philosophy to the groth of sociology. It also talks in brief about the social forces behind the
development of sociology and also about some of its pioneering scholars. Unit 3 discusses the Functionalist
Perspective in Sociology. It explains the approaches provided by different Functionalist Thinkers to study
society. Unit 4 explains the Structuralists approach to understand society by illustrating the works of
Radcliffe Brown and Levis Strauss. It also provides the learners basic idea about Post-Structuralism and
Structuration. Unit 5 explains the perspectives of the thinkers belonging to the Conflict School of Thought
like Georg Simmel, Lewis Coser, Ralf Dahrendorf, and Randall Collins. Unit 6 discusses the perspectives
usually referred to as micro level perspectives like Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology, which
focus on everyday life and actions of people. Unit 7 Similar to Unit 6, this unit also talks about another
such perspective i.e Phenomenology. Unit 8 talks about the contributions of Emile Durkheim as one of
the founding fathers of sociology. Unit 9 discusses the contribution of Max Weber to Sociological Theories.
Unit 10 explains the theories of Karl Marx. Unit 11 discusses the contribution of the thinkers belonging to
Frankfurt School of Thought to Sociology. Unit 12 introduces the learners to some of the important theories
and concepts propounded by Antonio Gramsci. Unit 13 discusses about the important concepts of Louis
Althusser. Unit 14 discusses the ideas propounded by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. Unit 15
explains some of the important concepts provided by Pierre Bourdieu.

BLOCK INTRODUCTION:
This is the first block of the paper titled ‘Sociological Perspectives and Theories’ offered in the MA 1st Semester
Sociology programme of Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University. This block intends to provide the
learners a basic understanding regarding the different perspectives and theories of sociology. In this direction
Unit 1 describes the contribution of enlightenment and industrial revolution to the emergence of the discipline.
Unit 2 discusses the ancient and medieval philosophy and the ideas forwarded by some of the pioneering
scholars Unit 3 intends to explain the functionalist approach to understanding society. Unit 4 will discuss the
perspective forwarded by the Structuralists thinkers to analyse society Unit 5 discusses the ideas and viewpoints
of the thinkers belonging to the Conflict School of Thought. Unit 6 discusses the contributions of G.H Mead
and Herbert Blumer who were the pioneers of Symbolic Interactionist perspective. It also discusses Harold
Garfinkel’s approach to Ethnomethodology Unit 7 explains the Phenomenological perspective of
understanding society by illustrating the concepts and ideas of Edmund Husserl and Alfred Schutz.
In order to make the text more interesting and informative, a section called LET US KNOW has been provided
in all the units. This section try to provide some additional information regarding the content of the unit. Further,
in order to enable the learners to continuously check their progress regarding the content, some questions has
been put at the end of various sections of a unit with the heading CHECK YOUR PROGRESS. The answers
to the questions of CHECK YOUR PROGRESS section has been provided at the end of each unit. In the end
of each unit few Model Question of long and short type is provided in order to provide an idea of the ‘question
pattern’ to be expected in the examinations by the learners.

UNIT 1: EMERGENCE OF SOCIOLOGICAL
THEORIES I
UNIT STRUCTURE
1.1 Learning objectives

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Meaning of Theory
1.4 Meaning of Sociological theory
1.5 Development of sociological theory in the context of
enlightenment.
1.5.1 The Enlightenment
1.6 The Industrial Revolution
1.6.1 Chief Features of Industrial Revolution
1.6.2 Impact of Industrial Revolution on Society
1.7 Let Us Sum up
1.8 Further Reading
1.9 Answers to Check your Progress
1.10 Model Questions
1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit, you will be able to –

l understand the meaning of theory
l explain the aspects of sociological theory
l discuss the development of sociological theory
l describe the enlightenment
l describe the industrial revolution and its impact on society.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
We begin this course firstly with the discussion on emergence of

Sociological theories where we shall try to address how the enlightenment
and industrial revolution contributed to the emergence of sociology as a
discipline. But before going to that, we shall first try to understand the
meaning of theory and what is meant by sociological theory. From these

Unit 1 Emergence of Sociological Theories I
basic questions, we will go on to examine the importance of theory to

sociology as a discipline and, importantly, how sociological theories have
developed and relate to the work that they do in describing, defining and
explaining the social and cultural worlds that we live in. We know that,
sociology emerged as a separate academic discipline in the nineteenth
century but sociological thought has its roots in much earlier periods. New
ways of thinking about societies began to emerge during the Enlightenment
period. A new, critical approach to intellectual inquiry developed which
provided the foundations for the development of specific scientific
approaches to the understanding of social processes. In this unit, we shall
look specifically at the Enlightenment and its development and industrial
revolution in the early nineteenth century and how they have paved the way
for development of Sociology as a separate discipline.
1.3 MEANING OF THEORY
A theory is a set of relationship between two or more concepts. In

other words, a theory is the description of why or how a phenomenon occurs.
It is a set of inter-related concepts and ideas which have been scientifically
proved and combined to clarify, and expand our understanding of people,
their behaviours, and their societies. Without theory, science would be
fruitless.
Theories are always abstract and not content or topic specific.
Theories can be modifying in the extent to which they have been conceptually
developed and empirically proved; however, “validity” is an important feature
of a theory. As Stephen Turner has noted in his chapter on “Theory
Development,” social science theories are better understood as models
that work in a limited range of settings, rather than laws of science which
hold and apply universally.
Theory is very important because it makes generalisations about
observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and
models. Typically, theories are both descriptive and explanatory. That is, a
theory should have the capacity to describe a set of observed phenomena
and to explain their occurrence, usually causally.

Emergence of Sociological Theories I Unit 1
1.4 MEANING OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Sociological theory is a set of assumptions, assertions, and

propositions, organized in the form of an explanation or interpretation, of
the nature, form, or content of social action.
Sociological theory is closely related to other forms of social theory.
As we will see, sociology as an academic discipline emerged in the later
part of the nineteenth century. From the beginning, it attempted to define
itself against other forms of explanation, including other types of social
theory. However, as we will see throughout this course, sociological theory
has been and continues to be influenced by the numerous strands of thought
in other social and human sciences. It responds, as it always has done, to
profound, on-going transformations in the social, political and economic
arrangements of the world.
Sociology as a discipline emerged out of a series of debates that
began during the period of the Enlightenment between philosophers,
scientists and other intellectuals about the origins and nature of human
societies. The important thing for us to grasp here is that sociological thinking
emerged out of a series of debates. Questions began to be asked during
the period of the Enlightenment about what societies are and how they
function; about the relationship between individuals and societies, and about
social change. However, these questions did not immediately lead to a single
set of conclusions. Rather, different perspectives and different ideas
emerged in response to these questions and these were often vigorously
debated between people holding competing views. This remains the case
today and it is important to grasp this point as it allows us to recognise that
the systematic attempt to answer complex questions is bound to lead to
different solutions, in other words to different theories of what societies are
and how they work.
1.5 DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY IN

THE CONTEXT OF ENLIGHTENMENT
To understand the root of emergence of sociological theory we must

know the relationship between society and ideas. There has always been a
link and a connection between the social conditions of a period and the
ideas which arise from and become dominant in that period. The intellectual
forces are the important factors that played a central role in shaping
sociological theory. Hence we begin with the enlightenment and its influences
on the development of sociological theory.
1.5.1 The Enlightenment
Enlightenment was a philosophical movement that took

place primarily in Europe and, later, in North America, during the
late 17thand early 18thcenturies. It was a period of remarkable
intellectual development and change in philosophical thought. The
fundamental features of the Enlightenment include the rise of certain
concepts such as scientific method, reason and liberty. It was
the era when some of the traditional ideas and beliefs related to
social life were overthrown and replaced. The most prominent
thinkers associated with the Enlightenment were the French
philosophers Charles Montesquieu (1689 – 1755) and Jean Jacques
Rousseau (1712 – 1778).The Enlightenment is the most appropriate
form of departure in the origins of sociological theories. It brings the
opportunity if one is interested in the study of origins of the sociological
theory, for various reasons.
Firstly, the thinkers of enlightenment gave more emphasis
on scientific approach by using the methods of the natural
sciences. They deliberately applied scientific principles to analyse
and study the human beings, their nature and society. Moreover,
the Enlightenment thinkers wanted their ideas to be derived from
the real world and wanted them to be useful to the social world,
especially in the critical analysis.
Secondly, the thinkers of enlightenment justified reason as
a measure to judge social institutions. They believed that human
beings are typically rational and this rationality can lead them to
freedom of thought and action. Once the human beings understood
how the social world worked, the Enlightenment thinkers could work
for the creation of a better and more rational world.
Thirdly, with an emphasis on reason, the Enlightenment

philosophers were inclined towards liberty and rejected beliefs in
traditional authority. When these thinkers studied traditional systems
and value institutions, they often found them to be irrational, that is,
contrary to human nature and an obstacle to human growth and
development. The mission of the thinkers of Enlightenment was to
overcome these irrational systems.
Apart from all these, Enlightenment thinking was based on
certain principles. According to Hamilton, Enlightenment thinking
took place within a broad paradigm in which certain basic principles
were accepted. A paradigm is a set of interconnected ideas, values,
principles and facts within which coherent theories(attempts to
describe and to explain phenomena) are developed. Hamilton argues
that key aspects of the Enlightenment paradigm included:
Ø Reason: the fundamental importance of reason and rationality
as ways of organising knowledge were stressed.
Ø Empiricism: this is the idea that all thought and knowledge about
the natural and social world is based on what we can apprehend
through our senses. Much Enlightenment thought relied upon
using both rational and empirical methods.
Ø Science: this is the idea that the only way to expand human
knowledge is through those methods (experimental, etc.) devised
during the ‘scientific revolution’ of the seventeenth century.
Ø Universalism: the idea that reason and science are applicable
in all circumstances and that they can provide explanations for
all phenomena in all circumstances. Science in particular was
thought to uncover universal laws.
Ø Progress: this is a key idea of the Enlightenment. Here, it was
believed that human beings could improve their natural and social
conditions through the application of reason and of science. The
result would be an ever-increasing level of happiness and well-
being.
Ø Individualism: the idea that the individual is paramount and that
his or her individual reason cannot be subject to a higher (possibly
irrational) authority (such as the Church) or traditional knowledge.

Ø Toleration: the idea that all human beings are essentially the
same and that the beliefs of other cultures or ‘races’ are not
necessarily inferior to those of European Christianity.
Ø Freedom: opposition to the traditional constraints on
belief,expression, trade, social interaction and so forth.
Ø Secularism: another key aspect of Enlightenment thought, this
is opposition to traditional religious knowledge and to
metaphysical speculation.
Ø Anti-clericalism: opposition to the Church, organised religion,
superstition and religious persecution.
Ø Enthusiasm for technological and medical progress:an
enormous enthusiasm for scientific discovery and its practical
application in the fields of technology and medicine.
Ø A desire for political change and reform: Enlightenment
thinkers were not democrats, but they wished to see
constitutional and legal reforms in the states in which they lived.
Ø A belief in the pre-eminence of empirical, materialist
knowledge: a desire to uncover the real reasons for the ways
that societies operate; the model used was derived from the
natural sciences.
It is clear from the above that during the Enlightenment period, there
was a drastic change in the ways of thinking about the world or
society. The new philosophies of the enlightenment thinkers
established the human being at the centre of the universe, and
rationality or logic as the central features of human being. The ability
to think rationally and critically transformed the human being into
the inventor and the user of all knowledge. Moreover,the thinkers of
Enlightenment were influenced by two intellectual currents – the
prevailing philosophy and science. In other words, they tried to
combine empirical research with reason and science was their
primary model. Hence, we see the emergence of the application of
the scientific method. This new way of thinking which emerged during
enlightment period contributed immensely to the Sociological body
of knowledge. It was since the period of enlightment that several
thinkers began to study society and social phenomenas scientifically

and developed theories and concepts which forms the core of
Sociology.
1.6 THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
Industrial Revolution began in England in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries. It brought tremendous changes in the life of people. One of the
major aspects of Industrial Revolution was the systematic application of
science and technology to industrial production, particularly the invention of
new machines.There were a number of changes that took place in the
production system which brought about great changes in the social and
economic life of the people first in England, then in other countries of Europe
and later in other continents.
During Industrial Revolution, new tools, machines and techniques
were invented which could produce goods on a large-scale and gave rise
to the factory system and mass manufacture of goods. The factories were
set up in urban areas and they were filled by the workers who migrated
from the rural areas and came to the cities in search of work.Hence, a new
change in the structure of economy from feudal to capitalist system of
production developed. A class of capitalists emerged which controlled the
mode of production in factory system.
There were some outstanding mechanical inventions that took place
during the phase of Industrial Revolution. For example, James Hargreaves
made ‘spinning jenny’ in 1764, and Richard Arkwright introduced ‘water-
frame’ in 1768. Thereafter, some other inventions came in quick succession
such as ‘mule spinner’ by Crompton and ‘power-loom’ by Cartwright.
The invention of ‘steam engine’ also enabled people to drive the machine
by power. Thus, all these along with some other inventions contributed to
the industrial development of European society.
1.6.1 Chief Features of Industrial Revolution
The chief features of Industrial Revolution may be summed up as

follows:
Ø A series of mechanical inventions were made by the English

scientists.
Ø The factories started to produce goods with the help of machines
run by mechanical power such as steam, oil and electricity.
Ø The setting up of factory required huge amount of capital which
gave birth to two classes in industry, namely, capitalist and labour.
Ø Mass scale of production and standardisation of goods could
be possible by the use of newly invented machines.
Ø The factory system provided employment to a large number of
people which also gave rise to some labour problems.
1.6.2 Impact of Industrial Revolution
With changes in the form of economy, society had confronted certain

new and radical changes. A complex and new form of capitalism
had emerged. Hence, several emerging economic institutions such
as bank, insurance companies, and finance corporations came into
being and a new class of workers, managers and capitalists
emerged in society. Moreover, due to Industrial Revolution society
had seen several changes, which include:
Ø Economic Changes
Industrial Revolution brought about the following economic changes:
¦ The economy transformed from agricultural to industrial and
machines replaced people in methods of production.
¦ It led to the rise of industrial capitalism under which there were
two classes of people, namely, capitalist and workers.
¦ As factory became the centre of production, large employment
could be possible.
¦ The women and the children also got involved as labourers in
the production system.
¦ Workers became much conscious to protect their rights and
interests which gave birth to the concept of trade union.
¦ It brought a positive impact on the standard of living of the people
because factories produced better quality goods at cheaper rates
for the consumption of the people.
Ø Social Changes
¦ It led to the migration from villages to towns which caused the

expansion of cities and urbanisation. Thus, certain social
problems increased such as migration, housing problems, poor
sanitisation, slums etc.
¦ Two new classes arose, namely, capitalist and working class
due to the new industrial economy i.e. capitalism also caused a
huge gap between the rich and the poor.
¦ The concept of Colonialism had begun and started to exploit the
poor and under developed countries.
¦ The workers were paid lower wages and were forced to work
under certain unfavourable working conditions. They were even
forced to work for long hours.
¦ The structure of the family had changed from joint family to
nuclear family. People’s bond with the village, land and family
was broken. This led to the rise of individualism.
Ø Political Changes
¦ The developed western countries like France, Germany, England,
Italy, Portugal etc., started to rule all over the world and dominated
politically, economically, and socially.
¦ Colonialism was established to search raw materials and new
markets and it changed the world’s political structure.
¦ Some capitalist nations became imperialist nations, extending
their rule over other countries or territories, which led directly to
World War I and World War II.
¦ A laissez-faire policy or free market economy took the place of
mercantilism where the government did not have any
interference.
During the era of Industrial Revolution, the working class in the
new industrial society was living in very poor and unhygienic
conditions. The rise of population led to increase in the no of
cities and urban areas where the socio-economic disparities
were very high; the workers were involved in repetitive and boring
work, where they could not enjoy their work (Alienation of Work,
in Marxist term). Moreover, the conservative and radical thinkers

were also influenced by these changes. The conservative

thinkers feared that such conditions would lead to social disorder
whereas the radical thinkers like Engels felt that such condition
would bring a new social transformation. Though the different
values of judgement were found the social thinkers of that period
agreed that the Industrial Revolution had epoch-making impact
on society.
Thus we may conclude by saying that the changes broguht by
industrial revolution arrested the interest of the social thinkers
and motivated them to examine and anlyse these changes in a
scientifice way. This in turn greatly contributed to the growth of
sociology as a discipline.
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q1: What is theory?

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q2: What is sociological theory?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q3: What do you mean by enlightenment?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q4: What are the fundamental features of enlightenment?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q.5: Where and when did Industrial Revolution first take place?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q6: What were the major inventions of Industrial Revolution?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

1.7 LET US SUM UP
l The development of theories in sociology has been going on since

the earliest times and it still continues. The enlightenment and the
industrial revolution had a great influence on the development of
sociological theory.
l Sociological theory emerges from a system of thinking that link
concepts, often new concepts, with evidence or data to create a
broader understanding and explanation of the society.
l The Enlightenment period began in the early years of the eighteenth
century with the emergence of European intellectuals. During this
period a new framework of ideas about human beings and their
societies was developed in the work of a wide variety of thinkers.
l The Enlightenment is also known as “Intellectual Movement”whose
purpose was to alter and modify society with advanced knowledge.
It promoted science and intellectual interchange and opposed
superstition. They believed that human reason could be used to
beat ignorance, superstition, and coercion and to build a better
society.
l The era of Enlightenment was also known as the “Rise of Age of
Reason” where religion was challenged by science and which aimed
to reform society with scientific knowledge and logical thinking.
l Industrial Revolution took place in England in the late 18th and early
19thcenturies and later spread to other countries of the world. It is
the era where the use of science and technology could be seen.
During this period, many changes took take place in industrial
system.
l Industrial Revolution led to the transformation of feudal society into
industrial society. The emphasis was given on large scale production
because of increasing demand which also brought urbanisation and
industrialisation.

l Urbanisation and industrialisation brought a new economic structure

i.e. Capitalism where there were two classes namely, the capitalist
and the working class. The capitalist class owned the mode of
production. Thus, it led to the huge gap between the rich and poor.
l The conservative and radical thinkers were also influenced by these
changes. The conservative thinkers thought these changes would
bring social disorder in the society whereas the radical thinkers
welcomed these changes for social reformation.
Thus the changes brought by industrial revolution provoked different
thinkers and scholars to scientifically examine and analyse these changes
and its impact in society. This in turn contributed immensely to the
Sociological body of knowledge and growth of Sociology.
1.8 FURTHER READING
1) Bhatnagar, Mahesh.(2012). IndustrialSociology. New Delhi:S Chand

Publication.
2) Coser, Lewis, A. (1977).Master of Sociological Thought: Ideas in
Historical and Social Context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
3) Cross, Steve.(2008). Sociological Theory and Analysis. London:
University of London.
4) Rao,C.N.Shankar.(2008).Sociology.New Delhi:S.Chand & Company
Ltd..
5) Ritzer, G. (1996).Sociological Theory.London: McGraw-Hill.
6) Zeitlin ,Irving M. (2009). Ideology and the Development of Sociological
Theory. New Delhi.Pearson College Division.
1.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Ans to Q No 1: Theory is a set of inter-related concepts and ideas which

have been scientifically proved and combined to glorify, enlarge, clarify,
and expand our understanding of people, their behaviours, and their
societies.
Ans to Q No 2: Sociological theory is a set of assumptions, assertions,

and propositions, organized in the form of an explanation or
interpretation, of the nature, form, or content of social action.
Ans to Q No 3: The Enlightenment was a period of remarkable intellectual
development and change in philosophical thought, a number of ideas
and beliefs, some of which were related to social life were overthrown
and replaced during the Enlightenment.
Ans to Q No 4: Scientific method, reason and liberty are the fundamental
features of enlightenment.
Ans to Q No 5: The Industrial Revolution took place in England during the
late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Ans to Q No 6: The major inventions of Industrial Revolution were spinning
jenny in 1764, water-frame in 1768, mulespinner, power-loom, steam
engine etc.
1.10 MODEL QUESTIONS
A) Short Questions (Answer each question in about 150 words)

Q1: Why is theory necessary for sociology?
Q2: What is Industrial Revolution?
Q3: What are the key features of Enlightenment?
Q4: What were the principles of Enlightenment?
B) Long Questions (Answer each question about 300-500 words)
Q1: Explain the influence of Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution on
society.
Q2: What are the chief features of Industrial Revolution?
Q3: Discuss the impact of Industrial Revolution on society.
Q4: Explain how Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution are responsible
for the development of sociological theory?
Q5: Discuss the political and social changes brought by industrial
revolution.
*** ***** ***
UNIT 2: EMERGENCE OF SOCIOLOGY-II
UNIT STRUCTURE
2.1 Learning Objectives

2.1 Introduction
2.3 Ancient Social Philosophy
2.4 Medieval Social Philosophy
2.5 Social Forces Behind the development of Sociology
2.6 Some pioneering scholars of Sociology
2.6.1 Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brede et de
Montesquieu
2.6.2 Jean Jacques Rousseau
2.6.3 Joseph-Marie, comte de Maistre
2.6.4 Louis Gabriel Ambroise de Bonald
2.6.5 Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon
2.6.6 August Comte
2.7 Let Us Sum Up
2.8 Further Reading
2.9 Answers to Check Your Progress

l understand the ancient social philosophy and medieval social
philosophy
l explain the social forces behind the emergence of Sociology
l discuss the theories and works of some noted sociologists.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
The development of Sociology as a discipline is a recent

phenomenon, dating back to the 19th century. The historical background
that predates the development of Sociology is characterized by social,

Emergence of Sociology-II Unit 2
political, cultural and economic dynamics, which the unit has tried to
emphasize. Sociology was born amidst and as a consequence of the
changing social order of Europe, particularly France, in order to comprehend
the dynamics of the emerging society, polity and economy, and their inter-
relations in those times. Therefore, it was inevitable that Sociology was
guided by principles of the emerging modern society like reason, logic,
scientific temperament, etc. The early sociological theories, thoughts and
approaches can be comprehended by understanding some significant
scholars of the discipline who have contributed to the birth and growth of
the discipline. However, here it must be noted that modern sociological
thought was predated by the intellectual and philosophical thoughts of the
ancient and the medieval periods which were different from that of the modern
era. Therefore, it is important to know these philosophies before engaging
in Sociology and its emergence.
In the previous unit we have discussed about the influence of
enlightenment and industrial revolution in the emergence of sociology. In
this unit we shall discuss the importance of social philosophy of ancient
and medieval periods. We shall also discuss about some of the pioneering
scholars of sociology.
2.3 ANCIENT SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY
Ancient social philosophy pertains to the period before the Roman

empire ended. It encompasses a large array of philosophical discourses –
Greek philosophy and Roman philosophy in the West; Chinese philosophy,
which includes Yin-Yang philosophy, Confucianism, Taoism; Indian
philosophy, which caters to the Vedas and Upanishads, Hindu, Buddhist
and Jain philosophies; and Iranian philosophy, which predominantly includes
Zoroastrian thought. In addition to these, ancient philosophy also includes
Roman philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy.
Ancient philosophies are characterized by adherence to religious
traditions, and are recognized as being of conservative in nature. The
development of the western ancient philosophy is largely credited to Plato,
Socrates and Aristotle.
Unit 2 Emergence of Sociology-II
There are some general traits which characterize the ancient

philosophical thought. As mentioned above, ancient philosophy consists of
a diversity of discourses which root to different intellectual traditions. It hardly
needs to be mentioned that not all of those thoughts and discourses are
considered to be philosophies. This is because for an intellectual line of
thought to be considered as a philosophy it must be based on the tenets of
rationality, logic and a systematic thought framework. On the basis of this
understanding of philosophy, it can be seen that the mentioned intellectual
discourses in the ancient philosophy display distinct approaches to the
problems and issues and their engagement with them. The following general
traits of ancient philosophy must be comprehended.
Ancient philosophy distinctly differs from modern philosophy,
perhaps not so much in terms of their object of study, but a lot in their
approaches and the methodologies adopted in their studies. Modern
philosophy, unlike ancient philosophy, focuses on specific areas of study
guided by defined methodological outlines. Consequently, the presentation
of the thoughts in ancient and modern philosophies differ from each other,
and hence the methods to deal with the derived understandings also vary.
For example, the ancient philosophy of the Greeks was presented in the
form of poetic verses, which is unlikely to be seen in the context of modern
philosophical writings and presentations.
Further, as mentioned already, ancient philosophy was deeply
influenced by religion. In contrast to this, the tendency of modern
philosophical works is to separate religion from intellectual works. For
example, ancient Indian philosophy has dealt in significant amount with
religious ideologies and thoughts like that of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
The ancient philosophy that developed in the West was different
from that of the East. For example, Indian philosophy has different roots
and intellectual base. The Vedas are the basis of Indian philosophical thought
which deal with questions regarding the universe, man, laws, nature, etc.
The Indian philosophical questions were systematically dealt with by six
schools of Philosophy. The six schools are: Nyaya, Visheshika, Samkhya,
Yoga, Mimamsa, Vedanta.
2.4 MEDIEVAL SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY
Medieval philosophy confines to the period after the fall of the Roman
empire (5th century) upto Renaissance (16th century). Medieval philosophy
began as a result of the process of revisiting the ancient Greco-Roman
culture, and at the same time as an attempt to integrate that with the present
day secular doctrines.
Medieval philosophy is generally classified into two periods, i.e. after
the early Middle ages in the Latin West till the 12th century, and the second
period is that of the 12th to 14th century.
l The medieval philosophy is characterized by certain common traits
as discussed below. The medieval period and its philosophies have
been perceived in two different ways. First, it was seen as a barbaric
and dark period. This was the period before the Renaissance, and
hence was defined by superstition, discrimination, inequality, disturbed
social surroundings, etc.
l Secondly, the philosophical development of this period is seen as
being influenced by Christianity. Religion was a predominant factor in
the public space in this period. Hence, the church was symbolized
as the epitome of law and order, conduct, morality, etc.
l Medieval philosophical thought is featured by a discourse on theology.
It addressed aspects like the attribute of the divine, the evil, freedom
and freewill, the soul and intellect, etc.
l It is to be noted that despite the perception of the medieval period as
being barbaric and non-progressive, the philosophical works of this
period were characterized by the use of reason and logic.
l Further, it can be seen that the ancient philosophical thought of Plato
and Aristotle were particularly revered in the medieval period. Medieval
philosophy is recognized by a systematic reference to the ancient
philosophy, its analysis, and an attempt to collaborate it with the more
logical and systematic thought process of the former.

2.5 SOCIAL FORCES BEHIND THE DEVELOPMENT

OF SOCIOLOGY
Sociology, as a discipline was developed to address the questions

and the issues that the European society faced in the late eighteenth and
the nineteenth centuries. It was during this time that the European society
was in a transitory phase from a pre-industrialized to an industrialising
society. This transition further gave rise to a variety of changes in the social,
political, and economic sectors. The transitory phase in Europe was
characterized by chaos, lawlessness, changing rules and regulations,
amongst others. On the one hand the society was progressing towards a
more rational and outward-looking way of life, on the other hand, the remnants
of the recent past, traditions, culture, etc kept hovering. The Industrial
Revolution and its relevance in this context have been discussed in detail in
the previous unit. Another force that shaped the birth of Sociology is the
French Revolution. The French Revolution portrayed the emancipating
tendencies of the people of those times, whereby they attempted to liberate
the society from the clutches of the so called Dark Age. Hence the ideas of
liberty, equality and fraternity were propagated as the ideals of the modern
day. This further garnered the attention of the thinkers and analysts of the
time who sought to comprehend the evolving complexities of the modern
society. Thus Sociology was the result of two primary forces- the changing
social circumstance, and the intellectual forces which include the
enlightenment. The thinkers and scholars of this time devised ways to build
a systematic thought approach to comprehend the dynamics and establish
a new social order. This process led to the development of Sociology. The
following account highlights the social context of the period.
The following are the significant social factors that led to the
development of Sociology:
l Socialism: Socialism refers to Karl Marx’s vision of a socio-economic
system where means of production are socially owned, and not identified
by individual ownership. The growth of socialism can be seen in two
dimensions in the context of Europe. On the one hand socialism gained

prominence because it was seen as a way to counter the rapidly growing

capitalism. On the other hand, it was opposed by many. In this context, the
ideas of Karl Marx are of particular significance. Marx not only provided
some important criticism against the capitalist society, but also argued and
anticipated through his studies that the capitalist society can eventually be
replaced by the socialist order. This, according to Marx could be reached
through a revolution. Unlike Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber were of
a contrasting view. While recognizing the problems associated with the
capitalist order, they neither sought a revolution, nor the replacement of the
capitalist society by a socialist one. Instead, they sought reforms in the
prevalent social order.
l Urbanization: The late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries
witnessed several social changes due to the emergence and growth of the
industrial revolution and the consequent large scale industrialization. A
significant feature of this period was the rising urban settlements in Europe.
A large number of people migrated from rural to urban areas. However, it
created several difficulties in terms of occupation accommodation, pollution,
diseases, etc. The early sociologists, therefore, were primarily concerned
about the process of urbanization, as a significant part of the discipline. It is
to be noted that the American school of Sociology was primarily
characterized by its emphasis on the urban studies.
l Feminism: Some significant social and intellectual discourses were
undertaken from the feminist perspective, traceable from the 1630s.
However, the rise and healthy growth of the liberal feminist outlook began
around the time of the American and the French Revolution. The active
form of feminist activities could be witnessed in the period of 1850s with
the rise in fight for universal suffrage in America. These played a significant
role in the emergence of Sociology. However, the feminist writings in the
discipline of Sociology in the early times of it were only passive in nature. It
was confined to some marginalized scholars, both male and female, who
were not inducted in the popular mainstream theoretical base of sociological
discourses. The prominent scholars like Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, who
were recognized as sociologists or as important scholars of the discipline
showed a very conservative approach to the feminist works of the time.

The present day form of gender discourses that Sociology emphasizes
and promotes is only very recent.
l Religion: Religion played an important role in the socio political events
of the times. Several early sociologists were associated with some religious
background or the other. While for some, religion played a significant role in
the social and political settings, at the same time some others viewed religion
as insignificant. Emile Durkheim wrote a major work on religion called ‘The
Elementary Forms of Religious Life’ (1912). Max Weber in his ‘The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’ (1905) discussed in length the role of
religion in bringing up capitalism. Karl Marx also discussed religion, however
on a different note. He was critical of the role of religion unlike Durkheim
and Weber. His views on religion are well summed up by his famous
statement: “Religion is the opium of the masses”.
l Science: Sociology has always sought to establish itself as a scientific
discipline. Early sociologists tried to build Sociology on the lines of natural
science. The natural sciences were defined and well acknowledged subjects
of study. It was in the attempt to design a scientific discipline of Sociology
that the pioneering scholars of the discipline sought to define Sociology
from a positivist approach. Positivism refers to the ideology that an aspect
or a phenomenon could be established only when it has been verified or
proved. Likewise, Emile Durkheim wrote his famous work “Suicide” (1897),
based on statistical data and mathematical calculations. Similarly, Herbert
Spencer argued that the method of study in Sociology is defined by organic
analogy. The concept of Organic analogy means that the organization and
survival of society is similar to that of a biological being. To further illustrate,
just like the different parts of an organism perform different functions in
order to maintain the whole of the organism, similarly the various parts of
the society perform various functions to maintain the whole society. In the
nineteenth century, several attempts were made to make Sociology
scientific. For example, Talcott Parsons in his study of the social structure
adopted a quantitative approach. Thus Sociology, in its early days was,
categorically defined by quantitative measures based on natural sciences.
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q.1: Mention two social forces which contributed

to the growth of Sociology
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q.2: Who wrote the book “The Elementary forms of religious life”?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
2.6 SOME PIONEERING SCHOLARS OF SOCIOLOGY
In order to attain a clearer understanding of the subject matter of

Sociology and its approaches, it is essential to comprehend the theories
and scholars of the discipline. The following account highlights some of the
significant pioneering scholars of Sociology and their contributions to the
subject.
2.6.1 Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brede et

de Montesquieu (1689-1755)
Montesquieu was born on 18 January 1689 in France. He

belonged to an aristocratic family. He is known to have widely traveled
across Europe. He was an important person in the enlightenment,
who also built a comparative perspective on the political systems of
those times. Montesquieu is regarded as the founder of modern
Sociology, and rightly so. He is known to have given a holistic
description of society. According to him, society is an interconnected
and integrated entity. However, it must be noted that society is not
merely an amalgamation of social relations and interactions, but is
larger than the integrated whole. Montesquieu argued that society
sometimes seems to be chaotic, but in reality society is guided by
laws and institutions. He further argues that no society can be based
on despotism, coercion, etc in the long run.

Montesquieu introduced Sociology of Law. He further

compared and described the laws of different societies and stated
that the differences between the laws of different societies exist
because of the social and geographical diversities that characterize
these societies. He wrote his famous work called “The Spirit of Law”
(1748) which discusses law and the forms of government from a
generalist perspective.
2.6.2 Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Rousseau was born on 28 June, 1712 in Geneva. He was an

important thinker of the eighteenth century who contributed
significantly to the social and political thought in Europe during the
time of enlightenment and the French Revolution. One of his famous
works is “Social Contract” (1762). Here, Rousseau argues that an
orderly and a legitimate state can be built only when its constituent
members identify themselves in terms of their interests and
objectives with the larger society and when they collectively devote
themselves to the community and its wellbeing. Another important
work by Rousseau is “Emile” (1762), which is a treatise on education.
Further, Rousseau argued that not only is society based on
contradictions, but also that society is corrupt by nature. According
to him, the corrupt nature of society can be dealt with the help of
strict laws of a particular state, which are to be followed by all. Some
of his other famous works are “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences”
(1750), “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men”
(1754), etc.
2.6.3 Joseph-Marie, comte de Maistre (1753- 1821)
Maistre was born on 1 April, 1753 in France. He is known as an

advocate of counter enlightenment. He is therefore known to have
been an advocate of hierarchy and monarchy in the society.
According to him, monarchy was a divine institution. He strongly
opposed the rationalist ideas, and expressed that the root cause

behind the social and political disturbances during and after the
French Revolution was the rejection of Christianity by the rationalist
thinkers. Some of his works are “Essay on the general Principle of
Political Constitutions” (1847), “Letters on the Spanish Inquisition”
(1838), etc.
2.6.4 Louis Gabriel Ambroise de Bonald (1754-1840)
Bonald was born on 2 October, 1754 in France. He belonged to the

traditionalist or theocratic school. Therefore his works reflect his
ideological tenets of conservatism, traditionalism and counter-
enlightenment. His works, which largely deal with political and social
philosophies, are based on the entity of language and its origins. It
is from language, according to Bonald, that the existence and origin
of God can be deciphered, which further gives way to the supremacy
of the church. Some of his works are “Du Divorce” (1801),
“Legislation Primitive” (1802), etc.
2.6.5 Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon

(1760-1825)
Saint Simon was born on 17 October, 1760 in France. He is regarded

as a utopian sociologist, perhaps because of his approach that
perceived society as an organic whole. He is credited for influencing
two distinct developments in Sociology: Marxian Socialism and
Comtean Positivism. The discourse of Saint Simon is marked by
some principle aspects. First, Saint Simon argued that historically
human society passes through three stages which are further
defined by distinct thought processes. The three stages are:
polytheism and slavery, theism and feudalism and positivism and
industrialism. Further he argued that scientific positivism would
enable the comprehesion the principles and laws of social dynamics
and social organisation. In the context of social organization, Saint
Simon viewed that the modern society should be guided and
organized by industrialists and scientists, and not by clerics, lawyers

and bureaucrats. This is because, according to Saint Simon, the

latter are parasitic and unproductive. Emphasizing on the importance
of the discipline of Sociology, he argued that the crisis that the
modern society faced should be solved through the theory of
positivism by the sociologists. Some of his works are “L’Industrie”
(1816-1817), “Le Politique” (1819), etc.
2.6.6 August Comte (1798-1857)
August Comte was born on 19 January 1798 in France.

Comte in his early days of life witnessed the historical, social and
political upheavels that were undergoing in France. It was largely
because of the socio-political circumstances around him perhaps,
that made him ponder into the ideas of men, their relationships and
therefore the society at large. In the process of comprehending the
social dynamics of the time, he argued that the French society would
inevitably be characterized and defined by new principles in the near
future. These principles, according to Comte, shall be designed to
balance and integrate the various aspects of social life of men.
The emergence of the discipline of Sociology is rooted in the
fact that Europe as a society had reached a level of development
which was characterized by disorganization, poverty, fear, etc. It was
in his attempt to understand the upheaval in Europe, and particularly
France, that led Comte to develop the idea of the discipline of
Sociology. Comte coined the term Sociology and used it publicly for
the first time in his “Positive Philosophy” (Volume 4) He sought to
design Sociology as a science, based on the principles of natural
science. Hence, Sociology for him was a discipline guided by reason,
observation, comparison, and experimentation. According to Comte,
such a disciplinary approach would enable us to understand the social
dynamics, and most importantly, to comprehend the evolution of the
society from one stage to another.
Comte, in order to systematize the scope and subject matter of the
discipline, distinguished social life into the following:

Ø Static: It focuses on the conditions of social existence, which

are relatively permanent in nature. In other words, static studies
the social order.
Ø Dynamic: It studies the dynamic aspects of society, like the
ever changing stages of the society. In other words, it studies
social change or progress.
Further, Comte argued that the human mind develops and
passes through three stages across all societies. These three
stages are referred to as the Law of the three stages. The three
stages are the following:
Ø Theological Stage: According to Comte, in this stage the human
mind perceives that all phenomena are guided by supernatural
beings.
Ø Metaphysical stage: In this stage, according to Comte, men
tend to comprehend the world in terms of an essence of God.
Ø Positive stage: In this stage, as Comte perceives, men are
guided by logic, reason and laws.
Comte, in addition to the evolution of society from one stage to
another, also viewed that all the sciences that have been established
have also evolved from a simple to a complex stage. According to
Comte, the emergence and the level of complexity of the different
sciences can be seen in the following order: Mathematics,
Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Sociology developed
very late as compared to the other sciences. The reason behind
the late emergence of Sociology as a discipline is that Sociology is
the most complex of all sciences, as it’s subject matter i.e. the society
is the most complex to study. Thus, Comte states that Sociology is
the queen of sciences. Some of his works are “A General View of
Positivism” (1856), “System of Positive Polity”, etc.

CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q3: Mention the stages entailed in August Comte’s

idea of the Law of three stages.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q4: Mention some pioneering scholars of the discipline of Sociology.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Several scholars attempted to build and design Sociology as a

discipline in their attempt to understand the transforming social order in
Europe in the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries. Their contribution to
the subject have been significant in terms of their approach, engagement
of issues, and the resultant insights into the problems and questions of the
time. However, it must be noted that it was only August Comte who not only
systematically and formally established Sociology as a discipline of study,
but also built its nomenclature. It was since then that Sociology began to be
identified as a disciplinary matter which is characterized by a set of defined
subject matter, approach, theoretical framework, and methodology.
2.7 LET US SUM UP
l Ancient social philosophy belongs to the period before the end of

the Roman empire. It is characterized by the dominance of religious
ideals, and is conservative by nature. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle
were the main scholars of this period.
l Medieval Social philosophy belongs to the period after the fall of the
Roman empire upto the period of the Rennaisance. The works of
this time attempted to integrate the secular ideals of this period with
the ancient philosophy.

l Sociology emerged in the eighteenth century in Europe. It was a

result of the social, political and economic dynamics of the period.
l Some significant social factors which gave rise to Sociology are:
Socialism, Urbanisation, Feminism, Religion and Science.
2.8 FURTHER READING
1) Abercrombie, Nicholas and Stephen Hill & Bryan S. Turner. (2000).

The penguin Dictionary of Sociology; England.
2) Borgotta, Edgar F. and Rhonda J. V. Montgomery. (2000). Encyclopedia
of Sociology; Cengage Learning Publisher.
3) Giddens, Anthony. (1997). Sociology; Polity Press.
4) Haralambos, H and R M Heald. (1997). Sociology : Themes and
Perspectives. Oxford Publication.
5) Ritzer, George. (2010). Sociological Theory. McGraw Hill Education.
6) Turner, Jonathan H.(2002). The Structure of Sociological Theory.
Wardsworth Publishing Co Inc.

PROGRESS
Ans to Q No 1: Urbanisation, Socialism, Feminism.

Ans to Q No 2: Emile Durkheim.
Ans to Q No 3: Theological, Metaphysical, Positive
Ans to Q No 4: August Comte, Saint Simon.
(A) Short Questions (Answer each question in about 150 words)

Q1: List the general characteristics of Ancient social philosophy.
Q2: List the general characteristics of medieval social philosophy.

B) Long Questions (Answer each question in about 300-500 words)

Q1: Discuss and differentiate between the ancient-medieval philosophical
thought and the modern philosophical thought after the emergence of
Sociology.
Q2: How did Sociology emerge as a discipline? Highlight the social factors
which gave rise to the discipline of Sociology.
Q3: Discuss the contribution of some noted early scholars of Sociology
to the discipline.
*** ***** ***

UNIT 3: FUNCTIONALISM
UNIT STRUCTURE

3.2 Introduction
3.3 Structural Functionalism
3.3.1 Talcott Parson’s Systematic View of Society
3.3.2 R.K.Merton’s Systematic View of Society
3.3.3 Major Criticism of Structural Functionalism
3.3.4 Neo-functionalism
3.4 Let Us Sum Up
3.5 Further Reading
3.7 Model Questions
3.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVE

l know about structural functionalism
l understand the systematic view of society in the words of Talcott
Parsons and R.K.Merton
l discuss the criticisms against Structural Functionalism
l explain the concept of Neo-Functionalism.
3.2 INTRODUCTION
We are aware of the fact that because we live in a society, we share

relations with the ones we come across. Be it institutions like family, religion,
kinship or caste group, we tend to develop relations with one another and
these institutions keep continuing as we work or interact as various parts of
the systems or institutions. In order to maintain coherence and solidarity in
the society, functioning of the different or inter-related parts in association
with the whole system is essential for the sustenance of the systems. Every
individual has variety of functions to perform and this in turn makes the

Unit 3 Functionalism
functioning of the society. In the previous unit we have discussed about the
social forces and also about the contribution of different thinkers to the
growth of Sociology as a discipline. In this unit, we shall try to understand
the theories of functionalism, perspective on the systematic view of society
by Talcott Parsons and R.K. Merton, criticisms against structural
functionalism and theory of neo-functionalism.
3.3 STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
Structural functionalism is a sociological theory that sees society

as a structure of inter-related parts that form a whole system. It addresses
the elements like norms, customs, folkways, mores, traditions and
institutions as the parts in relation to the whole system of societal functioning.
This theory believes that society has evolved like an organism. Herbert
Spencer refers to the various parts of the society as ‘organs’ which work in
coordination for the maintenance of the ‘body’ i.e. the cohesive system or
society. For example, If we take family as a system, then the members are
the parts with individual elements of working, helping and sharing which
would help the functioning of the whole system of family.
In structural functionalism, the terms structural and functional may
be used separately. We can study a social structure without its functions.
Similarly we could also examine the various functions of society without its
structural forms. Structural functionalism may assume various forms but
the most dominant form is attributed to Societal Functionalism that aims to
explain the role of large-scale social structures, the institutions of society,
the inter-relations between these structures and the ways in which individual
actions are constrained.
The Functional Theory of Stratification, forwarded by Kinsley Davis
and Wilbert Moore, is best regarded as the most significant work in
structural-functional theory. According to Davis and Moore, social
stratification is both universal as well as a necessity. Stratification, in their
view, is a functional necessity and a structure where the system of positions
is referred in the stratification system and not the individuals. It is not the
individuals who are ranked but the positions that are ranked according to
Functionalism Unit 3
the degree to which they contribute for the survival of the society. In their
view, to be sure that people occupy high-ranking positions, the society should
also provide sufficient rewards to the positions so that people will seek to
occupy them and work with care. The functional theory of stratification was
criticized on grounds that there should be other means of motivating people
to work rather than attaching rewards only.
Structural functionalism as a theory has declined over time and it
can be reflected in Colomy’s (1990s) description of structural functionalism
as a theoretical ‘tradition’. However, some sociologist appreciated the theory
of structural functionalism immensely which is reflected in the words of
Robert Nisbet that structural functionalism was ‘’without doubt, the single
most significant body of theory in the social sciences in the present century’’.
3.3.1 Talcott Parson’s Systematic View of Society
Talcott Parsons was an American Sociologist. His structural

functionalism comprises of four functional imperatives or functions
which is called the AGIL system. Using Rocher’s definition on function
i.e. a function is a complex of activities directed towards meeting a
need or needs of the system, Talcott Parsons believes that a system
is required to perform the four functions in order to survive. The
AGIL system stands for - adaptation (A), goal attainment (G),
integration (I) and latency (L).
Ø Adaptation: a system must adapt to the environment and also
adapt the environment to its need. It must deal with external
situational need or urgency, if any.
Ø Goal attainment: a system must establish or define the goals
and also achieve them.
Ø Integration: a system must coordinate and maintain
interrelations with the component parts and also administer the
relationship among the other functional imperatives (A, G and I).
Ø Latency: it is also called pattern maintenance. A system must
ensure that motivations of both the actors or individuals and
cultural patterns are managed and renewed.
Now we shall discuss Talcott Parson’s Action System in terms

of the AGIL model. Action is the process which enables individuals
to get motivated in pursuing their goals. There are four action
systems namely Behavioral Organism, Personality System,
Social System and Cultural System.
Ø The behavioral organism is the action system which handles
the function of adaptation thereby adjusting to and changing the
external world.
This system is based on the hereditary aspect which stands as
the source of energy for the other systems to function and
operate. The human body adopts itself to the conditions and
learning taking place in the individual’s life.
Ø The personality system is associated with the goal-attainment
function which helps individuals to mobilize resources and set
goals to achieve them.
This system involves orientation and motivation to actors for
action. Need disposition, defined as drives acquired through the
process of action and shaped by the social setting is regarded
as the most significant unit of the personality system. Actors
are impelled to accept or reject objects in the environment or to
seek out new objects if the objects present do not suffice or
satisfy them.
Ø The social system performs the integration function by controlling
the component parts of the system.
In order to maintain the balance of the social system,
socialization and social control are the main mechanisms
according to Talcott Parsons. He viewed the social system as a
system of interaction but he considered the status-role as the
structural component of the social system. An actor or individual
is seen in terms of his multiple statuses and roles. Status refers
to a structural position within the social system and role is the
part or function played by the individual in that position. He was
also interested in the other components of the social system
like norms, values and collectivities which helps the social

system in operating with other systems and can have a control
over disruptive behavior.
Ø The cultural system performs the latency function where it
provides the actors with norms and values thereby inspiring them
to act.
This system has the stock of knowledge, ideas and symbols
which mediates interaction among the actors and helps them in
integrating the values in the personality system and social
systems as well. Culture is seen as a patterned and ordered
system of symbols which moves from one system to another
thereby enhancing the function of socialization and learning
among the actors.
Figure 2.3.1.1
Structure of the General Action System
L I
Cultural System Social System
Behavioral System Personality System
A G
According to Talcott Parsons, the action system works in a

hierarchy and the levels of social analysis are integrated in two ways.
First, the conditions and energy needed for the higher levels, is
provided by the lower levels. Second, the higher levels tend to control
those below it in the hierarchy. It is said that the four action systems
do not exist in the real world but they are to be regarded as the
analytical tools in examining the real world.
Society is considered as a relatively self-sufficient collectivity
of the social system where the individuals are able to satisfy their
individual and collective needs. There are four types of sub-systems
or structures in society which performs various functions in terms
of the AGIL schema. The economy as the subsystem with features

of labor, production and allocation, adapts to the needs of the

environment. The polity or political system performs the function of
goal attainment by organizing actors to use the societal purposes.
The fiduciary system (example- norms in school and family) performs
the latency function by imparting norms, values to individuals helping
them to inculcate it. The societal community (example- the law)
performs the integration function by coordinating and collaborating
with various parts of the society.
Figure 2.3.1.2
Society, Its Sub-systems and the Functional Imperatives
L I
Fiduciary System Societal System
Economy Polity
A G
3.3.2 Robert K. Merton’s Systematic View of Society
Robert K. Merton was a student of Talcott Parsons. Unlike

Parsons, Merton was inclined towards Marxian theories. Merton
found three problematic functional postulates or assumptions of
functional analysis of anthropological features put forward by
Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown stating that the postulates rely on
non-empirical assertions based on abstracts and theoretical
systems.
Ø Functional unity of the society is the first postulate which states
that individuals and the whole society must show a high level of
integration in the social and cultural beliefs and practices. Merton
opposed this view stating that the functionality of beliefs and
practices might hold true in a small and primitive society but not
in complex societies. For example- Diversity of religious beliefs
may not bind all people together and there are bound to be
differences.
Ø The second postulate is universal functionalism which states

that ‘all standardized social and cultural norms and structures
have positive functions’. Merton criticized it saying that in the
real world not all structures, belief, custom, idea etc will have
positive functions. For example- Loyalism may be highly
dysfunctional in a world of corruption.
Ø Indispensability is the third postulate which argues that all
structures and functions are indispensable or essential parts
which are functionally necessary for all. Merton is of the view
that there will be structures and functions which will play the
alternative part in the society. For example- Most people are
followers of a religion but some may be followers of some
ideologies.
Merton was of the opinion that focal point of the structural
functionalist should be on social functions than on the individual
motives. Functions, according to Merton, are ‘’those observed
consequences which make for the adaptation or adjustment of a
given system’’. It is to be noted that there will be both positive and
negative consequences for social facts or in the process of
adjustment. To cope with this, Merton developed an idea of
dysfunction which means in addition to a structure and its
maintenance, there will also be negative results. For example- The
capitalist class or entrepreneurs has the positive result of having
employees working according to the wishes of their employers but
at the same time there will be negative consequence when the
employees will walk out of their position due to job dissatisfaction.
Merton developed the idea of levels of functional analysis
which can serve as guide to theory and research and help in
analyzing institutions, groups and organizations. He introduced two
concepts namely manifest functions and latent functions. Manifest
functions are those which are intended. For example- We earn
income because we intend to live a life of our wishes. Latent
functions are those which are unintended. For example- Some

people draw because they love to which serves as a delight to the

eye for the onlookers. Merton was of the opinion that in the functional
theory, a structure may be dysfunctional but yet it may continue to
exist. For example- atrocities and violence against women is
dysfunctional for a society but it functions for the perpetrators of
violence on women.
Merton also analyzed the relationship between culture,
structure and anomie. Culture is defined by Merton as ‘’that organized
set of normative values governing behavior which is common to
members of a designated society or a group’’. He defined social
structure as ‘’ that organized set of social relationships in which
members of the society or group are variously implicated” and
anomie is said to occur ‘’when there is an acute disjunction between
cultural norms and goals and the socially structured capacities of
the members of the group to act in accord with them’’. It is to be
noted that people occupy different positions in the social structure
of a society; therefore some people may not be able to act
corresponding to normative values. Culture brings in values and
behavior in society that which is prevented by the society. Merton is
of the view that the lack of correspondence between culture and
structure leads to a situation of anomie or no presence of norms
which ultimately results in deviant behavior. For example- People
usually have a penchant for material culture or success but it is not
always achievable for all because one’s position in the social
structure will be different and so will be the income level. This might
instigate some people to pursue unfair means to get hold of material
success thus resulting in deviance from norms and values that a
culture provides.
3.3.3 Major Criticism of Structural Functionalism
Like all other theories, structural functionalism is also not free from
criticisms. The criticisms can be divided into two parts: (a)
Substantive Criticisms and (b) Methodological and Logical
Criticisms.
Under ‘substantive criticisms’, it has been argued that

structural functionalism is ahistoriacal i.e. it does not deal with
history. Secondly, it was criticized as structural functionalism was
unable to deal with the contemporary process of social change.
Lastly, structural functionalism has been attacked for its inability to
deal with conflict occurring inside the society. Structural functionalism
tends to focus on culture, norms and values and ignores history,
change and conflict; therefore it is argued that structural functionalism
has a conservative bias. It is also criticized because structural
functionalism fails to address a number of important aspects of the
society therefore confining itself to a narrow domain.
Under ‘methodological and logical criticisms’, structural
functionalism is said to be vague and an ambiguous theory which
deals with more abstract concepts of the social systems rather
than its focus on the aspects of the real societies. A second criticism
labeled against structural functionalism is on its belief that a single
theory or a set of theories could help to make an analysis of the
society. But in reality it is difficult to ascertain the aspects of a society
with the help of a single theory. Another criticism is whether there is
availability of adequate methods to study questions of concern to
study a part of the society in relation to other parts or the whole.
The last methodological criticism is that a comparative analysis
between parts of the social system is difficult in structural
functionalism.
3.3.4 NEOFUNCTIONALISM
As by the mid 1960s the importance of structural

functionalism declined, a new theory namely Neofunctionalism was
undertaken to continue and extend structural functionalism thereby
overpowering the difficulties of structural functionalism.
Neofunctionalism has been defined by Jeffrey Alexander and Paul
Colomy as a ‘’self-critical strand of functional theory that seeks to
broaden functionalism’s intellectual scope while retaining its

theoretical core’’. Thus structural functionalism has been seen as a

narrow theory by Alexander and Colomy and they aim to make it
into a more synthetic theory.
Talcott Parsons was interested in the inter-relationships in
spheres of cultural, social and personality system of the social world.
But by emphasizing more on the cultural system as the determining
domain of the other systems, Parsons has narrowed down his
approach thereby giving the chance to neofunctionalism to step up.
Alexander argued that structural functionalism had problems like
‘anti-individualism’, ‘antagonism to change’, ‘idealism’ and an
‘antiempirical bias’, which neofunctionalism needs to overcome.
Some basic aspects or orientations of neofucntionalism as pointed
out by Alexander are the following:
Ø Neofunctionalism is an open-ended and pluralistic theory which
functions with a descriptive model of society that looks into
society as composed of elements, which when interacts with
other elements of the society forms a pattern.
Ø Neofunctionalism, as argued by Alexander, gives a broad sense
of attention to action and order, to both rational and expressive
action. Unlike structural functionalism which gives attention to
macro-level sources of order in society, neofunctionalism
devotes attention to both macro and micro order in society.
Ø Deviance and social control has been recognized as realities
within the social system by neofucntionalism. Both the concept
of partial and moving equilibrium in the society has been put into
focus of neofunctionalism and they see equilibrium as a reference
point for functional analysis, not as a descriptive pattern related
to the lives of the people.
Ø The Parsonian concept of personality, culture and social system
has been taken into account by neofunctionalism. The insertion
of these systems into the society is also to account for tensions
which shall call for both change and order.

Ø The social change which undergoes in the process of

differentiation within the system of social, culture and personality
is concentrated by neofunctionalism.
Ø Lastly it has been argued by Alexander that neofunctionalism is
committed to the independence of conceptualization and
theorizing from other levels of sociological analysis.
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q1: Define structural functionalism.

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q2: What does AGIL stand for?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q3: Write the four action systems.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q4: State the two divisions of criticism of structural functionalism.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
3.4 LET US SUM UP
l Structural functionalism as a theory that studies the various inter-

related elements of the society forming the whole system.
l According to Talcott Parsons, for a society to survive, four main
functions are to be performed. They are Adaptation, Goal Attainment,
Integration and Latency.
l The action system in terms with the AGIL model is necessary to
motivate individuals to pursue the goals. The four action systems
are behavioral organism, personality system, social system and
cultural system.
l There are the sub-systems in term with the AGIL system which
helps in individual needs. They are Economy, Polity, Societal system
and Fiduciary System.
l Robert k. Merton in this study of society rejected the functional
postulates namely functional unity of the society, universal
functionalism and indispensability put forwarded by the
anthropologist.
l The relationship between culture, structure and anomie and the
changes being brought by these domains has been emphasized by
Merton.
l Structural functionalism has been said to be biased which focuses
on culture, norms and values but ignores history, change and
conflict.
l Neofunctionalism as a theory attempts to make functionalism a
broader concept by retaining its theoretical value.
3.5 FURTHER READING
1) Ritzer, George, and Goodman, Douglas J. (2003). Sociological Theory.

Mc Graw-Hill.

PROGRESS
Ans to Q No 1: Structural functionalism is a sociological theory that sees

society as a structure of inter-related parts that form a whole system.
Ans to Q No2: AGIL stands for Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration and
Latency.
Ans to Q No3: The four action systems are Behavioral system, Personality
system, Social system and Cultural system.
Ans to QNo4: Substantive criticism, Methodological and Logical criticism.

3.7 MODEL QUESTIONS
A. Short Questions (Answer each question in about 150 words)

Q1: Write about functional theory of stratification.
Q2: Write Rocher’s definition on function and explain the AGIL system.
B. Long Questions (Answer each question in about 300-500 words)

Q1: Explain Robert K. Merton’s systematic view of Society.
Q2: Which two persons are associated with neofunctionalism. Explain
the basic points argued by Jeffrey Alexander.
*** ***** ***

UNIT 4: STRUCTURALSIM
UNIT STRUCTURE:
4.1 Learning Ojectives

4.2 Introduction
4.3 Structuralism as metaphysical assumption
4.4 Structuralism as a method
4.5 A. R Radcliffe Brown’s Approach to Structuralism
4.6 Levi Strauss’s Approach to Structuralism
4.7 Critique of Structuralism
4.8 Post-structuralism
4.9 Structuration
4.10 Let Us Sum Up
4.11 Further Reading
4.12 Answer to Check Your Progress

l understand Structuralism as metaphysical assumption and as a
method of analysis
l explain contributions of Levi Strauss towards the development of
structuralist approach
l discuss the contributions of Radcliff Brown to Structuralism
l explain the drawbacks of structuralism; emergence of Post-
structuralism and Gidden’s structuration theory.
4.2 INTRODUCTION
Structuralism as one popular intellectual discourse emerged in

France during the period 1960s super-ceding the contemporary dominant
theories like Marxism, Phenomenology, and Existentialism. We must
mention here about Ferdinand de Saussure, the Swiss linguist of early

Structuralsim Unit 4
twentieth century was the founding father of the method. His work stands
out in the development of structural linguistics and ultimately structuralism
in various other fields. Structuralists applied structural linguistic concepts
to the human sciences. French anthropologist Levi-Strauss has extended
Saussaure’s work on language to anthropological issues like myth in the
primitive societies. He has also applied structuralism to all forms of
communication. Another variant of structuralism that enjoyed considerable
success in France was structuralist Marxism especially the work of Louis
Althusser and Nicos Poullantaz, and Maurice Godelier. In the previous unit
we have discussed about the structural functionalist perspective in
sociology, its limitations and also the emergence of neo functionalism. In
this unit we will discuss in detailed about the nature of structuralism, another
important sociological perspective and contributions of Ferdinand de
Saussure. In addition to that a detailed discussion will be made on Radcliffe
Browns and Levi Strauss’s approach to structuralism.
4.3 STRUCTURALISM AS METAPHYSICAL

ASSUMPTION
We know that the word metaphysics refers to an entity which is

beyond physics or physical existence. In other words it refers to something
which is abstract. And if we look into structuralism it also talks about an
underlying structure which we cannot see but which produces a
phenomenon and also tries to find out logic. Therefore structuralism is a
metaphysical assumption which will become apparent after going through
the subsequent discussion on structuralism.
In common parlance the term structuralism is used loosely in
sociology to refer to any approach which considers social structure as
having priority over social action or society as being prior to individuals.
More specifically it refers to a theoretical perspective which became
fashionable during the 1960s and the 1970s. It is a method of enquiry or in
some formulations a more general philosophy of science which has affinities
with realism and which contested the position of positivism and empiricism.
It has made its way from linguistic to literary criticism, sociology of literature,
Unit 4 Structuralsim
anthropology, social sciences etc. The basic structuralist strategy is to

regard language as the model for all reality. Collins maintained that it is not
just reality that we see through the lens provided by our words. This would
be a subjective kind of realism. Instead the structuralists propose that reality
is itself a language, whose underlying structure is our duty to decode. Reality
is objective not subjective and some structuralists go so far as to declare
they are “anti-humanists” and practitioners of a “ philosophy without a
subject”. That is to say reality is text which we may read. Structuralists
point out that the underlying structures are beyond the level of the individual,
that our individual human consciousness is not the ultimate level of analysis,
but is on the level of the empirical “parole” that is a product of deeper
structures. Our individual minds are the surface, not the depth. Structuralism
warns us against stopping on this superficial level and advocates push to a
more fundamental level of structures from which it derives.
The basic idea of this approach is that we can differentiate underlying
structures from the often fluctuating and changing appearance of reality.
Again for Levi Strauss and semiotics generally these underlying structures
are categories of mind, in terms of which we organize the world around us.
We have already mentioned that the structuralists applied structural
linguistic to human science. To have a clear understanding it is necessary
to discuss about structural linguistics. All modern proponents of
structuralism owe allegiance to Ferdinand de Saussure. His distinction
between langue and parole is very important. Langue is the formal,
grammatical system of language. Parole is actual speech, the way speakers
use language. Saussure viewed Langue ( language ) as system of signs ,
which has structure and the meaning of each sign is produced by the
relationship with others. Here the relationships of difference, especially of
binary oppositions are important. The meaning of the word black does not
come from the intrinsic properties of the word but from the word’s relationship
with the binary opposite white. The language or the system of sign could be
described synchronically. The synchronic approach involves the study of a
linguistic system in a particular state without reference to time (a static set
of relationships independent of any change that take place over time).

According to Saussure the basic unit of language is a sign which

consists of a signifier (a sound image or its graphic equivalent) and a signified
(the concept). For example a word consists of the letter G-R-A-P-E functions
as a signifier by producing in the mind of the speaker the concept (signified)
of a kind of fruit that grows on vine, viz., a grape. According to Saussure the
relation betweeen a signifier and a siginfied is arbitrary, because there is no
absolute reason why this particular graphic mark (G-R-A-P-E) should signify
the concept grape. There is no natural connection or resemblance between
the signifier and the signified. Meanings, the mind and the social world are
shaped by the structure of language. Thus, instead of an existential world
of people shaping their surroundings, we have a world in which people, as
well as other aspects of the social world, are shaped by the structure of
language.
Noam Chomsky makes another contribution to structural theory
which is of importance in linguistics. He pointed towards the distinction
between surface structure and deep structure. A surface structure consists
of the collection of words and sounds that we articulate and hear in a
sentence. Two sentences may have the same structure at the surface
level, yet they have different meanings because their deep structures are
different.
From the above discussion we can conclude that structuralism
always starts with certain assumptions. It considers the world firstly as a
product of ideas, secondly the world as a logical pattern. The structuralists
explain structuralism with reference to logic. Lastly it talks about the “the
death of a subject”. Subject means an agency, action and person.
4.4 STRUCTURALISM AS A METHOD
The principal feature of the structuralist method is that it takes as its

object of investigation a ‘system’, that is, the reciprocal relations among a
set of facts, rather than particular facts considered in isolation. Its basic
concepts according to Piaget are those of totality, self-regulation and
transformation. In most general sense, the concept of structure involves
three key ideas:
l A structure is always a system, composed of elements, with the

focus not on the elements themselves, but on the rules that govern
their composition.
l The properties of the whole are distinct and not reducible to the
properties of the parts.
l The system is self regulating, in that it operates to return to a stable
state if its equilibrium is disturbed. Structures are also seen as
epigenetic, i.e., their genesis, or origin, is already present in the
same manner as the nature of the frog is present in nascent form in
the tadpole.
The structuralist revolution deployed holistic analysis that analyzed
phenomena in terms of parts and wholes, defining a structure as the
interrelation of parts within a common system. Structures are governed by
unconscious codes of rules, as when language constituted meaning through
a differential set of binary opposites, or when mythologies codified eating
and sexual behaviour according to systems of rules and codes. Structural
analysis focuses on the underlying rules which organized phenomena into
a social system.
Practitioners of structuralism apply the method to different areas.
Levi Strauss to myth and kinship, Barthes to literature, advertisements,
automobiles, Foucault to history and Althuser to capitalism.
4.5 A. R RADCLIFFE BROWN’S APPROACH TO

STRUCTURALISM
Radcliffe-Brown has often been associated with functionalism, and

is considered by some to be the founder of structural functionalism.
Nonetheless, Radcliffe-Brown vehemently denied being a functionalist.
Radcliffe Brown states that in the study of social structure, the concrete
reality with which we are concerned is the set of actually existing relations
at a given moment of time. These link together certain human beings. Social
structure therefore, is to be defined as a continuing arrangement of reasons
in relationships defined or controlled by institutions i.e. socially established
norms and patterns of behavior.
He regards the study of social structure as the most fundamental

part of social anthropology. According to him natural science is the systematic
investigation of the structure of the universe which is revealed through our
senses. There are certain important separate branches of science, each
of which deals with a certain class or kind of structure, the aim being to
discover the characteristics of all structures of that kind. For example atomic
physics deals with the structure of atoms, chemistry with the structure of
molecules, crystallography and colloidal chemistry with the structure of
crystals and colloids, and anatomy and physiology with the structures of
organisms. He viewed that there is place for a branch of natural science
the task of which will be the discovery of the general characteristics of
those social structures of which the component units are human beings.
For Brown, social anthropology is the ‘theoretical natural science of human
society’. That means social phenomenon is to be investigated by methods
similar to those used in natural and biological sciences.
Social phenomena constitute a distinct class of natural phenomena.
They are somehow connected with the existence of social structures, either
being implied in or resulting from them. Social structures are just as real as
are individual organisms. A complex organism is a collection of living cells
and interstitial fluids arranged in a certain structure; and a living cell is
similarly a structural arrangement of complex molecules. The physiological
and psychological phenomena that we observe in the lives of organisms
are not simply the result of the nature of the constituent molecules or atoms
of which the organism is built up, but are the result of the structure in which
they are united. So also the social phenomena which we observe in any
human society are not the immediate result of the nature of individual human
beings, but are the result of the social structure by which they are united.
A particular social relation between two persons exists only as part
of a wide network of social relations, involving many other persons or in
other words we can say that as a person the human being is a complex of
social relationships which is the object of investigations or unit of study for
sociologist or social anthropologists.

Again it is important to mention here that the word social structure

is used in a number of different ways. There are some anthropologists who
use the term social structure to refer only to persistent social groups, such
as nations, tribes and clans, which retain their continuity, their identity as
individual groups, in spite of changes in their membership. Dr. Evans-
Pritchard, in his recent admirable book on the Nuer, prefers to use the term
social structure in this sense. Certainly the existence of such persistent
social groups is an exceedingly important aspect of structure. But Brown
finds it more useful to include under the term social structure the following
two aspects:
l All social relations of person to person as a part of the social
structure. For example, the kinship structure of any society
consists of a number of such dyadic relations, as between a
father and son, or a mother’s brother and his sister’s son. In an
Australian tribe the whole social structure is based on a network
of such relations of person to person, established through
genealogical connections.
l The differentiation of individuals and of classes by their social
role. The differential social positions of men and women, of
chiefs and commoners, of employers and employees, are just
as much determinants of social relations as belonging to different
clans or different nations.
Brown viewed that social structure is the concrete reality which
comprised a set of actually existing relations at a given moment of time,
which link together certain human beings. Throughout the life of an organism
its structure is being constantly renewed; and similarly the social life
constantly renews the social structure. Thus the actual relations of persons
and groups of persons change from year to year, or even from day to day.
New members come into a community.
Social relations are only observed, and can only be described, by
reference to the reciprocal behaviour of the persons related. The form of a
social structure has therefore to be described by the patterns of behaviour
to which individuals and groups conform in their dealings with one another.
These patterns are partially formulated in rules which, in our own society,
we distinguish as rules of etiquette, of morals and of law. Brown has made
an attempt to define the concept of social structure, rather than taking it for
granted.
4.6 LEVI STRAUSS’S APPROACH TO

STRUCTURALISM
The origin of the Levi-Strauss’ approach is very much linked with

Saussre’s structural linguistics. He has extended Saussure’s work on
language to anthropological issues like kinship system and myth in primitive
societies. His article ‘Social Structure’ is an abstract statement of his
theoretical approach. He starts by distinguishing between the level of social
relations, the raw material for the model, the social structure which is built
up after reality and serves to explain it. He viewed that social structure has
nothing to do with reality, but with the models built after it. Levi Strauss’
concept of model formation is influenced by structural linguistics. By using
Saussurean concepts like langue and parole, paradigmatic and syntagmatic,
code and message etc. he has formulated the concept of model. According
to him a model must have the following characteristics:
l It is made up of several elements and a change in one leads to
change in all.
l Therefore it is possible for one to predict the reaction of a given
model after certain modifications to one or more of its elements.
l Subsidiary models could be possibly derived out of a given model,
that is, the same structure occurs in different forms and in different
cultures.
Again a social structure is a model because:
l if one part of the social structure is affected, it in turn affects the
other parts
l parts of social structure undergo transformation
l social structure makes prediction possible.

We can illustrate Levi-Strauss’ concept of ‘social structure as a

model’ by drawing examples from his study of Kinship where he has focused
on the similarities between linguistic system and kinship system. The terms
used to describe kinship are like phonemes in language and kinship system,
like phonemes, are built by the mind at the level of unconscious thought. In
kinship system focus is not on the terms as entities but on their relationship
within a system, which is structured. Neither the kinship terms nor the
phonemes have meaning in themselves. Both acquire meaning only when
they are integral part of a system. Levi –Strauss also used the system of
binary opposites in kinship like those applied by Saussure in language. He
used the atom of kinship to analyze kinship structure in a society. Atom of
kinship always consists of four types of relationships a) conjugal b) sibling
c) filial d) avuncular. Levi-Strauss viewed that in every society these four
types of relationships are either of restraint or of indulgence.
After applying Saussure’s Linguistic Structuralism to kinship system,
Levi- Strauss made the argument that both phonemic system and kinship
system are the product of structure of mind. They are not the product of
conscious process. They are the product of the unconscious, logical
structure of mind.
4.7 CRITIQUE OF STRUCTURALISM
According to Collins the biggest weakness of structuralism is that it

promised more than it could deliver. Levi- Strauss claimed that he would
produce a science and would crack the genetic code that underlines human
societies but did not succeed. The Structuralist thinkers have borrowed
linguistic theory as an analogy, but they have neither kept up with the
technical advances in linguistics itself, nor have they contributed toward
unifying sociological principles with those of linguistics. Thirdly Levi-Strauss
was proposing that each society had its own particular code, underlying all
items of its structure. This seems to be an extension of his theory of kinship,
which was based on separating out different forms of kinship systems. But
Levi-Strauss was never able to show that such a code existed for each
society. Levi-Strauss and other structuralists, although drawing upon
Saussure for a general model, never tried to incorporate language itself to

their analysis. They analyzed myth, kinship system etc. but did not look
directly at the structure of the langauges. Giddens also criticized Levi-Strauss
for ignoring human agency or the capacity of people to reflect, monitor,
define and decide.
4.8 POST-STRUCTURALISM
As structuralism grew within sociology, a movement was developing

in France during the 1960s critiquing structuralism, which is known as
post structuralism. Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva and
Roland Barthes were the major proponents of post-structuralism. According
to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology :
post-structuralism’s prime achievement has been to rediscover and
extend the radical analytical possibilities inherent in Saussure’s
theory of language as a significatory rather than representational
phenomenon.
Post-structuralism accepts the importance of structure but it goes
beyond the structure to cover a wide range of concerns. It is often seen as
forerunner of postmodern theory and even it is difficult to draw the clear line
between these two thoughts. Because of this reason post-structuralists
are often seen as postmodernists. But the major difference between post-
structuralism and postmodernism is that post-structuralism is more abstract
and philosophical than postmodernism. Post-strcturalists firmly reject the
notion that there is a steady structure to texts, particularly the theory of
binary opposition and it has put forwarded the concept of deconstruction.
According to Derrida the meaning of a text can be plural and unstable
rather than fixed and a rigid structure. All texts actually exhibit difference
thereby allowing multiple interpretations. The meaning or truth is determined
by the limitations of the discipline, which supposedly discovers and describe
them. He further argued that meanings are never absolute and settled. It is
actually conditioned by specific historical and social knowledge.
Foucault also came to be seen as one important representative of
the post-structuralist movement. He agreed that language and society were
shaped by the rule governed systems, but he disagreed with the structuralists
on two points. Because he did not think that there were definite underlying
structures that could explain the human condition and secondly he thought
it was impossible to step outside of discourse and survey the situation
objectively. Foucault’s work illustrates another difference between post-
structuralism and structuralism. Structuralism is mostly influenced by
linguistics. But Foucault has put in a variety of theoretical inputs. Even though
he gives importance to many social institutions, for him micro-politics of
power is the most important aspect of social structure. Foucault examines
social institutions and their associated discourses by taking power relations
as the major perspective.
4.9 STRUCTURATION
The theory of structuration was proposed by Anthony Giddens in

his work The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
This theory is actually an attempt to resolve the theoretical dichotomies of
social structures like agent/structure, mico/macro perspective etc. Rather
than focussing on individual actors or societal totality, it focuses on social
practices, order across space and time.
This theory intends to communicate the duality of structure i.e it
avoids extremes of structural or agent determinism. It is social structure
which makes social action possible and simultaneously social action creates
social structure i.e social structure is used by active agents and using the
properties of social structure they reproduce this structure. According to
Giddens structures are rules and resources that actors use in interaction
contexts. Rules are generalized procedures that actors understand and
use in various circumstances. These rules are frequently used in
conversations, interaction rituals, and daily routines of individuals. They are
informal and are weakly sanctioned through inter personal technique.
Resources are facilities that actors use to get things done. Rules and
resources can be transformed into many different patterns and profiles.
Resources can be mobilized in different ways to perform activities and
achieve ends.
Further Giddens viewed that social system could be understood by

its structure, modality and interaction. We have already discussed about
the structure. Modality of a structural system is the means through which
structures are translated into actions and interaction is the activity
instantiated by the agent acting within the social system. He also identifies
three type of structures in a social system. These are accordingly:
signification, legitimation and domination. Signification produces meaning
through organized weds of language, legitimation produces moral order
and domination produces power, originating from control of resources.
The synthesis of diverse theoretical traditions is the most important
element of Gidden’s theoretical effort. His theory is essentially concerned
with the way in which interaction becomes “deeply sedimented in time and
space. However, the theory of structuration is not free from criticism. Turner
viewed that while Giddens’ writing is crisp, and eloquent, it is also vague.
There is a great deal of jargon, metaphor, and just plain impression that are
difficult to understand.
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q1: What do you understand by structure?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q2: Distinguish between langue and parole.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q3: What is the basic unit of language?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q4: Define rules and resources.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

Q5: What are the three different types of structure in a social system
according to Giddens?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
4.10 LET US SUM UP
l Structuralism as one popular intellectual discourse emerged in Frace

during the 1960s. The term structuralism is used loosely in sociology
to refer to any approach which considers social structure as having
priority over social action or society as prior to individuals.
l Ferdinand de Saussure, the Swiss linguist of early twentieth century
was the founding father of the method.
l Structuralists point out that the underlying structures are beyond
the level of the individual, that our individual human consciousness
is not the ultimate level of analysis, but is on the level of the empirical
“parole” that is a product of deeper structures. Our individual minds
are on the surface, not the depth.
l Structuralism warns us against stopping on this superficial and
advocaties a push to a more fundamental level of structures from
which it derives.
l The principal feature of the structuralist method is that it takes as its
object of investigation a ‘system’, that is, the reciprocal relations
among a set of facts, rather than particular facts considered in
isolation.
l Radcliffe Brown viewed that social structure is the concrete reality
which comprised of a set of actually existing relations at a given
moment of time, which link together certain human beings.
Throughout the life of an organism its structure is being constantly
renewed; and similarly the social life constantly renews the social
structure.
l Levi- Strauss applied Saussure’s Linguistic structuralism to kinship
system and argued that both phonemic system and kinship system
are the product of structure of mind. They are not the product of
conscious process. They are the product of the unconscious, logical
structure of mind.
l According to Collins the biggest weakness of structuralism is that it
promised more than it could deliver.
l Post-structuralism accepts the importance of structure but it goes
beyond the structure to cover a wide range of concerns. Michel
Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva and Roland Barthes were
the major proponents of post-structuralism.
l The major difference between post-structuralism and
postmodernism is that post-structuralism is more abstract and
philosophical than mosmodernism. Post-strcturalists firmly reject
the notion that there is a steady structure to texts, particularly the
theory of binary opposition and it has put forward the concept of
deconstruction.
l The theory of structuration was proposed by Anthony Giddens with
the help of which he made an attempt to resolve the theoretical
dichotomies of social structure like agent/structure, mico/macro
perspective etc.
l It avoid extremes of structural or agent determinism. It is social
structure which makes social action possible and simultaneously
social action creates social structure.
4.11 FURTHER READING
1) Abraham M. Francis. (2006). Modern Sociological Theory An

Introduction. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
2) Abraham M. Francis and John Henry Morgan. (2007). Sociological
Thought. Delhi, Banglore: Macmillan India Ltd.
3) Bottomore, Tom. (1983). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publisher ltd.

4) Brown, Radcliffe.(1940). “On Social Structure”. The Journal of the Royal

Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp.
1-12.
5) Collins, Randall. ( 2004). Theoretical Sociology. Jaipur and New Delhi:
Rawat Publication.
6) Coser, Lewis A. (2011). Masters of Sociological Thought Ideas in
Historical and Social Context. Jaipur, New Delhi, Guwahati: Rawat
Publication.
7) Dahrendorf, Ralf. (1959). Class and Class Conflict in industrial
society.Stanford: Stanford Unuversity Press.
8) Delaney, Tim. (2008). Contemporary Social Theory Investigation and
Application. New Delhi: Pearson Education.
9) Doshi, S.L (2003). Modernity, Postmodernity and Neo-Sociological
Theories. Jaipur , New Delhi: Rawat Publication.
10) Leinson, D and Ember, M. 1996. Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology.
Cambridge University Press.
11) Lopreto, Joseph. (1967). “Class Conflict and the Images of Society”.
The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 11(3):281-293.
12) Piaget, J.1970. Structuralism. New York: Basi Books.
13) Ritzer, George. (2008). Modern Sociological Theory. Mc Graw Hill.
14) Scott John and Gordon Marshall. (2009). Oxford Dictionary of Sociology.
Oxford University Press: New York.
15) Sharma, Chandan Kumar. (2003). “ Structuralism An Introduction”
Cultural Studies : Themes and Perspective . Ed. Chandan Kumar
Sharma . Tezpur: Tezpur University. Neactaf.
16) Turner, Jonathan H. (2005). The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur:
Rawat Publication.
4. 12 ANSWER TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Ans to Q No 1: A structure is always a system, composed of elements,

with the focus not on the elements themselves but on the rules that

govern their composition.The properties of the whole are distinct and

not reducible to the properties of the parts.
Ans to Q No 2: Ferdinand de Saussure has made distinction between
langue and parole. Langue is the formal, grammatical system of
language. Parole is actual speech, the way speakers use language.
Ans to Q No 3: The basic unit of language is sign which consists of signifier
and signified.
Ans to Q No 4: Rules are generalized procedures that actors understand
and use in various circumstances. Resources are facilities that actors
used to get things done.
Ans to Q No 5: Signification, Legitimation and Domination.
A) Short questions (Answer each question in about 150 words)

Q1: Define Post-structuralism.
Q2: Mention two important characteristics of a model as put forth by Levi
Strauss.
Q3: Why social structure can be considered as model?
B) Long questions (Answer each question in about 300-500 words)

Q1: Discuss about Saussures’s contribution to structural linguistic.
Q2: Critically discuss the theory of Structuralism.
Q3: What do you understand by duality of structure? Discuss.
*** ***** ***

UNIT 5: CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE
UNIT STRUCTURE

5.2 Introduction
5.3 Georg Simmel’s Conflict Perspective
5.4 Conflict Functionalism of Lewis Coser
5.5 Dialectic Sociology of Ralf Dahrendorf
5.6 Analytic Conflict Theory of Randall Collins
5.7 Let Us Sum Up
5.8 Further Reading

l learn about the conflict perspective to understand society
l explain the idea of conflict as advocated by Georg Simmel
l discuss Lewis Coser’s perspective on Conflict
l describe Ralf Dahrendorf’s and Randall Collin’s idea on conflict.
5.2 INTRODUCTION
Conflict theory emerged as the primary alternative to functionalism.

It is important to mention that Functionalism is a dominant mode of
sociological analysis but conflict theory is still in its infancy stage. Conflict
theory began as a development from the Marxian tradition. The conflict theory
generally views society as a system of social structures and relationships
that are shaped mainly by economic forces. Conflict theorists assume that
social life revolves around the economic interest of the wealthy and that
these people use their economic power to coerce others to accept their
view of the society. Secondly, as there is power differential among individuals
of social classes, hostility, resentment etc. are constant elements of society
for which conflict is inevitable.
Conflict Perspective Unit 5
There are two distinct traditions of conflict theory in the classical

works. The power relation tradition of political philosophy and the tradition
of competitive struggle. The sociological theory of conflict is a combination
of both these traditions. C. Wright Mills, Ralf Dahrendorf, Lewis Coser,
Herbert Murcuse, Randall Collins, Georg Simmel and Andre Gunder Frank
are among the prominent conflict theorists of contemporary times.
Sociologists, have identified two categories of conflict: Exogenous conflict
and endogenous conflict. Conflict theory is perhaps the prime area in
sociological theory where general theoretical principles are fairly well
supported by empirical research. In the previous unit we have discussed
about the Structuralist Approach to understand society. In this unit we shall
try to understand the prespectives put forward by different scholars belonging
to the Conflict School of Thought.
5.3 GEORG SIMMEL’S CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE
The modern conflict theory actually began with the work of Georg
Simmel and was revised by Lewis Coser. Simmel was interested in the
‘web of conflict’ or the cross cutting allegiances that can both bind a society
together and also create antagonism and confrontation. He focused mainly
on the positive function of conflict. He views conflict as a variable that manifests
different states of intensity or violence. The polar ends of this variable are
competition and fight. Competition is a form of interaction in which opposing
parties seek to accomplish the same goals within the framework of socially
approved rules. On the other hand, fight denotes the less regulated and more
direct combative activities of parties against each other.
According to Simmel, conflict is not opposite to social order rather,
it is an intense form of interaction. Very often it brings people more close
and together than normal social order. For example conflict with outside
group enhances the unity of the in group by strengthening group sentiment,
loyalty and conformity to norms. He viewed that a particular conflict situation
may be ruinous for the individual, but may be advantageous to the community
as a whole because conflict promotes system integration and adaptation.
In addition, conflict between groups is a major determinant of the
Unit 5 Conflict Perspective
development of group organization. The increased level of organization within

conflict groups enables them to realize many of their goals without violence
and such realization of goals cuts down internal system tension and
promotes integration.
Simmel has rejected the notion that conflict is a temporary phase
which is eventually transformed to unity, and has insisted that peace and
conflict are reciprocally intertwined in historical reality. Sometimes conflict
transformes into peace and sometimes peace transformes into conflict.
Simmel has made some suggestions for the execution of conflict.
These are as follows:
l Disappearance of the object of conflict.
l Victory, which results from the superiority of one party over the other.
l Compromise, in this case the two parties agree to divide the object
of conflict.
l Conciliation.
In addition to these measures Simmel has made some propositions
on the functions of conflict for the conflict parties and for the systemic whole
in which conflict occurs. His propositions on the functions of conflict for
the parties are as follows:
l The more violent are inter group hostilities, the more frequent is
conflict among groups, the less likely are group boundaries to
disappear.
l The more violent is the conflict, the less integrated is the group, the
more likely is despotic centralization of conflict groups.
l The more violent is the conflict, the greater will be their internal
solidarity.
Simmel’s propositions on the functions of conflict for the whole are
as follows:
l The less violent is the conflict between groups of different degree of
power in a system, the more likely is the conflict to have integrative
consequences for the social whole.
l The more violent and the more prolonged are conflict relations
between groups, the more likely is the formation of coalitions among
previously unrelated groups in a system.
l The more prolonged is the threat of violent conflict between groups,

the more enduring are the coalitions of each of the conflict parties.
5.4 CONFLICT FUNCTIONALISM OF LEWIS COSER
Coser was very much influenced by the work of Simmel for which
he has given much attention on conflict aspects of society. He has criticized
Parsons’s functionalism for not addressing the issue of conflict and also
criticized other conflict theorists for overlooking the positive aspects of
conflict. His major work on conflict theory, The Functions of Social Conflict
(1956), is an attempt to develop Simmel’s theory of conflict. The conflict
theory of Simmel and Coser presents a series of principles by which conflict
lead to the integration of society. Both of them tried to show that conflict
does not always lead to social change, rather conflict can be the basis of
social order. In his work The Functions of Social Conflict (1956), Coser
related conflict to the social world and discussed how conflict can lead to
social change, and paid close attention to the role of people’s emotion in
conflict. Coser viewed that although conflict always exists in society, society
also consists of degrees of consensus.
Coser defined conflict as “a struggle over values and claims to
scarce status, power and resources in which the aim of the opponents are
to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals”. According to him conflict often
leads to social change, stimulates innovation, and during the time of external
and internal threat, it leads to an increase in the centralization of power. In
his book he has presented a number of arguments regarding the intensity,
duration, causes and functions of conflict.
Combining Simmel’s and Marx’s ideas, Coser maintained that
withdrawal of legitimacy from an existing system of inequality is the critical
precondition of conflict. And when the deprivations of subordinates are
transformed from absolute to relative, the greater will be their sense of
injustice and hence they are more likely to initiate conflict. He has also
mentioned some important arguments regarding the intensity or violence
of conflict. These are as follows:

l When more groups are engaged in conflict over realistic issues

(realistic conflict), the more likely are they to seek compromises
over the means to realize their interests and hence less violent is
the conflict. Since realistic conflicts centere around specific goals,
the attainment of those goals is more important than the destruction
of the enemy.
l When groups engage more in conflict over nonrealistic issues, the
level of emotional excitement and involvement in the conflict is
greater, for which the conflict is more violent.
According to Coser violence and conflict are often interlinked and
violence performs some important social functions. First is violence
as achievement. Causing violence is an achievement for some
people and the more violence they cause, the more they achieve in
their own minds. Secondly violence often alerts society and its
members to underlying problems that need to be corrected.
In addition to all these, most importantly Coser’s approach to conflict
focused on its various functions. Like Simmel, Coser divided the
functions of conflict for i) the respective parties of conflict and ii) the
systemic whole in which conflict occurs.
l Coser’s propositions regarding the functions of conflict for the
respective parties are accordingly :
Ø When the conflict is more violent, the boundaries of each
respective conflict party are more clear cut.
Ø When the conflict is more violent and the conflict parties are
more internally differentiated, each conflict party is more likely
to centralize its decision making process.
Ø When the conflict is more violent, the more it is supposed to
affect the welfare of all segments of the conflict parties, and the
conflict promotes more structural and ideological solidarity
among members of each conflict party.
Ø The more violent the conflict is the more conflict leads to the
suppression of dissent and deviance within each conflict party
as well as forced conformity to norms and values.
Ø The more the conflict between parties leads to forced conformity,

the greater is the accumulation of hostilities, and is internal group
conflict is more likely to surface in the long run.
l Coser’s propositions regarding the functions of conflict for the social
whole are accordingly:
Ø The more differentiated and functionally interdependent are the
units in a system, the more likely is conflict to be frequent but
with low degrees of intensity and violence.
Ø The more frequent are conflicts, the less is their intensity, and
lower is their level of violence, then the more likely are conflicts
in a system to a) increase the level of innovation of system units
b) release hostilities before they polarize system units c) promote
normative regulation of conflict relations, d) increases awareness
of realistic issue e) increases the number of associative
coalitions
Ø More conflict, promote levels of innovation, release hostilities,
normative regulation, awareness of realistic issues and
associative coalitions, then greater will be the level of internal
social integration of the system, and the greater will be its
capacity to adapt to its external environment.
Conflict serves as an important agent in establishing full ego identity,
autonomy and differentiation of personality from the outside world. Conflict
with other groups increases a group’s consciousness and awareness of
separateness and establishes boundaries between groups. According to
Coser, Conflict allows expression of hostility and the restoration of strained
relationship. It leads to the elimination of specific sources of conflict between
the parties and enables redressal of grievances through the establishment
of new norms or the affirmation of new ones. Social conflict creates
boundaries between different groups, which create a strong unity between
the individual members of the group. Social conflict not only promotes
cohesion in individual groups, but also promotes coalitions and associations
with outside groups; they bring technological improvements, revitalize the
economy and lubricate the social system. Above all they facilitate the release
of tension and frustration and enable the social system to adjust itself.
5.5 DIALECTIC SOCIOLOGY OF RALF

DAHRENDORF
Before discussing Dahrendorf’s conflict theory it is necessary to

have a brief description of dialectical sociology. Dialectical sociology is the
organized study of social conflict which entails a conceptualization of
opposing forces with conflicting interests. The dialectical model begins
with a dichotomy of opposites such as slave and master, rich and poor etc.
Dahrendorf’s conceptualization is a dialectical model because he saw
conflict as inherent in the dichotomous division of all social organizations
into contending categories of roles- those who have authority and those
who are subjected to authority which we will discuss in detail.
Dahrendorf referred to his conflict theory as the coercion theory of
society which he has discussed in his major work Class and Class Conflict
in Industrial Society. He disagrees with Marx that economic forces are the
sole determinant of conflict in society. His aim was to develop a theory
which would revise Marx to account for the shape of modern society. His
conflict theory is centered around the concept of power and authority.
According to Dahrendorf power and authority are scarce resources and
differential distribution of power and authority becomes the basis of conflict.
Dahrendorf maintained that the social world is composed of social
organizations which are imperatively coordinated associations rather than
social system. This social organization is characterized by power relations
with clusters of roles having power over others or we can say that authority
structure is an inseparable part of every social organization. It is important
to mention here that authority structure always involves relations of super-
ordination and subordination which define rights and obligations. Where
there are authority relations, the super-ordinate element controls the
subordinate elements which clearly signify the unequal distribution of
authority. The unequal distribution of authority creates a dichotomy of
positions of domination and subjugation. Some are entrusted with legitimate
right (authority) to exercise control over others.

According to Dahrendorf, the structural organization of society and

groups is so designed that “some positions are entrusted with a right to
exercise control over other positions in order to ensure effective coercion;
it means that there is a differential distribution of power and authority”. The
differential distribution of authority ultimately results in the formation of two
dichotomous groups. Those in dominant position seek to maintain the status
quo while those in subordinate positions seek change. A conflict of interest
within any association is at least latent all the time, which means that
legitimacy of authority is always precarious. The interest of superordinates
and subordinates are objective in the sense that they are reflected in the
expectations attached to position. Individuals are adjusted or adopted to
their roles when they contribute to conflict between superordinates and
subordinates. Dahrendorf called these unconscious role expectations ‘latent
interests’. Manifests are those latent interests that have become conscious.
He saw the analysis of connection between latent and manifest interests
as a major task of conflict theory. Dahrendorf also distinguished three broad
types of groups. The first is the quasi group (persons who share similar
position in one of the many possible line of conflict), second is the interest
group, they are the real agent of group conflict. They have a structure, a
form of organization, a goal and personnel of members. Out of all the many
interest groups emerge conflict groups, or those that actually engage in
group conflict.
Dahrendorf suggested that authority is not bound by property rights
and believed that “class conflict is best seen as arising out of a dispute
over distribution of authority in a given authority structure” (Lopreato 1967:
281). Since every social organization is an imperatively co-ordinated
association and the structure of authority is the sole basis of conflict, it is
not possible to wither away conflict. Since differential distribution of authority
is the fundamental source of conflict, changes resulting from class conflict
are essentially changes in the authority system.
Dahrendorf has made some important propositions regarding the
nature and consequences of conflict.
l The better organized the conflict group, the less violent is the conflict.
l Absolute deprivation leads to more violent conflict and relative

deprivation results in less violent conflict.
l The more violent the conflict the more rapid the social change is.
Dahrendorf’s conflict theory is not free from criticism. It has been
criticized by many theorists. Collins viewed that his second proposition
which we have mentioned above is not correct. Dahrendorf offers no
evidence for it and it would seem from studies of revolutionary movements
that violent conflict does not break out where the lowest class is most
oppressed, but where it has the resources to mobilize itself. According to
Collins his third proposition is also dubious Many violent transfers of political
power produce no social change at all.
5.6 ANALYTIC CONFLICT THEORY OF RANDALL

COLLINS
Randall Collins was influenced by great sociological thinkers like

Durkheim, Weber, Marx, Mead and Goffman etc. Karl Marx played an
important role in the development of Collins’s work. Collins portrayed Marx
as “the great originator” of conflict theory. Though he did not agree with the
entire Marxian thought, he agreed with the Marxian concept of the material
world and the formation of division of labour. Collins adopted Weber’s
pluralistic model using an analytic framework, comparative historical
approach. His conflict approach to stratification, which has drawn from
phenomenological and ethno methodological theories, is an attempt to
develop an integrated theory of social conflict. In his conflict theory Collins
attempted to bridge the micro-macro division that exists within sociological
perspective. Collins incorporated the idea of Marx and Weber and their
analysis of the effect of the economic and political institutions on individuals’
behaviour. His focus on individuals and their inner struggles reveals a micro-
orientation. According to Collins:
“ Conflict theory is not concerned only with overt conflict and social
change. It is a perspective on all aspects of society and on social
order in all its forms. The conflict theory on social organization is a
theory of stratification. Societies are not merely differentiated;
differences among individuals and groups are generally forms of

inequality which are produced by differences in resources and
represent the pursuit of conflicting interests. Conflict theory
proposes that the various forms of social organizations can be
explained as parts of theoty of stratification”.
Collins chooses to focus on social stratification because it is an
institution that touches many features of life including wealth, politics careers,
families, clubs, communities, lifestyles. Collins believed that Marx’s analysis
of stratification was too limited. Marx was primarily interested in determinants
of political power and what may be called as ‘theory of stratification’. He
criticized Marxian theory as monocausal explanation for a multi causal world”.
Collins prefered Weber’s notion of stratification which includes political
power and social prestige to Marx’s economic determinism.
Collins contended that power and status are fundamental
relational dimensions at the micro level of social interaction. Whatever else
may be going on in social life, and however else one may wish to
conceptualize it, human actors are deeply involved in relational issues of
power and status and social theorists of all persuasions have dealt with
these in one form or another. Collins assumed that there are certain scarce
goods like power, wealth and prestige. Individuals strive to maximize their
share of the scarce commodities. In this process those who possess a
greater share of the goods, try to consolidate their position, maximize their
interests and dominate the structural arrangements by various means,
especially coercion. But all people dislike being ordered by someone and
therefore try their best to avoid subordinate roles. Therefore conflict is
inevitable, for everyone is in pursuit of scarce resources and the roles related
to these desired resources. According to Collins violent coercion and ability
to force others to behave in a certain way are the primary basis of conflict.
Ritzer viewed that Collins’s conflict approach to stratification can
be reduced to three basic principles. These are accordingly:
l People live in self constructive subjective world.
l Other people may have the power to affect, or even control, an
individual’s subjective experience.
l People frequently try to control the actions of others who oppose

such attempts of control resulting often in interpersonal conflict. On
the basis of these principles, Collins developed five principles of
conflict analysis.
l Conflict theory must focus on real life rather than abstract
formulations.
l Material arrangements affect interaction.
l In social situation of inequality between persons, those who possess
the power position generally attempt to exploit those who lack
resources.
l The role of cultural phenomenan such as beliefs, values, norms
must be examined in terms of their relationship to interests,
resources, and power.
l There must be a firm commitment to the scientific study of
stratification and every other aspect of the social world.
However, in addition to social stratification Collins sought to extend
his conflict theory to other social domains. He also looked at formal
organization from a conflict perspective. He analyzed a wide range of social
phenomena on the basis of a general assumption of conflicting interests of
the parties involved, their location, available resources and options. Collins
does not rely exclusively on any of the several pioneers of conflict theory.
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q1: What are the two distinct traditions of conflict

theory in the classical works?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q2: Define conflict.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

Q3: According to Simmel conflict is advantageous to the community

as a whole. Why?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q.4: Name the major work of Coser on conflict.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q.5: What is dialectical sociology?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q.6: What is the primary basis of conflict according to Collins?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
5.7 LET US SUM UP
l Conflict theory generally views society as a system of social

structures and relationships that are shaped mainly by economic
forces.
l There are two distinct traditions of conflict theory in the classical
works. The power relation tradition of political philosophy and the
tradition of competitive struggle. The sociological theory of conflict
is a combination of both these traditions.
l The modern conflict theory actually began with the work of Georg
Simmel and was revised by Lewis Coser.
l According to Simmel conflict is not opposite to social order rather it
is an intense form of interaction. Very often it brings people more
closely together than normal social order.
l Simmel has rejected the notion that conflict is a temporary phase
which is eventually transformed in to unity, and has insisted that
peace and conflict are reciprocally intertwined in historical reality.

l Coser was very much influenced by the work of Simmel for which
he has given much attention on conflict aspects of society. He has
criticized Parsons’s functionalism for not addressing the issue of
conflict and also criticized other conflict theorists for overlooking
the positive aspects of conflict.
l According to Coser conflict allows expression of hostility and the
restoration of strained relationship. It leads to the elimination of
specific sources of conflict between the parties and enables
redressal of grievances through the establishment of new norms or
the affirmation of new ones.
l Dahrendorf’s conceptualization of conflict is a dialectical model
because he saw conflict as inherent in the dichotomous division of
all social organizations into contending categories of roles- those
who have authority and those who are subjected to authority.
l According to Dahrendorf power and authority are scarce resources
and differential distribution of power and authority becomes the basis
of conflict.
l Since differential distribution of authority is the fundamental source
of conflict, changes resulting from class conflict are essentially
changes in the authority system.
l Collins’s conflict approach to stratification has drawn from
phenomenological and ethno methodological theories which is an
attempt to develop an integrated theory of social conflict. He
attempted to bridge the micro-macro division that exists within
sociological perspectives.
l According to Collins violent coercion and ability to force others to
behave in a certain way are the primary bases of conflict.
5.8 FURTHER READING


2) Abraham M. Francis and John Henry Morgan. ( 2007). Sociological

Rawat Publication.
Publication.
5) Dahrendorf, Ralf. ( 1959). Class and Class Conflict in industrial
8) Ritzer, Georg. (2008). Modern Sociological Theory. Mc Graw Hill.
9. Turner, Jonathan H. (2005). The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur:
Rawat Publication.
5. 9 ANSWER TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Ans to Q No 1: The power relation tradition of political philosophy and the

tradition of competitive struggle.
Ans to Q No 2: Conflict is an intense form of interaction. It brings people
more closely together than normal social order.
Ans to Q No 3: According to Simmel conflict may be advantageous to the
community as a whole because it promotes system integration and
adaptation.
Ans to Q No 4: The Functions of Social Conflict,1956.
Ans to Q No 5: Dialectical sociology is the organized study of social conflict
which entails a conceptualization of opposing forces with conflicting
interests.
Ans to Q No 6: According to Collins the primary basis of conflict is violent
coercion.


Q1: Why Simmel considered conflict as functional to the society?
Q2: What are the important functions of violence?
Q3: What are the four basic principles of Collin’s conflict approach?
Q4: Distinguish between latent and manifest interests.

Q1: ‘Conflicts lead to the integration of society’. Elucidate the statement.
Q2: Critically discuss Dahrendorf’s theory of conflict.
Q3: Discuss Collins’s conflict approach to stratification. How is it different
from Marxian conflict approach?
*** ***** ***

UNIT 6: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND
ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
UNIT STRUCTURE

6.2 Introduction
6.3 Elements of Symbolic Interactionism and its basic
principles.
6.4 Mead’s Approach to Symbolic Interactionism
6.5 Blumer’s Approach to Symbolic Interactionism
6.6 Criticism of Symbolic Interactionism
6.7 Garfinkel’s Approach to Ethnomethodology
6.8 Let Us Sum Up
6.9 Further Reading

l understand the symbolic Interactionism perspective
l be familiar with the scholars associated with the symbolic
interactionsim perspective.
l explain the criticisms to symbolic interactionism.
l discuss the basics of ethnomethodology.
6.2 INTRODUCTION
It has been more than 70 years since the perspective of symbolic

interactionism was first developed. While the earlier sociological traditions
had a very clear handprint of European scholars, symbolic interactionism
was the first ‘distinctively American sociological theory’, as Blumer put it.
Some of the most important theorists associated with symbolic
interactionism are George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer, Charles Cooley
and W.I. Thomas.

Unit 6 Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology
Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical framework related to the

micro- level interactions between individual and the way in which society is
created and maintained through these repeated interactions. Mead’s work
on self and society is the key literature that lies at the foundation of the
theory of symbolic interactionism. Before this theory, the dominant theories
in Sociology focused on macro level institutions and social structures. Thus,
these approaches had a ‘top-down’ perspective on the relationship between
structures and individuals, focusing on how the structures constrain the
individuals. Directly deviating from this strand of dominant thought, symbolic
interactionism’s approach was one of ‘bottom-up’, focussing instead on
micro-processes that surface in the daily interaction of the individuals and
how these are the key elements in the quest to understand society. Contrary
to the idea that macro structures constrain, and ultimately define the
individual, in symbolic interactionism, the individual emerges as agentic
and autonomous as well as being integral to the formation of their social
world.
The use of language and symbols in communication assumes
centrality in symbolic interactionism. The attention here is not on how social
institutions objectively define and impact individuals but rather on the
question of the varied subjective interpretations of meanings and symbols
by individuals and the way that they make sense of their world. The shift in
theorization is from objective structures to subjective meanings.
In the previous unit we have tried to understand conflict perspective
to understand society. In this unit we shall discuss the Symbolic Interactionist
perspective and also try to understand Ethenometrodology as an approach
to study society.
6.3 ELEMENTS OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

AND ITS BASIC PRINCIPLES.
Blumer coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and the three premises
articulated by him are central to understanding this theoretical perspective:
Ø The first premise is that human beings act towards things on the
basis of the meanings those things have for them

Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology Unit 6
Ø The second premise is that the meaning of such things is derived

from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one’s
fellows.
Ø The third premise is that these meanings are handled in, and
modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in
dealing with the things he [or she] encounters.
Along with the above three premises forwarded by Blumer, there
are other implicit assumptions that are central to this perspective and form
its foundational philosophy. We will briefly discuss them below
Ø People have symbolic capacities, which means that they have the
ability to use symbols and to give meanings to them. Human beings
do not just react to stimuli but are able to give meaning to them and
subjectively interpret this stimuli experience before acting in terms
of the interpreted meanings. So, language becomes a very important
tool for this.
Ø Interactions are central to becoming human. Symbolic interactionists
do not believe that people are born humans but rather that people
become humans and acquire human qualities through interactions
with others. These human qualities like, to understand symbols, to
speak, to think and make plans, to understand roles and the idea of
the self, etc. are not biologically given but rather have to be learned
through interactions with other humans.
Ø People are thinking and conscious beings with the agency to shape
their own behaviour. As mentioned in the above point, people develop
their minds and their sense of self through their interactions in the
community and thus develop the capacity to think of oneself as an
object and interact with themselves reflexively. This leads to there
being some degree of autonomy and agency in one’s behaviour.
Instead of there being mere reactions to stimuli and objects, human
beings are able to ascertain what objects and which stimuli they
want to take into account.
Ø People are purposive creatures. As mentioned above, instead of
merely reacting to stimuli, human beings instead act in and toward
situations. We give meaning and interpret a given situation based

on our interactions with others. As we come up with a ‘definition of
the situation’, we can then determine in what ways to act in the
given scenario. Though, such an interpretation of the situation might
not be accurate or wise, human beings do act purposefully by
appraising the situation at hand.
Ø Society consists of human beings engaged in symbolic interaction.
Blumer conceived of society as a fluid but structured process. Thus,
symbolic interactionists view this kind of process as depending on
the ability of the individuals in the society to act purposively with
each other but also to be able to presume each other’s perspectives
and be able to co-ordinate their unfolding acts with the others through
symbolic communication and interpretation. Thus, even though the
meanings to be attributed to symbols might be predetermined in a
given society, human beings still have the ability to exercise their
agencies since society is a product of the joint acts people engage
in together.
Ø To understand people’s social acts, we need to understand the
meanings people give to these acts. Symbolic interactionists stress
the importance of understanding the world of meanings and the
ways in which this can differ across different cultures and societies.
Thus, in order to understand any society, one would need to
understand the world of meanings there. Thus, symbolic
interactionism also calls for sociological methods that would provide
a view into the inner world of meanings of groups or societies under
investigation. For this insider’s view, the researcher must then ‘take
the role of’ or be empathetic to the groups they are studying.Thus,
researchers 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 their research subjects
live.

6.4 MEAD’S APPROACH TO SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Mead can be called the central figure in the development of the ideas
that formed the perspective of symbolic interactionism. Though he published
little in his lifetime, his lectures had a profound effect for theorizing in
sociology. Posthumously published, his books Mind, Self and Society (1934),
The Philosophy of the Act (1938) and The Philosophy of the Present (1959),
contain the central tencts that influenced the foundational ideas of symbolic
interactionism. Some of the key figures who influenced Mead’s work were
pragmatists Charles Peirce and William James, the sociologists Charles
Horton Cooley and James Mark Baldwin, Sigmund Freud as well as Charles
Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Mead developed a groundbreaking theory that the self arises from
communication, interaction and role-taking. For Mead, both ‘mind’ and ‘self’
are in nature, social and language is the vital factor in the formation of these.
Along with this, the individuals have the ability to be reflexive and reflect on
themselves as an object that they have agency over. The perception of
others also is very important and this perception of others has an impact
on the individual’s perception of himself or herself. Mead stated, `The
organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity
of self’ ( is the ‘generalized other’ which is how society is perceived as in
the mind of the individual.
Mead drew the differences between the ‘I’ and the ‘me’, which are
the two different processes into which the ‘self’ breaks down while in the
process of social interaction. While the ‘I’ is impulsive: a spontaneous
response of the self to the external world, the ‘me’ is more organized
response devised by the self, having interpreted meanings from the actions
of the others.
6.5 BLUMER’S APPROACH TO SYMBOLIC

INTERACTIONISM
Herbert Blumer was a student of Mead and he became the most

important proponent of his ideas. Championing Mead’s theories and applying
them in his own writings, Blumer published his book Symbolic Interactionism
(1969), which became the most important piece of explicative scholarship

on the perspective of symbolic interactionism, which is a term that Blumer
coined in order to capture the essence of this theoretical perspective he
was developing. Blumer taught at Chicago University and he had a major
influence on a group of graduate students, which included Howard Becker,
Erving Goffman, Helena Lopata, Anselm Strauss, Gregory Stone and Ralph
Turner. This group was instrumental in propagating the symbolic
interactionist perspective further and came to be known as the Second
Chicago School.
In the words of Blumer himself, “The term `symbolic interaction’
refers, of course, to the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as
it takes place between human beings. The peculiarity consists in the fact
that human beings interpret or `define’ each other’s actions instead of merely
reacting to each other’s actions. Their `response’ is not made directly to
the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning that they
attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of
symbols, by interpretation or by ascertaining the meaning of one another’s
actions.”
While in the case of Marxism or Functionalism, human behavior is
seen as a product of ‘stimulus response variables’ such as class, Blumer
argued for a process of self-indication, where social change is a product of
interpretation, which is not brought about by factors external to people. The
only thing that precedes action is the process of interpretation. Human beings
identify and give meaning to what they believe to be of significance in what
they will do. Blumer argues that such an identification of something untangles
it out of its setting and by doing so, provides it meaning. Human beings act
on the basis of such symbolization, identifying meanings and significance
for future actions.
6.6 CRITICISM OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
We can divide the criticisms against symbolic interactionism into

two: the criticism from within symbolic interactionists and criticism from

outside. The biggest criticism levied on symbolic interactionism from outside,

is of course on its central focus on micro-processes and what the critics
perceive as it’s lack of importance to macro structures and the ways in
which the institutions influence social processes and outcomes.
Research done with this perspective is also often under critical
scrutiny because it purports to interpretation of subjective meanings. The
absence of objectivity or the difficulty in remaining objective while trying to
study a society with an insider’s perspective (as the methods of symbolic
interactionism suggests) is also perceived as a weakness. Others criticize
the extremely narrow focus of symbolic interaction since its focus is on
micro processes and not macro structures. But of course, the proponents
of symbolic interactionism would consider the very same points as its
strength.
The criticism from within symbolic interactionism is characterised
by the four main schools of thought that have been identified under the
umbrella of symbolic interactionism: the Chicago school, the Iowa/Indiana
school, ethnomethodology, and dramaturgy. This strand of criticism aims
to correct some of the perceived shortcomings of this perspective and
sharpen it further to be of use to the researcher studying society and social
actions. A rich body of scholarship has emerged because of the critical
appraisal of symbolic interactionism by the researchers engaged within it.
Through the years, there have been many schools of thoughts within
symbolic interactionism which have ensured that the application of this
perspective has been done in a wide range of fields and its impact has
been felt across divergent areas of research. Ethnomethodology,
phenomenology, dramaturgy as well as many relevant works on identity
and social roles have leaned on symbolic interactionist perspective for their
theoretical underpinnings. Along with this, in the sub-field of cultural studies,
use of narratives as sociological method, feminist scholarship and studies
on deviance and post-modernism have benefitted from the symbolic
interactionist perspective.

6.7 GARFINKEL’S APPROACH TO ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
Ethnomethodology has remained outside mainstream sociological

theories but has largely held its ground. This sociological perspective was
developed by Harold Garfinkel and has its roots in Alfred Schutz’s work
which was instrumental in the development of phenomenological sociology
which analysed everyday life- or lifeworld, and the uniquely human character
of social interaction which shapes everyday world, instead of taking it for
granted as something already given.
The ethnomethodological perspective emerged as a reaction to the
mainstream sociological perspectives of that time, which imposed a set of
sociological categories on the ordinary individual. Sociological theories re-
interpret the experiences of the ordinary people in the process of theorizing,
thereby giving the impression of the deficiency of the ordinary person’s
account. Thus, sociological theorizing can deviate far away from what
ordinary people would consider as being their realities. For example,
‘structure’ as defined by the structural functionalists might be unrecognizable
and un-relatable to an ordinary person’s idea of it. Thus ethnomethodology
seeks to amend this gap and proposes to investigate how individuals
(‘members’) themselves construct their world.
In the words of Garfinkel himself here, the “central recommendation
is that the activities whereby members produce and manage settings of
organized everyday affairs are identical with members’ procedures for
making those settings “account-able.” The “reflexive,” or “incarnate”
character of accounting practices and accounts make up the crux of that
recommendation”.The assumption here is that there is a general orderliness
in society and the members of the society produce this sort of orderliness
reflexively. Members in the society have to continuously be engaged in
making sure that their activities make sense to others while also accurately
ascertaining the meanings in the activities of the others. There is a shared
method in the society in order to ensure that there is a structure to the
interaction that happens between individuals, which is possible because of
the reflexivity exercised by individuals in taking account of their interactions

with others.Thus, the focus here is on the methods used by people in

everyday life to account for (or make sense of) their activities – both to
themselves and others.
Garfinkel’s chosen research methods have been very ground
breaking in Sociology. He would send his students out to the field to perform
a variety of exercises. One of these exercises was to ask ‘What do you
mean?’ relentlessly during conversations, which lead to questioning the
very fluidity of meaning itself.He was also a proponent of conversation
analysis, which studied social interaction using both verbal and non-verbal
cues. These studies in conversation analysis would show how much of
meaning in social interaction is created by assumption of shared knowledge
of covert cues between speakers, which might not make any sense when
read by someone without any such shared knowledge.
Another method that he used was known as ‘breaching experiment’
where he tested social norms and social conformity by the researcher
themselves breaching these social norms and boundaries by creating out
of the normal situations and behaving awkwardly. The participants, except
for the researcher, are unaware of such a deliberate breach and the resulting
responses of anger, laughter, frustration or embarrassment was studied
by the ethnomethodologist, in order to find out how these subtle or even
obvious, societal rules and norms not only influenced behavior but also
shaped social order
A common criticism of ethnomethodology is that it does not tell us
anything very important. The focus on the everydayness of individuals means
that big political or economic events are kept outside the domain of this
perspective. Its detractors have declared this as its biggest weakness.
Another criticism is that ethnomethodology does not provide us with any
new knowledge and its findings are too simplistic or things that are already
known.
Today, ethnomethodology is not prominent perspective in sociology
but it has left its indelible mark on the discipline by questioning many taken-
for-granted assumptions about ‘meanings’ and the everyday world. It is not
as controversial anymore and many ethnomethodological insights have
made its ways into the current sociological understanding of social action
and social structure.
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q1: Who coined the phrase symbolic

interactionism?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q2: Do symbolic interactionists study micro level processes or
macro level processes?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q3: Which research technique is a symbolic interactionist most likely
to use?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q4: Do symbolic interactionists believe in being subjective or
objective in studying society?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q.5: Who are the central figures in the development of the symbolic
interactionist perspective?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Q.6: Who developed the perspective of ethnomethodology?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

6.8 LET US SUM UP
l Symbolic interactionism was the first distinctively American

sociological theory
l Some of the most important theorists associated with symbolic
interactionism are George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer, Charles
Cooley and W.I. Thomas.
l Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical framework related to the
micro- level interactions between individual and the way in which
society is created and maintained through these repeated
interactions.
l The structural functionalist approach had a ‘top-down’ perspective
on the relationship between structures and individuals, focusing on
how the structures constrain the individuals. Directly deviating from
this strand of dominant thought, symbolic interactionism’s approach
was one of ‘bottom-up’, focussing instead on micro-processes that
surface in the daily interaction.
l The attention of symbolic interactionism is not on how social
institutions objectively define and impact individuals but rather on
the question of the varied subjective interpretation of meanings and
symbols.
l People have symbolic capacities.
l Interactions are central to becoming humans.
l People are thinking and conscious beings with the agency to shape
their own behaviour.
l People are purposive creatures.
l Society consists of human beings engaged in symbolic interaction.
l To understand people’s social acts, we need to understand the
meanings people give to these acts.
l Mead developed a groundbreaking theory that the self arises from
communication, interaction and role-taking. For Mead, both ‘mind’

and ‘self’ are in nature, and language is the vital factor in the formation
of these.
l Blumer argued for a process of self-indication, where social change
is a product of interpretation, which is not brought about by factors
external to people. The only thing that precedes act is the process
of interpretation.
l The biggest criticism levied on symbolic interactionism is on its
central focus on micro-processes and it’s non-prioritisation of macro
structures and institutions.
l Ethnomethodology was developed by Harold Garfinkel and has its
roots in Alfred Schutz’s work.
l Ethnomethodology proposed to investigate how individuals
(‘members’) themselves construct their world.
l The assumption here is that there is a general orderliness in society
and the members of the society produce this sort of orderliness
reflexively.
6.9 FURTHER READING
1) Blumer, Herbert (1962) ‘Society as Symbolic Interaction’, in A.M.

Rose (ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
2) Blumer, Herbert (1969) Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3) Cooley, Charles Horton ([1902] 1964) Human Nature and the Social
Order. New York: Scribner’s.
4) Mead, George H. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
5) Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J: Prentice-Hall.

6) Sandstorm, Kent. L, Martin, Daniel D. and Fine, Gary Alan (2003),

‘Symbolic Interactionism at the End of the Century’, in Ritzer, George
and Smart, Barry (ed.), Handbook of Social Theory. London: Sage.

PROGRESS
Ans to QNo 1: Herbert Blumer coined the phrase ‘symbolic interactionism’.

Ans to QNo 2: Symbolic interactionists study micro-level processes.
Ans to QNo 3: Researchers 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 their research subjects live.
Ans to QNo 4: Symbolic interactionists believe in being subjective as they
aim to study the subjective interpretation of meanings.
Ans to QNo 5: The central figures in the development of the symbolic
interactionist perspective are Blumer and Mead.
Ans to QNo6: Harold Garfinkel developed the perspective of
ethnomethodology.

Q1: Who are the important theorists associated with Symbolic
interactionism and what contributions did they make?
Q2: Going by Blumer’s articulation, what are the basic assumptions of
symbolic interactionism?
Q3: What is ethnomethodology in sociology?


Q1: Along with the three premises forwarded by Blumer, what are the
other implicit assumptions of the perspective of symbolic
interactionism?
Q2: Why is the micro level approach of symbolic interactionism relevant
in studying society?
Q3: What are some of the contributions made by the perspective of
symbolic interactionism?
*** ***** ***

UNIT 7: PHENOMENOLOGY
UNIT STRUCTURE
7.2 Introduction
7.3 Phenomenology: Definition and Characteristics
7.4 Phenomenology: Key Thinkers
7.5 Phenomenology as Method
7.6 Let Us Sum Up
7.7 Further Reading
7.9 Model Questions
After reading going through this unit, you should be able to-
l understand what is phenomenology
l explain the significance of phenomenology as a theoretical concept
and analytical tool
l discuss the limitations and advantages of phenomenology as a
theoretical concept and analytical tool.
7.2 INTRODUCTION
Traditional theories in social science emphasised on a certain kind

of detachment or a distance between the one who is studying and the one
who is being studied. An objective understanding of the society was what
the positivist approach to social sciences advocated for. In that process
the positivist social scientists tried to find out a social science counterpart
of the natural sciences. However, positivist approach had its own limitations
because studying society is not similar to studying natural sciences. Human
beings are not innate objects who react to external stimuli. They are social
beings who ‘behave’ and ‘act’ rather than just ‘react’. The reason and logic
which drive the scientific spirit of natural sciences are also applicable to
social sciences, but the application of that spirit would be different in case
Unit 7 Phenomenology
of the latter. The scientific spirit of social sciences fundamentally takes into
account objectivity, but it also has to take into account the norms, values
and different subjectivities that can be observed to be present in human
societies. Since it is human beings that social sciences aim to study, hence,
the empirical and subjective experiences of the humans have to be
considered and analysed while forming objective conclusions about human
societies. It becomes important to understand how humans, the object of
study for the social scientists, perceive their own world through their own
worldview and form social realities around themselves. Negating their life
experiences and their worldviews would provide an imperfect and half-baked
understanding of human society and this is precisely where phenomenology
as a theoretical concept comes in.
The primary aim of phenomenology is to understand the ways in
which human beings construct and reconstruct meanings around them.
The key concept here is intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity basically refers
to a variety of interactions that human beings experience. The shared
meanings that people construct in the process of their interaction with one
another lead them to make their own sense of the world around them. The
everyday lives of these people also play important roles in forming these
meanings. Intersubjectivity thus works as an everyday resource using which
human beings make sense of their social and cultural worlds. While talking
about phenomenology, what is important to understand is that the meanings
that get formed in the process of interaction among people need not be the
same as what the social scientist would think them to be. For
phenomenology, the experiences of the people are important not because
of how they get interpreted by the social scientist, but because they exist
independently of the latter’s interpretation of them.
7.3 PHENOMENOLOGY: DEFINITION AND

CHARACTERISTICS
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines phenomenology as the

study of structures of consciousness as experienced from a first-person
point of view. In its literal sense, phenomenology is the study of phenomena.

Phenomenology Unit 7
That means it studies occurrences as they appear in our experience. The

way human beings experience things is thus the prime interest of
phenomenology. As said above, it studies conscious experience as
experienced from the subjective point of view. The view in consideration is
thus essentially the view of the first person. The structure of these
experiences range from memory, perception, thought, emotion, desires,
imagination, social activities, etc.
We had mentioned above in the introduction that the key component
of understanding phenomenology is intersubjectivity. From a first person
point of view, intersubjectivity comes in when we undergo acts of empathy.
This means that intersubjective experiences are essentially empathetic
experiences which are gained when we put ourselves in others’ shoes.
Also, it is important to note that while phenomenology acknowledges the
subjective experiences of humans as rational ones, it argues that there are
certain pre-existing beliefs that underlie the structure of this rationality. And
these beliefs are there in our unconscious minds as we experience the
world in its natural attitude. This argument has been put forward by Edmund
Husserl who is considered to be one of the founding fathers of
phenomenology. Husserl uses the term ‘lifeworld’ to refer to the way used
by the members of one or more social groups to structure the world into
objects.
As a philosophical concept phenomenology can be traced back to
the pioneering work of Immanuel Kant and the long-term philosophical
problem of how our knowledge of the world is based on our limited
perceptions of it as these are filtered through the implicit schemas already
in our minds. In a general sense we understand that our perceptions do not
necessarily correspond precisely to the way the world really is. In everyday
life, we unconsciously make allowances for the fact that the sounds and
sights that register on our ears and eyes will vary according to our distance
from their source. Kant’s position was that in the final analysis it is impossible
to know the world as it really is, in itself. Instead, all we can know is based
on our perceptions of the world as they are filtered through our senses and
organized through our particular cognitive frameworks. As applied to
Sociology this perspective reflects the notion that the way we see and
interpret the world is based largely on the formative influence of our social
environment. The cultural world into which we are born provides not only
the language we use to communicate but also the perceptual categories
and cognitive and interpretive frameworks through which we actually
perceive and make sense of our world.
The fundamental objective of phenomenology are to study the
phenomena, which is experienced in various acts of consciousness. In
this sense there are two types of phenomena; mental and physical. Mental
phenomena constitutes of what occurs in the mind when we experience
something. They also include the acts of consciousness, or its contents.
On the other hand, physical phenomena include the objects of external
perception starting with colors and shapes. Phenomenology envisages
isolating phenomena by suspending all consideration of their objective reality
or subjective association. Here the phenomenologist is involved in a search
for certainty. In this sense by equating phenomenology with philosophy, the
latter is conceived as a rigorous science dealing with ideal objects or
essences of things originating in the consciousness.
7.4 PHENOMENOLOGY: KEY THINKERS
l Edmund Husserl: Phenomenology as a branch of Philosophy

owes its origin primarily to the work of Husserl. Edmund Husserl is
considered to be the principal founder of phenomenology. He was one of
the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century. His significant academic
contribution ranged across almost all the areas of philosophy. His influence
can further be seen in linguistics, sociology and cognitive psychology to
quite an extent. His first phenomenological work, Logical Investigations,
was published in two volumes around 1900.
Husserl conceived phenomenology in three important ways. Firstly,
it was conceived as the science of sciences, which endeavoured to discover
the basis of consciousness. In the second view, phenomenology was
conceived as a first philosophy and therefore, it is coextensive with
philosophy, as traditionally it was the latter which had been enjoying the
status of first philosophy. The third conception of phenomenology is the

most important one, where it is conceived as a transcendental idealism.
This view conceives the transcendental ego as the source of all meaning.
Husserl argued that phenomenology basically aims to study human
phenomena without considering questions of their causes, their objective
reality, or even their appearances. Husserl gave the concept of
‘transcendental phenomenology’ to throw light on how the objects
surrounding our everyday life which we often take for granted as having
natural and naive attitudes actually have structures that allow or enable
them to constitute themselves into consciousness.
The phenomenological account of experience asserts two things.
Firstly, it claims that everyday experiences are intentional. Secondly, it affirms
that experiences always reveal their objects from a perspective. Hence the
phenomenological account of intentionality reconciles the objectivism of
intentionality with perspectivism of empiricism.
The primary aim of Husserl’s phenomenology is to isolate the
essential aspects which constitute meanings. In other words, it seeks to
isolate the essences. Everything perceived is bound up with the essence
of perception which is different from the object that exists in nature. Husserl
argues that every intentional experience gives meaning. In other words,
intentional experiences have the essential characteristic of giving some
meaning. The fundamental aim of phenomenology is to grasp the perceived
as such. It tries to grasp what is essentially given. The task of
phenomenology is to capture the phenomenon as meant. Phenomenology
searches for essences in the consciousness, which is the domain of
essences. It searches for pure mental processes which are immanent to
the sphere of consciousness that investigates them. The ultimate focus is
on pure consciousness. The various mental processes like remembering,
imagining, judging, willing, describing, feeling, perceiving etc. have their own
essences. The phenomenological method examines these essences, by
excluding what do not lie in the mental act itself. It thus builds a science of
essences. In order to find the essence of consciousness, phenomenology

excludes what is non-essence. For this the major hurdle is the natural
attitude, which a phenomenologist has to overcome.
l Alfred Schutz: Alfred Schutz attempted to bring in the thoughts
of Edmund Husserl into social world and social sciences. His work
Phenomenology of the Social World provided philosophical foundations to
the sociological work of Max Weber. Schutz’s basic aim was to look at the
processes through which human beings build up the meaning of their own
actions, and while doing this he looked at the structure of the social world.
What he emphasised on was that human beings living in the same social
environment constantly try to grasp one another’s experience, and in doing
so they already adopt the attitudes of social scientists towards one another.
Like Husserl, Schutz too argued that phenomenology has to be a
rigorous scientific enterprise. For Schutz, the utmost reality is the
intersubjective world of everyday life. However, the duty of scientists is to
detach themselves from the everyday mundane practices of the life-world
in order to better analyze and observe them. While actors in the real life-
world obtain their knowledge through the experience of everyday life and an
accumulated stock of life-worldly knowledge, scientists draw what they know
from their existing stock of theoretical knowledge. Scientific temper and
everyday life have to be considered as completely different worlds, separating
common sense from scientific knowledge.
Schutz argued that in both everyday life and science, people resort
to constructs or ideal types for interpreting and grasping the concerned
reality. Social scientists also build their constructs or ideal types on the
basis of the constructs of everyday life. This is called typification. Obtaining
an objective science that is constituted by subjective meaning structures is
made possible through typification. Schutz was thus primarily interested in
constructing ideal types of social actors and actions. Ideal types, moreover,
must meet certain criteria in order to meet the requirements of scientific
rigor. Schutz propounded five such criteria for his ideal types: the postulates
of relevance, adequacy, logical consistency, compatibility, and subjective
interpretation.

Schutz criticized natural sciences as being dependent on basic

presupposition of appropriation. He argued that without understanding the
object of study, i.e., social reality, one is bound to presuppose that the
methods used by natural sciences are appropriate to its study. Schutz thus
attempted to understand and clarify social reality and then to explain how
actors make sense of their social realities by understanding each other’s
motives in typical terms. He argued that unlike experiments in natural
sciences, such mutual understanding takes place without either somehow
or other penetrating into the other’s private, inner sanctum, or reducing the
other to the status of animal organism responding to stimuli. Given this
account of social reality, in which actors give meaning to their world, as
opposed to physical reality whose objects (e.g., electrons, quarks) do not
interpret their world, Schutz argued that the appropriate social scientific
method is that which involves developing constructs of everyday actor’s
constructs.
It is crucial to note that Schutz viewed the life-world as having been
created by the actions of people in the past. One’s life-world, in other words,
predates an individual’s birth and is given to them to struggle with and attempt
to transform. The life-world is therefore constraining, and people are always
trying to shape or dominate it. Another important dimension of the life-world
is knowledge. Schutz emphasized actors’ knowledge of typifications and
recipes, skills, and useful knowledge.
Schutz’s work has to be seen as an attempt to construct a theoretical
perspective that emphasizes on both how actors create their own social
world and how the social world in turn impacts the actors.
7.5 PHENOMENOLOGY AS METHOD
Mainstream research methods in sociology and social anthropology

have always been executed through a hierarchical relation between the
researcher and the researched. In other words, dominant research methods
have always used a ‘view from the above’, or a sense of privilege, ensuring
a coloring of the claims to objectivity by value biases. Introducing reflexivity
in research then attempts to bridge the gap between the researcher and
researched. It refutes a universal social reality and acknowledges that

knowledge is situated and social reality is contextual. Reflexivity enables
the researcher to critically engage with the research and makes one aware
of one’s own location as a researcher.
Any serious consideration of method in social science quickly runs
into basic issues such as the relation between theory and empirical
observation, and how we conceptualize phenomena. In turn, any reflection
on these matters raises still more fundamental problems of objectivity, of
the status of our knowledge. Phenomenology encompasses multiple
perspectives. It is not a single unified philosophy or standpoint. As an
approach, phenomenology proposes that a phenomenon be described
instead of being explained and it focuses on the very things as they manifest
themselves. It can be seen as a return to the lived world, the world of
experience, which can be understood as a starting point of all sciences.
Focusing on the very things means turning to the world of experience by
taking into account that before any objective reality, there is a subject which
experiences, before any objectivity there is a pre-given world and before
any knowledge there is a life on which it is based. This means that any
knowledge has its origin in experience which is pre-reflexive. The basic
premise of phenomenology is thus that the perceiver determines meaning,
and therefore it is human perception and not external influences or objects
of the material world which is at the core of phenomenological analysis. It is
human consciousness that determines their reality. Whatever appears in
the human mind as it manifests itself in consciousness is the
phenomenological project. Therefore, interpreting everyday life experience
from a phenomenological view requires a close analysis of how ordinary
human consciousness perceives its day-to-day life world.
Though phenomenology is criticized for being inherently individualistic
and regressive in its preoccupation with individual perception rather than
the material forces of power, domination, it can be of great use as an
approach to get meaningful insights to the social phenomena where the
presence of individual agency may have been ruled out while studying a
particular phenomenon, in this case, the lived experience of menstruation.
The deconstructionist critique also argues that in human consciousness

meaning is always colored or filtered, that adopting phenomenology as
method can result in biased representation of meaning. But, to refute this
criticism, phenomenology as a method approaches a particular
phenomenon with a conscious awareness that human consciousness on
one hand reveals idiosyncratic meanings, contingent truths, and felt-sensing
perspectives that are born from materiality, power, and the complexity of
presence, and on the other hand uncovers what it feels like to experience
all these elements up close and personal. Phenomenology, thus, attempts
to recognize and describe the role of consciousness in the achievement of
knowledge. Its main contribution has been the manner in which it has
steadfastly protected the subjective view of experience as a necessary
part of any full understanding of nature of knowledge.
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q1: a) Phenomenology is the study of

_________.
b) The primary aim of phenomenology is to understand the
ways in which human beings _________.
c) Phenomenology can be seen as a return to the
_____________.
d) The key component of understanding phenomenology is
____________.
e) A phenomenon is experienced in various acts of
____________.
f) There are two types of phenomena- _________ and
_________.

7.6 LET US SUM UP
l Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as

experienced from a first-person point of view.
l Phenomenology is the study of phenomena. That means it studies
occurrences as they appear in our experience. The way human
beings experience things is thus the prime interest of
phenomenology.
l The primary aim of phenomenology is to understand the ways in
which human beings construct and reconstruct meanings around
them.
l Phenomenology can be seen as a return to the lived world, the world
of experience, which can be understood as a starting point of all
science.
l The key component of understanding phenomenology is
intersubjectivity.
l Intersubjectivity basically refers to a variety of interactions that human
beings experience.
l Intersubjective experiences are essentially empathetic experiences
which are gained when we put ourselves in others’ shoes.
l The basic premise of phenomenology is that the perceiver
determines meaning, and therefore it is about human perception
and not about external influences or objects of the material world.
l The fundamental objective of phenomenology is to study the
phenomena, which are experienced in various acts of
consciousness.
l There are two types of phenomena- mental and physical.
l Mental phenomena constitute of what occur in the mind when we
experience something. They also include the acts of consciousness,
or its contents.
l Physical phenomena include the objects of external perception
starting with colors and shapes.

l Phenomenology approaches a particular phenomenon with a

conscious awareness that human consciousness on one hand
reveals idiosyncratic meanings, contingent truths, and felt-sensing
perspectives that are born from materiality, power, and the
complexity of presence, and on the other hand uncovers what it
feels like to experience all these elements up close and personal.
l The main contribution of phenomenology has been the manner in
which it has steadfastly protected the subjective view of experience
as a necessary part of any full understanding of nature of knowledge.
7.7 FURTHER READING
1) Giorgi.(2008). Phenomenological Sociology and Ethnomethodology: The

Everyday Life World of Common Sense. In: Contemporary Sociological
Theory. New York : Springer
2) Madison, S. (2011). Critical Ethnography: Method, Ethics and
Performance. Sage publications.
3) Marleau Ponty, M. (1945). La Phenomenologie de la perception.
Gallimard, Paris, France : Routledge
4) Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to Phenomenology. Routledge.
5) Sadala, Maria. L.A., Adorno, Rubens de C.F. (2002). “Phenomenology
as a Method to Investigate the Experience of the Lived: a perspective
from Husserl and Merleau Ponty’s Thought.” Journal of Advanced
Nursing.
6) Sayer, Andrew. (2010). Method in Social Science, Routledge, New York
: Routledge
WEB RESOURCES
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schutz/
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/109106051/Module%205/Chapter%2032.pdf


PROGRESS
Ans to Q No 1:
a) Phenomena b) construct and reconstruct meanings
around them
c) Life world d) Intersubjectivity
e) Consciousness f) Mental; Physical
7.9 MODEL QUESTIONS

Q1: What is phenomenology? Briefly write about the types of
phenomena.
Q2: What is the key component of phenomenology? Describe briefly.

Q1: Briefly describe Husserl’s phenomenology.
Q2: Briefly describe Schut’s approach to phenomenology.
Q3: Reflexivity enables social scientists to critically engage with their
research. Do you agree? Why?
Q4: Discuss the role of phenomenology as an approach.
*** ***** ***

REFERENCES (FOR ALL UNITS)
1) Abercrombie, Nicholas and Stephen Hill & Bryan S. Turner. (2000).

The penguin Dictionary of Sociology; England.
3) Abraham M. Francis and John Henry Morgan. (2007). Sociological
4) Bhatnagar, Mahesh.(2012). IndustrialSociology. New Delhi:S Chand
Publication.
5) Bottomore, Tom. (1983). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publisher ltd.
6) Brown, Radcliffe.(1940). “On Social Structure”. The Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 70,
No. 1, pp. 1-12.
7) Borgotta, Edgar F. and Rhonda J. V. Montgomery. (2000). Encyclopedia
of Sociology; Cengage Learning Publisher.
8) Blumer, Herbert (1962) ‘Society as Symbolic Interaction’, in A.M. Rose
(ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
9) Blumer, Herbert (1969) Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
10) Cooley, Charles Horton ([1902] 1964) Human Nature and the Social
Order. New York: Scribner’s.
11) Coser, Lewis, A. (1977).Master of Sociological Thought: Ideas in
Historical and Social Context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12) Cross, Steve.(2008). Sociological Theory and Analysis. London:
University of London.
Publication.
Rawat Publication.
16) Dahrendorf, Ralf. (1959). Class and Class Conflict in industrial
17) Doshi, S.L (2003). Modernity, Postmodernity and Neo-Sociological
Theories. Jaipur , New Delhi: Rawat Publication.
18) Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J: Prentice-Hall.
19) Giorgi.(2008). Phenomenological Sociology and Ethnomethodology:
The Everyday Life World of Common Sense. In: Contemporary
Sociological Theory. New York : Springer
20) Giddens, Anthony. (1997). Sociology; Polity Press.
21) Haralambos, H and R M Heald. (1997). Sociology : Themes and
Perspectives. Oxford Publication.
22) Leinson, D and Ember, M. 1996. Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology.
Cambridge University Press.
The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 11(3):281-293
25) Mead, George H. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
26) Madison, S. (2011). Critical Ethnography: Method, Ethics and
Performance. Sage publications.
27) Marleau Ponty, M. (1945). La Phenomenologie de la perception.
Gallimard, Paris, France : Routledge
28) Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to Phenomenology. Routledge.
12) Piaget, J.1970. Structuralism. New York: Basi Books.
29) Rao,C.N.Shankar.(2008).Sociology.New Delhi:S.Chand & Company
Ltd..
30) Ritzer, George. (2010). Sociological Theory. McGraw Hill Education.
31) Ritzer, G. (1996).Sociological Theory.London: McGraw-Hill.
32) Ritzer, George, and Goodman, Douglas J. (2003). Sociological Theory.
Mc Graw-Hill.
33) Ritzer, George. (2008). Modern Sociological Theory. Mc Graw Hill.
34) Scott John and Gordon Marshall. (2009). Oxford Dictionary of Sociology.
Oxford University Press: New York.
35) Sharma, Chandan Kumar. (2003). “ Structuralism An Introduction”
Cultural Studies : Themes and Perspective . Ed. Chandan Kumar
Sharma . Tezpur: Tezpur University. Neactaf.
36) Sandstorm, Kent. L, Martin, Daniel D. and Fine, Gary Alan (2003),
‘Symbolic Interactionism at the End of the Century’, in Ritzer, George
and Smart, Barry (ed.), Handbook of Social Theory. London: Sage.
37) Sadala, Maria. L.A., Adorno, Rubens de C.F. (2002). “Phenomenology
as a Method to Investigate the Experience of the Lived: a perspective
from Husserl and Merleau Ponty’s Thought.” Journal of Advanced
Nursing.
38) Sayer, Andrew. (2010). Method in Social Science, Routledge, New York
: Routledge
39) Turner, Jonathan H.(2002). The Structure of Sociological Theory.
Wardsworth Publishing Co Inc.
40) Turner, Jonathan H. (2005). The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur:
Rawat Publication.
41) Zeitlin ,Irving M. (2009). Ideology and the Development of Sociological
Theory. New Delhi.Pearson College Division.

PGSO S1 01 (Block 1) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PGSO S1 01 (Block 1) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PGSO S1 01 (Block 1) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PGSO S1 01

Sociological Perspectives and Theories

KRISHNA KANTA HANDIQUI STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY

1. Professor Chandan Kumar Sharma, Tezpur Central University.

Course Co-ordinator : Dola Borkataki, KKHSOU

SLM Preparation Team

Language : Dr. Abhigyan Prasad, B.Barooah College, Guwahati

Structure, Format & Graphics : Dola Borkataki, KKHSOU

First Edition : April, 2018

Headquarter : Patgaon, Rani Gate, Guwahati - 781017

2 Sociological Theories and Perspectives

Unit 1 : Emergence of Sociology-I Pages : 7-19

Sociological Theories and Perspectives 3

4 Sociological Theories and Perspectives

Sociological Theories and Perspectives 5

1.1 Learning objectives

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you will be able to –

We begin this course firstly with the discussion on emergence of

Sociological Theories and Perspectives 7

basic questions, we will go on to examine the importance of theory to

1.3 MEANING OF THEORY

A theory is a set of relationship between two or more concepts. In

8 Sociological Theories and Perspectives

1.4 MEANING OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Sociological theory is a set of assumptions, assertions, and

1.5 DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY IN

To understand the root of emergence of sociological theory we must

1.5.1 The Enlightenment

Enlightenment was a philosophical movement that took

Thirdly, with an emphasis on reason, the Enlightenment

Sociological Theories and Perspectives 11

thinkers began to study society and social phenomenas scientifically

1.6 THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

1.6.1 Chief Features of Industrial Revolution

The chief features of Industrial Revolution may be summed up as

Ø A series of mechanical inventions were made by the English

1.6.2 Impact of Industrial Revolution

With changes in the form of economy, society had confronted certain

¦ It led to the migration from villages to towns which caused the

Sociological Theories and Perspectives 15

were also influenced by these changes. The conservative

CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Q1: What is theory?

16 Sociological Theories and Perspectives

1.7 LET US SUM UP

l The development of theories in sociology has been going on since

Sociological Theories and Perspectives 17

l Urbanisation and industrialisation brought a new economic structure

1.8 FURTHER READING

1) Bhatnagar, Mahesh.(2012). IndustrialSociology. New Delhi:S Chand

1.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

Ans to Q No 1: Theory is a set of inter-related concepts and ideas which

Ans to Q No 2: Sociological theory is a set of assumptions, assertions,

1.10 MODEL QUESTIONS

A) Short Questions (Answer each question in about 150 words)

2.1 Learning Objectives

2.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you will be able to –

* * *