SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 1ST EXAM

1. Identify 5 characteristics of a good sociological theory and construct your own personal definition of sociological theory.

Much of sociological theories as said in the book are derived or have sprouted in the bough of social realities and social relationships evident in the perspective of theorist per se. However, clarifying what’s a “good” sociological theory may be mind-boggling. Of course, we have to go back to how it developed, how it was accepted and if it really stood in a great span of time. Needless to say, the core of a good sociological theory must always delve into the significant social issues in our society not being too idealistic rather realistic at hand.

There are apparently countless characteristics of a good sociological theory and I have identified five of them. First, a good sociological theory is established empirically, meaning it is data validated gathered by social theorists on the social realities that pay relevance to them. In addition, those cases assembled can be studied systematically. Second, social theories are more comprehensive, it tackles very broad issues rather than specific ones. These are big ideas about issues and topics of concern to everyone in the social world. Third, an effective sociological theory must be explanatory and has predictive power, of which can help us see the relationships among seemingly isolated phenomena as well as to understand how one type of change in an environment leads to others. Fourth in hand, it is evident that it must also be balanced, pertaining that it would outweigh the personal interest of the theorist himself like Karl Marx in his capitalism theory. Naturally, the social structure with which the theorist dwells in affects his/her view upon categorizing his theories. And the last, a worthy sociological theory pedestals from reality the theorist inhabits.

In a more formal description, a sociological theory is a set of interrelated ideas that allow for the systematization of knowledge of the social world, the explanation of that world, and predictions about the future of the social world.

In the same way as what I have stated above, I reckon sociological theory as a blend of beliefs captured in an idealized manner, immensely concerned with the critical social image of the world or of each reality within us dignified upon interaction and has an extensive breadth of applicability which can be deemed useful in understanding life.

So, why a blend of beliefs captured in an idealized manner? Personally speaking, I mull over these points as plainly common sensical added with a flavor of reason to surface more formal and regal in a reputable way. In the latter part, I also deem it to be concerned with the critical social image of the world, given that people formulate social theories to impose a caricature of their social reality. I also added the point “of each reality” since the truth which floats upon the theorists themselves have a great personal impression of how they thought reality as it was in their perspective. In my own, I constantly view reality in my perspective - of my own interpretation influenced by the books I’ve read, the ideas I ponder, and of peers alongside me, etc. Moreover, “dignified upon interaction” since it’s merely overt, each one seems to be talking about it, or have been affected by it. And “has an extensive breadth of applicability” relating that its scope is not solely limited on one factor but a whole lot of factors. As my final line suggests “which can be deemed useful in understanding life” in an approach that we make theories because we think it’s something significant and can be a contributing purpose in our dynamic vitality.

2. Among the different enlightenment philosophers, who do you think made the most significant contribution in stimulating early sociological thinking?

So, what seems to be plaguing the Enlightenment period that great thinkers suddenly divulge? Before that, it is significant to grasp first what happened in the Enlightenment era.

For all its continuity, the Enlightenment stage was a serious split with tradition in that it secularized and individualized the theory of natural law, and demanded that Christian values be realized in this world. What’s more, the philosophers did not hesitate to announce that liberty, equality, fraternity, and happiness were the rational assets that nature had intended for humankind’s eventual enjoyment. It thereby helped to institute the self-conscious search for empirical knowledge a gateway for reason and experience, indeed.

Subsequently, dilemmas soon rose up; Cassirer traced the problem of trying to base knowledge in psychology and epistemology, Montesquieu whose main line of thought lay in natural justice, Grotius, the advocate of abstract rationalism and Locke, empirical rationalism. Rousseau, I personally deem, made a rather great impact from a sociological standpoint – for he questioned all types of social existence, including one based on science, individualism, and progress.

Rousseau’s rejection of both the past and the present and his simultaneous claim that a genuine community is the destiny of humanity pitted him against the main propulsion of the French enlightenment that time. Though, what made him separated from the philosophes was his suspicion that reason and science were no more related to humanity’s true identity than were religion, warfare, or feudalism. For him, the emergence of reason as critical intelligence is a nuisance rather than it establishes society.

My second contention is that Jean Jacques Rousseau made a significant impact through his work – Social Contract. This served as a foundation for legitimate political order in the sense of clearing the distinction between the government and the sovereign. According to Rousseau, by combining into civil society through the social contract and discarding their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. In simple terms, human beings have a moral nature that has been corrupted by all known institutions. The only way to realize the community intended for humanity is to allow this original force to manifest itself.

Lastly, his influence was wide-ranging that it influenced Kant on his “general will” assertion. His statement that the moral sentiments of ordinary people are sound, his idealization of the communal will expressed that humanity must indeed make its own destiny found demonstration in conservative, liberal and socialist movements, theories, and nationalism.

Thus, his accounts like general will, amour proper, moral simplicity of humanity, popular sovereignty, and positive liberty were deemed substantial the field of sociological thinking amongst others.

3. Using Comte’s Law of Three Stages, explain the reasons why sociology was born during the 19^th century and not in other period in European history.

Sociology became only notorious upon the broadcast of Comte. Primarily because he was the one who first labeled it so. He gave a more precise framework which lies in his ability to coordinate and systematize the material of others. He piloted the intellectual trend and subjected it to a thorough process of theoretical bond. Of course, prior to his existence, none of those philosophers like Saint-Simon and Condorcedet ever termed or paid utmost significance that society could be studied distinctly from other fields, in the perspective of society and association itself.

Moreover, there exist deficiencies in the Enlightenment’s empirical approaches so to allege that sociology was born earlier than the 19^th century. Since, basically, sociology is already in lined with science and could not subsist without the systematic milieu. Also given that the progress of human beings that time was leaping up with the evolution of the mind toward a unified scientific conception of the structure of universe, a progress which he expressed marked by critical (or destructive) and organic (constructive).

More importantly, upon his unveiling of the 3 stages, he asserted that knowledge develops differently depending on subject matter – the more general and simple sciences precede the more individual and complex sciences. The one remaining area to be retrieved from the dominance of theological and metaphysical explanations was the most complex of all, the field of social phenomena. In simple terms, it was impossible that sociology would be born before the birth of sciences since the structure or the frame of mind of the Western people that time was predominantly influenced by the kind of authority they have in the regime. Disruptions would only surface if a new better ideology has been proposed and have been supported by the majority upon propelling against it through revolutions, indeed.

Thus, the culminating science is sociology, which itself gains theoretical and empirical unity and validity from the great law of progress. Meaning, it was only in the 19^th century when the people began to internalize progress and advancement in the deeper sense of wanting to improve their life. That in actuality, the law of progress commands that social phenomena at any given time contain both structure and process

It was missing in the theological stage, as its social forms military conquest and slavery. The metaphysical stage went on a critical or destructive period and an organic or constructive period. Wherein, it too was characterized by military values but these have become defensive which merely marked the Positive phase, a period of gestation, indeed. It was after the 1800’s people grasp that there’s a division between spiritual and temporal authority. And that the peak of sociologists understanding resides in the positive spirit where social application is apt valid.

4. Critiques say that early French sociology was conservative based on the works of Saint-Simon. Comte, and Durkheim, identify five overarching characteristics of a conservative sociological theory and briefly explain each.

Apparently, the conservative based works floated to dispose the current status quo. What is evident in French sociology from the works of Saint-Simon, Comte and Durkheim was the fact that each of them developed their theories for the organization of society. The three of them had a semblance of social reformism

Of course, it was Claude Henri Saint-Simon who started it all. It was undoubtedly known that his conservative sociological theory was in fact traditionalist for he wanted to preserve society as it was. He too believed in scientific techniques for the study of social phenomena as Durkheim and Comte do also. Emile Durkheim was the one who inherited the conservative tradition as it was palpable in his works greatly influenced by August Comte yet intensified it more.

Given that retaining the current status quo is the first archway of conservatism patent in French sociology, the three of them thought that though it is not possible to return to the Middle Ages where there’s no allusion of social disorder, still, the reconstruction of society must be done through social reforms. As added by Comte, reforms were essential solely to assist the process a bit and that natural evolution of society would alleviate things.

Secondly, a conservative sociological theory seeks to reaffirm the conditions with which social disorder obliterated. To reiterate, the sociological theories of these French sociologists came up in reaction to the Industrial Revolution period, meaning conservatists hated social disorder and distortion of the status quo.

Third in line, the three of them stressed in congruence that there is a neutral ground to subdue the forces of nature and to make it possible to happen. As Saint-Simon enunciated, “Evils would disappear when all people, working in statuses enjoined by their natural capacities, were linked together in the common enterprise of subduing the forces of nature.” With a similarity by Comte, “Specialization is dangerous, but fortunately society sets up a counterbalancing force that neutralizes the tendency toward dispersion.” As Durkheim further strengthened it “It is clear that the general characteristics of human nature participate in the work of elaboration from which social life results. But they are not the cause of it, nor do they give its special forms; they only make it possible.” Garnering back my thoughts, the three of them absorbed that participation is something innate upon the individual to naturally act or response back to what the society needed to counterbalance the effect which is so a conservative quality.

Fourth trait of conservatism, in my standpoint this too is significant, that science and industry are bearers of new morality. As Comte believe it that all producers would be united by utility and friendship because of their common stake in economic values. Saint-Simon also expressed his appreciation of science and his equation of morality and personal worth fundamental to humanity. Durkheim later apprehended the same gist by stating that a science had the power to unify phenomena and to establish moral order. Thus, not only did they include that decline of religion towards the progressive development of solidarity but science as functional also.

Like Saint-Simon’s, Comte’s liberalism too have violated the core principle of liberal thought – the spiritual autonomy and the individual. Which leads to my last point, they could not tend to see individuals as basic social units; however, they believed strongly that there were natural individuals with natural talents and that the positive society would reveal who they were. As evident in the opus of Durkheim, society was always the formative agent, producing a different type of social agent to correspond to its new needs. That society is a regulative system prior to the individual and that regulation should take place. A very traditionalistic view, I reckon.

Hence, to maintain the society as it was, in reaction to social disorder and chaos, participation as something regulative, science as new morality and liberalism in the societal standpoint – are the five overarching characteristics of conservatism which I consider.

5. Explain Durkheim’s work in terms of the following: (a) Subject matter and task of sociology (b) views toward social change

Emile Durkheim, a man who pioneered sociology. He wanted to understand and theorize the impact of the large scale structures of society and society itself on the thoughts and actions of individuals. What made him distinct is that he emphasized ‘social facts’ to describe the social structures and cultural norms that are external to and coercive of actors. He distinguished and elaborated the field of sociology from other social sciences. Also, put weight on empirical data to lend support to theoretical speculations. He focused on the division of labor and its consequences for social life and clarified collective conscience or the need for a common core of values and moral rules.

According to Durkheim, social facts are the subject matter of sociology. Social facts are “sui generis” (meaning of its own kind; unique) and must be studied distinct from biological and psychological phenomenon. Such examples are sentiments, laws, morals, beliefs, symbols, customs, fashions and interaction. What’s more through socialization and education these rules become internalized in the consciousness of the individual. These constraints and guides become moral obligations to obey social rules. Besides, the aim of sociology for him is to determine the causes and functions of a social fact.

In addition, he cultivated human dualism to portray individuals as extension of the society. Which in anyway lead to his found phrase “anomie”, a sense of not knowing what one is expected to do. In collective conscience, he said, the desires and self-interests of human beings can only be held in check by forces that originate outside of the individual. Durkheim characterizes this external force as a collective conscience, a common social bond that is expressed by the ideas, values, norms, beliefs, and ideologies of a culture.

Durkheim’s view of social change revolves around an analysis of the causes and consequences of increases in the division of labor. How dynamic density does grounds the division of labor? Dynamic density boosts competition among individuals who, if they are to endure the “struggle,” must assume specialized roles and then sets up exchange relations with each other. The division of labor is so the mechanism by which competition is mitigated. In simple terms he saw migration, population growth, and ecological concentration as causing increased “material density,” which in turn caused increased moral or dynamic density--that is, escalated social contact and interaction. Such interaction could be further heightened by varied means of communication and transportation. He further stressed that anomie is inevitable when the transformation of societies from mechanical to an organic basis of social solidarity is rapid and causes the “generalization,” or “enfeeblement,” of values. With generalization, individuals’ attachment to, and regulation by, values is lessened.

Although Durkheim saw social pathologies as rooted in the division of labor, social change was most promising in the context of collective morality. He felt that a modern, weakened version of mechanical solidarity was emerging through the ‘cult of the individual. Here, individualism was becoming the moral system of modern society. Solutions lay in reinforcing the strength of collective.

I guess more than all the fruitful outcomes of Durkheim’s work, he was most ridiculed for integration. In light of large scale social change in the organization of labor, how does a society maintain order and stability? Yet, he emphasized social processes that regulate asocial behavior and bind individuals to the collective, something is still missing. While criticized heavily over the years, Durkheim made it clear a upon provoking questions of how the endless diversity in action, affect, and is continually bound and rebound into the routine structures of society.