cambridge international as and a level sociology

AS Level and A Level

SociologyAndy Barnard, Terry Burgessand Mike Kirby

SociologyAndy Barnard, Terry Burgess and M

ike Kirby AS Level and A Level

Sociology: AS Level and A LevelAndy Barnard, Terry Burgess and Mike Kirby

Sociology: AS Level and A Level meets the requirements of theUniversity of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) syllabus forAS Level and A Level Sociology.

Written in a lively and accessible style, the book presents the maintheoretical perspectives, and encourages the development of asearching and critical approach to sociology.

Features include:! questions at the end of every section of each chapter! detailed coverage of postmodernist ideas and other recent developments

in sociology! past examination questions! a bibliography and glossary

The book is also suitable for students following UK exam board specifications, as well as for undergraduates and people on vocationalcourses in nursing, social work, education and management training.

This publication was formerly available as Sociology Explained(0521 426715). It has been substantially revised and updated tomatch the CIE syllabus.

Endorsed byUniversity of CambridgeInternational ExaminationsFor use with the GCE AdvancedSubsidiary Level and Advanced LevelSociology syllabus.

Endorsed by University of Cambridge International Examinations

9780

5215

3214

3 Ba

rnar

d, B

urge

ss &

Kirb

y: S

ocio

logy

: AS

Leve

l and

ALe

vel

CVR

CM

YK

9780521532143cvr.qxd 12/7/10 16:33

AS Level and A Level

SociologyAndy Barnard, Terry Burgess and Mike Kirby

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City

Cambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK

www.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521532143

© Cambridge University Press 2004

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the writtenpermission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2004

Printed

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-0-521-53214-3 Paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence oraccuracy of URL’s for external or third-party internet websites referred to inthis publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is,or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Information regarding prices, traveltimetables and other factual information given in this work is correct atthe time of first printing but Cambridge University Press does not guaranteethe accuracy of such information thereafter.

10th printing 2013

and bound in the United Kingdom by the MPG Books Group

ANDY BARNARD

Midway through the writing of the first edition of this book, Andy was admitted to hospital. He died after a short illness in November 1993.

This book is for Linda, Natalie, Erika, Stefan and Daniel.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Terry Burgess would like to thank all those who have helped in the production of thisbook, particularly the staff at Cambridge University Press, and Christine, to whom heowes everything, including a few holidays.

The publishers are grateful to the following for permission to reproduce photographs:

AFP/CORBIS pp. 175, 225; Art Directors/Trip pp. 68, 228; Gerry Ball pp. 15, 17, 21;Bettman/CORBIS p. 36; Said Belloumi/CORBIS p. 52; Hulton Archive/GETTY IMAGESpp. 139, 164; Rob Lewine/CORBIS p. 167; PA Photos p. 197; Polak Matthew/CORBIS p.276; Popperfoto.com p. 27; Vittoriano Rastelli/CORBIS p. 185; Reuters Popperfoto.comp. 246; Torleif Svensson/CORBIS p. 135; Nabeel Turner/GETTY IMAGES p. 173; PeterTurnley/CORBIS p. 26; Janine Wiedel p. 45.

Cover image by Digital Vision Ltd

We would like to thank the following for permission to use their material:

ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell (Copyright c George Orwell, 1945) by permission ofBill Hamilton as the Literary Executor of the Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwelland Secker & Warburg Ltd p 17.

Figure 9.5 by permission of the University of Chicago Press; Table 8.1 reprinted with thepermission of The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group,from Social Theory and Social Structure by Robert K. Merton, copyright 1949, 1957 by TheFree Press, copyright renewed 1977, 1985 by Robert K. Merton, all rights reserved;Table 3.4 by permission of HarperCollins; Table 3.3 is reproduced by permission ofOxford University Press; Tables 3.6, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.5, 10.1, 11.1, 11.2 and Figure 9.7 bypermission of Palgrave Macmillan; Table 11.5 by permission of Pearson Education;Tables 7.2, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8 by permission of the Policy Studies Institute; Table 5.1 bypermission of Routledge.

All tables and figures from Social Trends, as well as tables 4.4., 5.3 and 9.12 and Figure9.2, are Crown copyright and are reproduced with the permission of the Controller ofHMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland.

Past examination questions are reproduced by permission of the University ofCambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.

Every effort has been made to reach copyright holders. The publishers would be pleasedto hear from anyone whose rights they have unwittingly infringed.

The publisher has tried to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in thisbook are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has noresponsibility for the website and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live orthat the content is or will remain appropriate.

The sociological perspectiveThe study of society 1Sociology and the social sciences 2Sociology and social policy 3Sociology and science 7Is science scientific? 9Values and sociologists 11Sociological perspectives 13

Functionalism 14Marxism 16Weberianism 20Symbolic interactionism 22Ethnomethodology 23Feminism 24Post-modernism 25

Values, norms, roles and status 30Socialisation 32

Socialisation in childhood 36The construction of social identities 37

Social order and control 42Culture 45

Culture and subculture 49

Sociological methodsTypes of data 54Research methods 55The stages of research design 61Theory and methods 62Key concepts in research 64Methodological pluralism and methodological purism 65

Social stratification and differentiationDimensions of inequality 67

Elements of social stratification 67Social versus natural inequality 69

Systems of stratification 70Theories of social class 71

Functionalist theories of stratification 71The Marxist view 73The Weberian view 74

Measuring social class 76Social mobility 77Dimensions of class 81

The ruling class 81The working class 82The middle class 85The underclass 87

New directions in class analysis 89The death of class? 91

Contents

1

3

2

Sex and gender 92Explaining gender divisions 93

Race and ethnicity 95Stratification and age 98

Youth 98Old age 99

Health, welfare and povertyThe social construction of health 101Inequalities in health 102

Health and social class 102Health and region 104Health and gender 105Health and ethnicity 106

Doctors and patients 107Mental health 109Poverty and the Welfare State 110The sociology of poverty 113The measurement of poverty 114Why does poverty exist? 116Perspectives on the Welfare State 118

The familySociology and the family 120Household and family types 120Functionalism and the family 121Alternatives to the family 126Marxism, feminism and the family 126The family and conflict 130Industrialisation and the changing structure of the family 132Power and labour in the family 136The family and social policy 139The family today 141Do marriage and family life have a future? 143

EducationWhat is education? 144Why do we go to school? 145

Functionalist explanations 145Marxist explanations 146

The State and education in Britain 149The new vocationalism: the future of education? 150Differential educational achievement 151Explanations for differential educational achievement 153

Intelligence 153The home 155Language codes 156Cultural deprivation 157The school and the classroom 158The hidden curriculum 159Knowledge and status 161Post-modernist perspectives on education 161Counter culture 162Gender 164Ethnicity 168

4

5

6

ReligionProblems of definition 170Religious movements 171Theoretical perspectives on religion 174

Functionalism 174Marxism 176Weber 176

Church, denomination and sect 177Religion and stratification 180Secularisation 181A secular world? 184Religion, fundamentalism, modernity and post-modernity 186Fundamentalism 187

Crime and devianceDefining crime and deviance 189Crime statistics 190Women and crime 193Ethnicity and crime 195White-collar crime 196Theories of crime and deviance 198

Functionalist theories 201Marxism and crime 205Interactionism 207Control theory 210More recent theories of crime 211Post-modernist perspective 215

Suicide 216Murder 220

Work, organisations and leisureProblems of definition 222The founding fathers and industrialisation 223The occupational structure 224

Occupations and the labour market 224Patterns and trends in the occupational structure 226Women and work 228Ethnicity and work 231Age 233

The management and organisation of work 233The post-industrial society thesis 233The labour process and the control of labour 234Bureaucracy and changing organisational cultures 238Modernism and post-modernism 241Technological change and work 241

Industrial relations and conflict 243The experience of work 246

Work satisfaction and orientation 246Blauner 246Goldthorpe and Lockwood 249Mallet 249Gallie 249Beynon 250The human relations response 251

7

8

9

Trade unions and professional associations 252Trade unions 253Professional associations 255

Work and non-work 256Unemployment 256Measurement of unemployment 256Causes of unemployment 259The effects of unemployment 261

Leisure 263Perspectives on leisure 263The changing pattern of leisure activities 264Unemployment and leisure 266

Mass mediaSocial patterns in listening, viewing and reading 267Pluralist, Marxist and post-modernist theories of the nature

and role of the mass media 269The pluralist perspective 269Marxist perspectives 270Post-modernism 273

Ownership and control of the mass media 273The mass media, the State and the political process 275Representations of gender, disability, age and ethnicity 280The effects and uses of the mass media 283The mass media, violence and the amplification of deviance 287Issues in researching the mass media 290

Politics and powerPower and authority 292Theories of power 293

Functionalism 293Marxism 294Elitism 296Pluralism 298

What is the State? 299Who controls the State? 300Political parties and ideology 303

The Conservative Party 304The Labour Party 304The Liberal Democrats 305

Voting behaviour 305

Past examination questions 310Further reading 314Bibliography 317Glossary 331Index 340

10

11

1The sociological perspective

IntroductionThis chapter begins with a discussion of the origins of sociology, its key concepts and theoriesand its differences from and similarities with other social science subjects. The relationshipbetween sociology and social policy is examined and this is followed by a discussion of whethersociology can and should be based on the methods of the natural sciences. The chapter continueswith a review of the main sociological theories, including the functionalist, Marxist,interactionist, feminist and post-modernist perspectives. This is followed by a discussion of theconcept of socialisation and the processes involved in the construction of social identities. Theconcepts of social order and social control are examined and the chapter concludes byconsidering what is meant by culture and subcultures.

The study of societySociology has been studied as an academic disciplinefor around 150 years. The factors that brought aboutindustrialisation, urbanisation and the growth of thenation-state in the nineteenth century also providedthe context in which the idea of studying society in adetailed and systematic way first gained acceptance.Auguste Comte (1798–1857) is credited withformulating the word ‘sociology’. He derived it from‘socius’ – a society (Latin) and ‘logos’ – knowledge, orword (Greek). Comte believed that sociology was tobe the crowning glory of human studies – the ‘Queenof the Sciences’. Although modern sociologists arerather more modest in their claims, there is still asense that sociology is something special and quitedifferent from other subjects.

A basic definition of sociology is: ‘The systematicstudy of human society, dedicated to theunderstanding of social interaction as people formgroups, communities and societies’. To say thatsociology is a ‘systematic study’ implies that it is not‘just common sense’, and is more than statements ofthe obvious. There is a great difference between beingan observer of social life as it happens – everyone doesthat – and undertaking a systematic study based onsociological theories and methods. Sociology is anacademic discipline, and as such it is bound by certainrules of evidence. Moreover, the sociologist tries to beobjective and not let personal opinions and

prejudices influence his or her work. Sociologists seekto define terms precisely and to use appropriatemethods of investigation. Most importantly, they arecommitted to looking beyond commonsenseexplanations and beyond ‘the official view’ in aneffort to explain why things are as they are in asociety and why they change.

Concepts and theoriesLike the other social sciences – economics, politics,psychology and anthropology – sociology has its owntheories, concepts and methods of investigating socialbehaviour. Sociologists do not simply collect ‘facts’about social behaviour – crime rates, patterns ofdivorce, voting habits and so on. By themselves suchitems of information tell us little about how a societyoperates. They need to be interpreted to be of interestto the sociologist and this is where theory comes in.Theory provides a framework for fitting together themiscellany of facts with which sociologists arebombarded.

It is important to understand the nature of theories.Let’s begin with concepts: these are general ideas suchas ‘authority’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘social class’, etc. Theoriesare concepts brought together in order to explainsomething. They set out to explain the relationshipbetween one set of concepts or facts and another, e.g.theories have been put forward to explain the highrate of certain types of crime associated with young

2 The sociological perspective

working-class males. Much sociological researchinvolves taking theoretical concepts andoperationalising them or exposing them in such a way as to make them measurable.

PerspectivesWhen a number of similar theories are drawntogether into a single approach, we term this a‘perspective’. The main perspectives in sociology –functionalist, Marxist, feminist, interactionist, andpost-modernist – are outlined later in the chapter.Quite simply a perspective is a way of looking atthings that helps us to understand what is going on.We can liken a perspective to a pair of glasses: whenwe put them on, we see things more clearly. So wecan put on our functionalist glasses (the perspectivemade up of various functionalist theories) to help usunderstand the consensus and harmony that we findin society. Alternatively, we can put on the conflictperspective to understand disharmony or strife. Theinteractionist perspective acts like a magnifying glass,enabling us to understand small-scale humaninteractions. Each perspective enables us to viewsociety in a slightly different way. Likewise, thecompeting perspectives all have their relativestrengths and weaknesses.

Methods of investigationSociologists employ a range of techniques to collectdata. Data are necessary to verify theory. Sociology isempirical – it seeks to make statements about socialbehaviour that can be corroborated by evidence fromthe real world. It is the data which sociologists collectthat provide such evidence.

As you will discover in the next chapter, differenttechniques of investigation produce different types ofdata. Generally speaking there are two types of data:quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative data arestatistical in form and are generated by the surveytechnique. Social surveys are normally large-scalestudies that obtain data by either structuredinterviews or questionnaires. Qualitative data aregenerated by a range of non-statistical techniquesincluding open interviews and participantobservation.

Sociological explanationThere are basically two branches of theory withinsociology – macro and micro. Macro theories focus onsociety as a whole and aim at establishing the generalcharacteristics of societies. The aim of macro-

sociological theory is to answer three basicquestions about the nature of society:k How do societies hold together, or what is the basis

of order in society?k What are the sources of conflict in society?k How do societies change?

There are two broad schools of macro theory: consensusand conflict, distinguishable by the different answersthey give to these questions. In contemporary sociologyfunctionalism is the main representative of theconsensus school and Marxism of the conflict school.

Micro theories focus on the individuals who makeup a society, rather than on the society itself. Thereare two main forms of micro theory: symbolicinteractionism and ethnomethodology. Symbolicinteractionism is concerned with the principles offace-to-face interaction. Unlike macro theory, whichtends to view the individual as a product of his or hersociety and tries to show the various ways in whichthe behaviour of individuals is determined by thesocial structure of which they are a part, micro theoryregards the social structure as something created byindividuals as they interact in socially meaningfulways. Ethnomethodology is the study of howindividuals experience and make sense of the societyin which they live.

Sociology and the social sciencesThe boundary line between sociology and the othersocial sciences is not a clear or permanent one. There isa substantial overlap in subject matter between manyof the social sciences and several of them use similarmethods. To help identify the points of similarity anddifference with sociology, we will take a brief look atthe other major social sciences – anthropology,psychology, political science and economics.

Social anthropologySocial anthropology and sociology can be said to havealmost identical theoretical interests, since they bothinvestigate social and cultural aspects of groupbehaviour. Additionally, social anthropologists believehuman beings are fundamentally alike and share thesame basic interests. They therefore study systems ofbeliefs, and examine the relations between beliefs,customs and institutions and actions.

However, there are two important differencesbetween sociology and social anthropology.Sociologists concentrate more on social relationshipsthan on culture, whereas the social anthropologist is

Sociology and social policy 3

very interested in ideas and beliefs (religious andsymbolic) as well as social relationships. The otherdifference is that social anthropologists typically workin communities that are small scale, simplertechnologically and less familiar socially andculturally. They have thus pursued an interest in totalsocial systems, in which all of the members knoweach other, which is difficult to parallel in complex,large-scale societies.

PsychologySome psychologists focus on biological processes inexplaining human behaviour, while others place greateremphasis on environmental factors. This latter groupclearly overlaps with sociologists in terms of fields ofinterest. Stanley Milgram (1992), for example, in hisstudies of conformity and obedience to authority, hasdeveloped many ideas of interest to sociologists, and itis at this point that the divide between the twodisciplines becomes somewhat artificial.

Psychology has, however, adhered to a morescientific approach, seeing the laboratory experimentas the most effective means of investigation. Bycontrast, most sociologists see the laboratory as tooisolated from reality to give an adequate description,explanation and prediction of everyday behaviour.Another difference between the two subjects arisesfrom the fact that sociology is the study of theattitudes and behaviour of people as a result of theinfluences of groups and of the whole society. Thisemphasis on the communal dimension contrastssharply with psychology, which is more concernedwith studying individual characteristics and whichtends to assume the important role of internal factorssuch as personality and intelligence that may beinherited from parents.

Political sciencePolitical scientists are interested in the study ofpower, of authority, and of how we decide whetherpower is legitimate or illegitimate. Sometimes,therefore, they focus on the political institutions ofnational and local government and sometimes onother behaviour which indicates how politicalideology affects what we do, for example therelationship between voting and social class.Questions on the origin and nature of power,explanations of voting behaviour and so on are clearlyof interest to both political scientists and sociologists.Moreover, political scientists use many of the samemethods of research – questionnaires, interviews,participant observation – that are available to

sociologists. In many ways, therefore, there is verylittle to separate the two disciplines. Indeed, politicalscience could be seen as a branch of sociology, thoughthe distinctive nature of its subject matter usuallymeans that it is taught as a separate subject inuniversities. This emphasises the rather arbitrarydivisions that are made between the social sciences.

EconomicsEconomics has been defined as the study of the twinfactors of scarcity and choice in the satisfaction ofhuman wants. It differs from sociology in its area ofinterest, the perspective through which the subjectmatter is viewed, and in its methodology. Economicsis solely interested in one sphere of society, onlytaking into account others such as the politicaldomain and education insofar as they affect economicactivity. Sociology is much more widespread in itsinterests, examining the inter-relationships betweenall aspects of society.

This leads to the two disciplines having a differentfocus on a particular social phenomenon, e.g. a strike.Economists will be interested in the effects the strikemight have on levels of demand and supply,unemployment and so on, while sociologists may alsobe concerned with the personal interactions leadingup to the strike situation, its significance for familylife, and its possible implications for the powerstructure of society. Economics has also developedmore in the direction of being a science, with onewhole body of theory, and the use and accumulationof statistics are seen as important. Sociology has lessagreement on methodology, and many sociologiststreat the use of statistics with a great deal of suspicion.

In a number of ways, however, these differencesshould not be exaggerated. There is an increasingrealisation of the value of studies combining severaltechniques and approaches. The development ofeconometrics (the collection of evidence abouteconomic trends) within economics has meant agreater emphasis on the empirical collection ofinformation, a practice firmly embedded in thesociological tradition.

Sociology and social policySocial policy refers to the actions that are taken by thegovernment to maintain and improve the welfare of itscitizens. It includes social security, health and welfareservices, State pensions, housing, education, andcrime and its treatment. Social policy aims to deal with


what are defined as potential or actual social problems.Poverty and crime are both examples of socialproblems that have far-reaching consequences for theindividuals concerned and for the society as a whole.

It is sometimes wrongly assumed that sociology isthe study of social problems. This misconception arisesfrom the idea that all sociologists are motivated intheir work by a concern to find solutions to thevarious dilemmas and ills that beset society. It is truethat social problems are part of what sociologistsstudy. It is also the case that there are somesociologists who want to use sociology as a vehicle forchanging society.

However, it is important to recognise that there is adistinction between sociological problems and socialproblems. A social problem is some aspect of socialbehaviour that gives rise to conflict in society and/ormisery for particular individuals. Unemployment is aclear example of a social problem. However,sociologists do not confine their studies just to socialproblems. Rather, they are interested in studying anypattern of relationships in society that calls for anexplanation. Any social phenomenon, be it ‘nice’ or‘nasty’, that requires explanation is a sociologicalproblem. Social problems (i.e. something identified asharmful to society and needing something doingabout it) are merely one type of sociological problem.Thus, divorce is both a social problem and asociological problem, whereas marriage (whichsociologists also study) is a sociological problem only.

It is questionable whether there is a generalconsensus about what are the most important socialproblems, but the important questions for sociologiststo consider are:k What is considered a social problem?k Why is it a social problem?k Who says it is a social problem?k Why is this issue being considered to the exclusion

of others?k What are the policies proposed and who will

benefit from them?

Subjective and objective elementsSocial problems tend to have a subjective and anobjective element, with interactionists emphasisingthe former while structuralists emphasise the latter.During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuriesthe origin of social problems was located inindividuals. To some extent this perspective re-emerged in the 1980s. Individuals may experience aproblem subjectively – it is their problem and they are

suffering from it. It may cause anxiety, tension, stressor depression. Such subjective feelings may be causedby poverty or unemployment, for example. At thesame time unemployment is an ‘objective’ reality inthat it transcends the individual and has structuralcauses. Its solution lies in collective action andrelatively large amounts of investment and spending.

The concept of a social problem is relative. Whatconstitutes a social problem in one society may not beregarded as such in another. Poverty is an example ofthis. Even within a particular society social problemscan be and often are viewed differently. For example,some groups in our society may regard immigration as aproblem while others may regard racism as a problem.

Voluntary and involuntary problemsSome social problems are ‘voluntary’, for exampledivorce and vandalism. Other social problems are‘involuntary’ such as being elderly or being a memberof a minority group. This distinction between thevoluntary and the involuntary may be criticised asmany social problems are a mixture of the two.Behaviour is patterned, follows social trends and isinfluenced by structural forces. To what extenttherefore is divorce or unemployment voluntary?Equally it is not so much the involuntary growing oldor being a member of a minority group that mattersso much as society’s ‘voluntary’ attitudes and responseto these phenomena.

PowerIt is important to discover where the power lies in theprocess of identifying and dealing with social problems.This emphasis on power is made largely by Marxistsbut is accepted by interactionists. The role of the mediain developing our ‘awareness’ of certain socialproblems to the exclusion of others should not beunderestimated and has been highlighted in the workof the Glasgow Media Group, Stan Cohen’s work onmods and rockers (1972) and others (see chapter 8).

The poorest in our society and those marginalisedwithin it have great difficulty in getting their definitionsof the situation accepted by the wider society and theagenda setters. This could be due to lack of economicresources or to ideological subjugation and exclusionfrom the media and seats of power.

Social policiesThe existence of social problems suggests that not allmembers of society are equal beneficiaries of itswealth and institutions. Some may be regarded as

Sociology and social policy 5

victims of society or trouble-makers within it. Whatmay be at stake is a conflict of ideologies andinterests. In the formulation of social policy there aremany possible means to achieve a given end. Themeans chosen depend largely on the ideology of thosewith the power to determine social policy. In order toreduce poverty, some policies (particularly those onthe left) advocate a redistribution of wealth, aminimum wage and a minimum income. Othersargue that in order to reduce poverty we mustencourage economic growth; this may lead toincreasing inequality but the wealth will trickle downand everyone will benefit. Social policies may haveunintended side effects: some right-wingers argue thata minimum wage will have the unintended effect ofincreasing unemployment and poverty by increasingindustry’s costs. On the other hand, increasing wealthand income at the top may result in lowerproductivity due to a lack of incentive to work. It mayalso result in the creation of an underclass with novested interest in the social and economic system andwhich therefore poses a threat to social stability.

The list of questions and policy options is endless.Consider the following:k Is crime best reduced by ‘short sharp shocks’ or by

the creation of more alternatives to custodyschemes?

k Do we need more police in patrol cars or morepolice walking the street?

k Are the interests of the elderly or mentally ill bestserved by the process of deinstitutionalisation?There is much evidence, for example, that such aprocess places a great burden on the family andparticularly women in the family. This may beregarded as an unintentional consequence or it maybe regarded as the result of patriarchal attitudesby those in positions to make decisions. It is alsonecessary to note that the process ofdeinstitutionalisation – community care – arose dueto economic pressure on the Welfare State andthe problems associated with institutions.

k Should welfare be provided by the State or by theprivate sector?

k Should welfare benefits be universal or should theybe targeted at those who most need them?

Historical developmentThe relationship between sociology and social policy isnot particularly clear from a reading of the writerswho laid the foundations of sociological thought. ForAuguste Comte, sociology was the new religion, the

scientific humanism that would unravel the laws ofhuman society and lead to rational social planning.Yet Comte’s sociology was profoundly conservativein nature and advocated a ‘wise resignation to thefacts’. Such social facts were not open to reason.Comte’s sociology was therefore unlikely to give riseto a social policy that played a radical or reformingrole, despite his wish that sociology should influencerational social planning.

Some sociologists of the late nineteenth century andearly twentieth century, such as Rowntree and Booth,adopted a much more empirical approach in theirsociological investigation of a particular socialproblem. Even here, though, the relationship betweensociology and social policy is quite crude – the mainmethod employed by these sociologists in theirdemonstration of poverty at the turn of the century inEngland was that of the exposé.

Importantly, the period 1930–1960 is marked by theincreasing attempt by sociology to be accepted as adiscipline into the academic world. As part of this(largely successful) process the scientific nature of thediscipline was stressed. This included a need to detachthe subject from its perceived link with theidentification of social problems and consequent social reform.

There is a great deal of controversy within sociologyas to whether sociologists should have any directinput into the study of particular social problems orshould be involved in espousing particular socialpolicies. This is due to the desire on the part of somesociologists to produce value-free sociology andthemselves remain neutral. Such a desire is linked toconceptions of what constitutes science and indeedwhat constitutes social science or sociology. It is alsolinked to a desire to be accepted into the academicestablishment, to secure adequate funding and to getone’s research actually used.

WeberWriting in the early part of this century, Max Weber(1904–5) was at pains to clarify the role of sociologyin social research. He makes a clear distinctionbetween research and researcher when he states that‘To apply the results of [sociological] analysis in themaking of decisions … is not a task which science canundertake; it is rather the task of the acting, willingperson: he weighs and chooses from among the valuesinvolved according to his own conscience and hispersonal view of the world. Science can make himrealise that all action and naturally, according to the


circumstances, inaction imply in their consequencesthe espousal of certain values and … the rejection ofcertain others.’

Weber accepted that it is within the role of asociologist to choose the social problems they wish toconsider but emphasised that the actual research mustbe strictly objective. He also wished to distinguishsharply between sociology and social policy which hesaw as two different ‘worlds’, both of which arevaluable but whose distinctions and ways of workingshould be made clear. In discussing Weber on thissubject, James Coleman (1979) draws on the analogyof the two worlds of discipline and action, withsociology being in the world of discipline and socialpolicy being in the world of action. The term‘discipline’ in this context means an area of academicstudy. The world of discipline is pure and value-free;the world of action is impure, laden with conflictinginterest groups, may be secretive and is not value-free. The sociologist treads a wary line between thetwo worlds.

Weber’s conception of the relationship betweensociology and social policy is that sociology providesthe technical information from which policy makersdecide social policy. In this respect Weber is atechnician. Much of American empirical sociologysince the Second World War has been of this technicalnature. Clearly not all sociologists take this view.Marx said that ‘Philosophers have interpreted theworld. The point is to change it.’ So Marx himself did not share the same concern about being value-free and on the contrary wished to join in the worldof action.

Other sociologists see a place for values insociology and a place for the sociologist in the makingof social policy. Robert S. Lynd (1939) does not quitego this far but he does argue that values are relevantin the choosing of an important social problem and inthe guiding of policy makers on the likely outcome oftheir decisions. C. Wright Mills (1959), too, againstthe trend of contemporary American sociologists, tookan anti-technician stance and argued for the place ofvalues in sociological research. Howard Becker, theinteractionist (1967), argues not only for the place ofvalues in sociology but for a particular set of valueswhich promote a favourable outcome in social policyterms for disadvantaged members of society. Thisposition is one shared by many European left-wingsociologists such as Peter Townsend, Stuart Hall andJeremy Seabrook.

Undertaking researchOf course the underdogs in society are not in much ofa position to initiate social policy research themselves.Indeed much social policy research is carried out forvarious interested parties. These include:k government – both national and local, who may

want to try out ideas on a small scale beforeapplying new social policies;

k government – both national and local, who wish toassess the impact of existing social policy;

k business interests – wishing to develop marketresearch into present and future lifestyles;

k business interests – wishing to develop raw datawhich support a particular lobbying position thatpromotes their interests, e.g. Adam Smith Institute;

k promotional interest groups – wishing to influencegovernment, public opinion, or gain media time,e.g. Friends of the Earth;

k sectional interest groups – establishing the effects ofcurrent or future social policy on a particular socialgroup, e.g. trade union support of the Low Pay Unitor Child Poverty Action Group;

k independent researchers – rarely.

ResultsOne argument that seems to present itself here is thatsocial policy research does not necessarily reduceconflict between interested parties and produce sociallaws as Comte might have hoped, but such researchmay make the conflicting interest groups betterinformed – if the information is freely available.

Social policy and powerOn the relationship between social policy research andpower there are of course different positions. Somesociologists have argued that the increased knowledgegained will enable those with power to strengthentheir hold by manipulating their subjects. Theincreased information may help those in power torespond to public wishes and remain in power.Alternatively policy research may undermine those inauthority by revealing the gap between their claimsand the actual outcome of their policies. However, inorder for this to be the case such policy results wouldhave to be placed in a context where they could bepublished and utilised by alternative decision makers.

Social policy has different and competing goals.There are also different means of achieving the samepolicy goal. Sociology has had an uneasy relationshipwith social policy. This was seen in Comte’s

Sociology and science 7

conservatism, the attempt to disassociate sociologyfrom social problems and the controversy over values.Conflicting interests sponsor research. The effects ofresearch on those in authority are uncertain, as arethe uses to which research is put.

Questions

1 What is meant by the term ‘social policy’?2 What are the differences between sociology and

social policy?3 Is there likely to be a link between the findings and

recommendations of a piece of research and theagency funding it?

Sociology and scienceIn the early nineteenth century the Frenchmathematician, Auguste Comte (1798–1857),impressed by the achievements being made in naturalsciences such as physics, chemistry and geology,argued that there were three discernible stages in theevolution of human thought. The first stage, which hecalled the ‘theological’ or ‘fictitious’ stage, explainedevents as God’s work, for example thunder occurringwhen God is angry, or famines being the result of notworshipping him enough. The second stage wascharacteristic of the middle ages with explanationsinvolving subtle emissions from the divine and mysticinfluences. He called this the ‘metaphysical’ stage. Thethird stage was based on the evidence of the previoustwo hundred years which appeared to demonstratethat the natural world is subject to the rule of definitelaws that can be observed through experiment andthe collection of ‘positive facts’.

His boldest assertion was to take this one stagefurther and state that the systematic collection of factsand the search for laws should not be limited to thenatural world. Everything, even human society, obeyslaws of behaviour. He foresaw a new science ofsociety which would discover these laws and becomethe ‘queen’ of all science. In anticipation he called thisas yet unresearched science ‘sociology’. When allhuman thought was based on science then thepositive stage would be complete.

Many sociologists are unhappy with the idea that thework of writers such as Marx and Durkheim can becalled positivist in any meaningful way. They point tostudies such as Durkheim’s Suicide (1897), which arguesthat the real cause of suicide is not religion, the familyor the contemporary political situation but something

unmeasurable – the extent of integration and moralregulation in society. Strictly speaking, then, positivismin sociology corresponds to the narrow definition ofscience as quantifiable, generalisable and concerned toidentify clearly observable causes and correlations.Theorists such as Marx and Durkheim were workingtowards a broader view of this scientific project.

Positivist and structural sociologyPositivism is one of the key concepts in social science.Unhelpfully, it is used differently in subjects such aslaw (‘positive’ law), economics (‘positive’ economics)and sociology. In sociology, positivist sociology andstructural (or ‘realist’) sociology are often thought ofas the same thing.

Positivist sociology is similar to the concept ofempiricism. It is mainly interested in pursuing aresearch programme that is parallel to that of thenatural sciences, seeking to discover patterned andregular events in the social world whose occurrence iseither caused by another event, or strongly correlatedwith that event. A social mechanism may be clearlyidentified and measured, for example the relationbetween attendance at parents’ evenings and theeducational attainment of the children.

Structural sociology is thought to be concerned withthe cause of events at such a deep level that they maynot be observable in a simple way so that it is notpossible to say that one event causes another to happen.Causes exist in the structure of power and socialrelations. Society is not made up of a simple series ofmechanisms as a complex machine is. Empiricalresearch therefore becomes much more difficult.

However, the idea of formulating a science ofsociety was attractive to many, and by the mid-nineteenth century writers were beginning to claimthis status for their social theories. Marx, for example,in outlining historical materialism, describes ‘thematerial transformation of the economic conditions ofproduction which can be determined with theprecision of natural science’. He contrasted his ownview of how socialism would emerge from capitalismwith that of others, claiming that his view wasscientific and theirs merely utopian. They might wishit to happen, but he could identify how it was writteninto the laws of historical development. By the turn ofthe century Durkheim could show that suicide insociety could be understood through the collection of‘social facts’ and the identification of externalvariables determining human behaviour. Hiscontemporary, Weber, though, had profound


reservations about the search for general social laws,believing each society to be a unique formation. Healso wrestled with the problem of determinism,suggesting instead that humans have some controlover their lives.

Although a ‘positivist’ sociology clearly now exists,scepticism exists both inside and outside sociology asto how successful and valid it is. Social science has notachieved anything like the degree of unanimity,certainty or ability to predict of the natural sciences.Its methods are nothing like as rigorous. It cannot, forexample, use laboratory experiments in the same wayto derive its data. Aside from the ethical problems ofplacing people in artificial situations, it only makessense to study people’s behaviour in an existing socialsetting. The closest sociologists can get to orthodoxscientific methods is to use field experiments – forexample gauging reactions by posing as old whenyou’re young, or black when you’re white – or bymaking comparisons between different groups,societies and cultures (the comparative method).These, of course, are difficult to repeat or have otherresearchers verify. With these limitations, socialscientists have far greater difficulty in establishing thecause or causes of events. At best, all that can beestablished are strong correlations. It lacks theprecision of natural science.

Sociologists have responded to these criticisms in anumber of ways. From a positivist point of view, whilemany of the above criticisms are accepted, theargument remains that what most sociologists do is,nevertheless, scientific in that sociology constitutes abody of organised knowledge developed throughsystematic enquiry, using techniques that approximateto those of natural science, yielding data of similarreliability and validity.

The hypothetico-deductive methodMany scientists would argue that good science isbased on the hypothetico-deductive method,which proceeds through the following stages:k Observation: All scientific activity depends on

systematic observation, recording and description ofits subject matter.

k Conjecture: In order to explain any given observationscientists must think up a plausible reason for itsoccurrence.

k Hypothesis formation: The conjecture must be‘operationalised’, in other words it must be put in aform that will allow the scientist to determine howwell it explains the occurrence of the observation.

At this stage, an attempt is made to predict theresult of a test.

k Testing: The hypothesis must be rigorously testedunder controlled conditions through an experimentto show whether it can be proved wrong or not.

k Generalisation: If the hypothesis has not been provedwrong by the test, it shows that the conjectureexplains the occurrence of the observation. It canthen be generalised, either into a law-like statement(for example, light rays bend at an angle dependenton the density of the medium they enter) or aprobabilistic statement (for example, there is a 70per cent probability that x will occur when y is alsopresent under conditions z).

k Theory formation: A number of generalisations areordered into a coherent model or theory, whichexplains a given range of phenomena.

The hypothetico-deductive method further requiresthat the researcher be totally neutral at all times, andin no way allow their own views or prejudices tocolour any aspect of the research programme. If theydon’t remain objective but become subjective, thentheir work ceases to be scientific and becomescorrupted and distorted.

The realist approachAn altogether different view of science has emergedfrom what has been termed the ‘realist’ school. Thisargues that it is misleading to typify science as beingbased on experiment and that, outside the laboratory,scientists are faced with as many uncontrollablevariables as social scientists. Although men havelanded on the moon with great scientific precision,meteorologists, with banks of technical equipment,cannot tell you with certainty whether it will rain ornot in a month or even a day’s time, or for how long.Nor is it the case that scientists work solely on thebasis of observation. They cannot see virusesspreading from human to human or continentsdrifting apart, but they are able to surmise these factsfrom the evidence of epidemics striking people down,or from earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The realcauses are often knowable only by their effects. This,the realists claim, allows social scientists to claim thatthey, too, are engaged in the same scientific projectwhere many and complex variables are at work.

The phenomenological approachPhenomenologists regard the question of therelationship between sociology and science with great

Is science scientific? 9

scepticism. Whatever the claims of natural science,there is a crucial difference between people andinanimate objects in that humans think forthemselves and have reasons for their behaviour. This,in turn, enables them to make active sense of theirworld. Sociologists should be concerned withinterpreting this view. Whether social causation existsor not is irrelevant.

Scientists themselves, from the phenomenologicalpoint of view, are as involved in interpreting reality asany other group in society. All knowledge is simplythe product of interaction between human beings. It ismore valid – as well as more interesting – to analysescience as a set of subjectively held meanings. Eventsare not passively observed. To understand anything,whether tribal life in the South Pacific or the messagesacross VDUs sent by radio telescopes, a theoreticalframework has to be imposed on what is observed.Forming this framework is a creative process, derivedfrom ideas of what is thought to be already there. Allknowledge is socially constructed.

There are at least three positions, then, on thedebate about the scientific status of science. Positivistsociologists claim that the methods they use, whilenot identical to those of the natural sciences,approximate closely enough to them. Social sciencecan be like natural science. The realists claim that inboth branches of science, similar problems are faced inpostulating the influence of unseeable structures andforces. For phenomenologists, the search for causesand laws is dismissed and science itself is studied as asocial construct.

Questions

1 What differences are there between natural andsocial science?

2 What is the realist view of science?3 What does it mean to say that knowledge is socially

constructed?

Is science scientific?While there has been considerable pressure onsociologists to consider what they mean by their useof the word ‘science’, the use of this word by naturalscientists has also come under the microscope. Whatdoes it mean to call their work scientific? Are theyany more objective, rigorous or closer to ‘the truth’than social scientists? Even if objectivity is possible,should these scientists want to claim detachment fromthe objects they study?

At first sight, it seems easy enough to assume thatwhat natural scientists do is to systematically recordobservations of the patterns of behaviour andmovement of matter, without preconceptions of whatthey might find. As many philosophers of sciencehave pointed out though, the process is more complex– and less objective – than it first appears.

PopperThe very idea of deriving conclusions from the processof making observations is itself problematic. Although999 white swans may have been observed floatingpast a point on a river, it is a logical mistake to assumethat the next swan to swim past will also be white.This is what Karl Popper (1963) identifies as theproblem of induction. It cannot be assumed thatwhat has always happened in the past will alwayshappen in the future. It follows, for Popper, thatcollecting more and more data about an event will notprove a proposition to be true, as there is no reasonwhy past events should predict the future. The blackswan of scientific data may well be around the corner,waiting to drift into view.

Instead, Popper argues that scientists shouldproceed by looking, not for the proof of theirhypotheses, but for their disproof. Although it cannotbe proved that something is true – only thatsomething has always happened that way in the past– the best evidence will be that it has not yet beendisproved or ‘falsified’. Science must abandon theinductive method of attempting to make theories fitfacts and adopt a deductive method where facts areonly admitted into a theory through the process offalsification.

KuhnIn one of the most important books on this subject,Thomas Kuhn (1962) asks whether scientists doindeed allow the possibility of their theories beingfalsified, and examines how new scientific theoriesemerge. According to Kuhn, scientists work not asindividuals but as part of a community. Within thisscientific community a consensus exists about thenature of the world they are investigating. Kuhn callsthe theoretical framework that results from thisconsensus a paradigm. For long periods of time thescientific community engages in activity designed tobear out the validity of this paradigm. Kuhn calls thisa time of ‘normal science’. Eventually, though,individuals or groups working outside the dominantparadigm will put forward alternative theories that


can be supported by equally valid evidence. They willhave to be outside of the dominant paradigm to dothis. There then follows a period of revolutionary or‘multi-paradigmatic’ science where the rivalparadigms struggle for supremacy, and advocates ofalternative theoretical frameworks are overthrown orbeaten off.

An example of what Kuhn had in mind would bethe challenge mounted against Newtonian physics byAlbert Einstein in the early part of the twentiethcentury, where intense battles were unsuccessfullywaged by the ‘normal’ scientists to maintain scientificorthodoxy. If long-standing paradigms can beoverthrown, then the defeated scientists have to admitthat the theories they were working with were not somuch ‘true’ as merely ‘very useful’ in helping themmake sense of the data they had gathered.

It is not the case, then, that those who are workingwithin paradigms of normal science approach whatthey examine with open minds, or are prepared tolook anew each time at what they are observing.Some commentators have argued that the problem ismore deep-set than this, in that all scientists, bydefinition, start off with the unfalsifiable assumptionthat every event has a cause. Furthermore, from therealist point of view, not every event – or everypossible cause – is observable or knowable. The studyof plate tectonics and earthquakes by geologists, forexample, requires a series of guesses to be made aboutwhat is probably happening in the earth’s structure.The problem of causation, of identifying specificcauses, is as much of a problem for natural scientistsas it is for social scientists.

In the same vein, it is no less true to say that,although the subject of natural scientific study may beinanimate or non-human, scientists themselves arehuman beings who have to impose a structure on whatthey see in order to make sense of it and they have toselect some facts from others to put a theory together.In this way, scientists are as prone to imposing theirown subjective views of the world as any otherhumans. That they need to choose to prioritise somedata means that they are making value judgementsabout which data is most helpful to test theirhypothesis. When they start making choices about thestatus of facts, then they have, strictly speaking, ceasedto be objective. Facts have become values.

Questions have been asked not only about themethodology of the natural sciences but also theirethics. Radical and feminist critics have brought intothe debate not only the methodology of science but

the knowledge that the application of thismethodology produces.

MedawarMedawar (1985) has argued that the real sequence ofscientific research is inspiration then observation notobservation then inspiration as implied by thehypothetico-deductive method. Normal science consistsof problem solving with the results anticipated becausethey will fit into the existing jigsaw. As the data iscollected it impinges on a mind already anticipating it.

What Medawar is suggesting is that the actualprocess of research may follow no logical pattern butthis reality is hidden from the public, becausescientific papers omit false starts, changes in directionand dead ends.

Some scientific evidence has been found to befallacious. Lynch (1993) studied the work of scientistswho were carrying out laboratory investigations intothe brain functioning of rats. He found that the typesof feature they were looking for and expected to findinfluenced many of their conclusions. In other words,they were using the data they collected to confirmtheir theories, rather than keeping an open mind andseeking to test their ideas objectively.

‘Big’ scienceSociologists have argued that scientific knowledge inthe natural world arises from an objective andindependent search for truth and also from thepriorities and values of those who have funded theresearch. For Leslie Sklair (1973), what most peoplethink of as scientific knowledge is better thought of as‘big’ science – research undertaken to further thecontrol and interests of the military-industrial stateover its people. Examples of this would includeresearch into space and weapons technology, orbusiness-led research into systems whose sole aim isprofit-maximisation. The resulting popular image is ofscientists as men in white coats, developing large-scaleand impersonal structures on multi-billion poundprojects without regard for how their creations will beused. Their technology is thought to be part of anobjective science because of the power and prestige ofthose who fund them. Their concerns are thought tobe our concerns.

Science and ideologyFeyerabend (1998) argues that scientists have nospecial method and that they frequently change whatthey are doing and the approach used. He suggests

Values and sociologists 11

that science is basically an ideology completely shapedat any moment in time by its historical and culturalcontext. Despite scientists’ claims to the contrary, therule in science is that anything goes.

Support for this view comes from Gomm’s study ofDarwin’s theory of evolution. Roger Gomm (1982)argues that Darwin’s views about evolution andnatural selection were poorly supported by theavailable evidence and in some respects were clearlynot true. Nevertheless, Darwin’s ideas gainedwidespread support in the nineteenth century becausethey fitted closely with the ideologies of dominantsocial groups in Britain. For example, the idea of‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘natural selection’ could beused to justify the free-market capitalist system andthe harsh treatment of the poor.

FeminismFor feminists, science is a male world from whichwomen have always been excluded. Scientificachievements and scientific knowledge reveal onlymale priorities in which nature, always characterisedas female, has to be brought under control. Areas oftraditionally female knowledge of previous centuriessuch as healing and midwifery have become thebrutal male domains of medicine and obstetrics. ForHilary Rose (1982), it is male science that has broughtabout ‘the mechanisation of childbirth throughroutine induction, massive pollution of theenvironment and the ultimate terror of nuclearholocaust’, as well as forms of contraception based oncontrolling women’s – rather than men’s – fertility.

Male science is not objective if objectivity is thoughtonly to concern how scientific research is done, andnot the reason why that research came into existence,or what the social consequences are. Sandra Harding(1987) states that ‘Defining what is in need ofscientific explanation only from the perspective ofbourgeois, white men’s experiences leads to partialand even perverse understandings … an androcentric[male-centred] picture of nature and social lifeemerges from the testing by men of hypothesesgenerated by what men find problematic in the worldaround them.’ It was, after all, this very same male-centred science that claimed to have ‘proved’ thatwomen were biologically and socially inferior to men.Furthermore, it is men alone who have produced thetechnology to make chemical and nuclear weapons.

If women are to enter the exclusive world of malescience then, feminists have argued, science must bereconceptualised and made more humane. Scientists

themselves have to become accountable for theiractions. Technology will be seen not as ‘value-free’but assessed in terms of the impact it has in bringingabout meaningful change in social relations. Men, aswell as women, would be seen as capable ofreproduction. Given that scientific advance has reliedas much on inspired guesses as its own methodology,a feminist perspective would reintroduce andrelegitimise the intuitive approach. In this way sciencewill become a means of enhancing human freedomrather than being a threat to survival as at present.What has been a defensive and conservative disciplinewill become healthy and liberatory.

It can be argued, then, that there are a number ofways in which the supposed objectivity of science canbe questioned, to such an extent that belief inobjectivity in science – within and without thescientific world – is now crumbling. If this is the case,then it begs the question of the status of sociology as asocial science, conceived specifically to emulate theachievements and aspirations of natural science.

Questions

1 What does Kuhn mean by ‘paradigms’ in science?2 How do feminists view science?3 What is the ‘inductive method’?

Values and sociologistsOne of Max Weber’s main aims in setting up theGerman Society for Sociology was to establishsociology as a discipline free from value judgements.What he meant by this was clear from the society’sstatute, which demanded the advancement ofsociology as a science, giving equal space to alldirections and methods in sociology, without at thesame time advancing any specific religious, political orethical goals.

WeberIn this aim he has been frequently misunderstood andmisinterpreted. He did not mean that sociologistscould not be politically active, that they should nothold opinions about the worth or relevance of theirwork or that they should not be interested in thevalues and opinions of the people they studied. Whathe really wanted was for sociologists to recognise thatfacts and values are separate phenomena. ‘These twothings are logically different and to deal with them asthough they were the same represents a confusion of


entirely heterogeneous problems.’ Weber believed thatsociologists should propagate facts, not values,although he knew it was not easy to recognise wherethe line between the two should be drawn.

Nevertheless, Weber argued that values in sociologyare important in that they help guide sociologiststowards relevant areas of research. These will bedecided by what are seen as the dominant culturalproblems of the age, and will change over time. Inthis, he anticipates the possibility of paradigmaticchange in all forms of science. Value freedom,however, is not the same as objectivity. Valuesconcern the choice of subjects studied; objectivityrefers to the collection of data without bias orprejudice. Yet objectivity is only possible within aframework of values.

Sociologists need to recognise that the choice ofstudying ethnic minorities in education rather than girlsin education; working-class rather than middle-classdeviance; or dependence on the Welfare State ratherthan the distribution of wealth is an evaluative one.Clearly, some choices are affected by the researcher’sown values. What Weber was concerned with was thatthese values should be recognised and clearly stated.Only then can data be gathered and conclusionsreached in an objective way. If values still influence theprocess then the researcher is guilty of making ‘valuejudgements’ and the status of the resulting researchmust be called into question. Often the ‘facts’ which asociologist unearths are picked out because they suit hisor her values, while other, perhaps equally relevant,‘facts’ are ignored. Facts are often established becausethey fit in with an underpinning theory.

FunctionalismFor Alvin Gouldner (1970), the functionalism ofParsons and Merton is a good example ofmisunderstanding Weber. What these writers havedone is claim a value-free status for their work,projecting an image of political and ideologicalneutrality. They saw their work as above politics andnon-partisan and, to that extent, as value-free. Thiscan be construed as a form of intellectual dishonesty:the truth is that it is a conservative ideology presentedas social science, believing in the inherent harmonyand stability of the status quo. Hiding this confusesobjectivity with value freedom.

At the other extreme are the openly partisansociologists, for example Howard Becker and manyMarxists and feminists. In Becker’s work (1967 and1973), values dominate the choice of which social

phenomena are studied. Scientific and moralquestions are inseparable. Some people may want todisguise their morals as science, because it gives theirmoral stance greater weight. Instead he suggests thatthose opposed to the status quo ‘whose sympathies Ishare, should attack injustice and oppression directlyand openly, rather than pretend that the judgementthat such things are evil is somehow deducible fromsociological first principles, or warranted by empiricalfindings alone … we sometimes begin with the actionswe want to take and the people we want to help, as abasis for choosing problems and methods’. This doesnot necessarily mean to say that how something isstudied is lacking in objectivity, even if valuesdetermine which social phenomena are studied.

An example given by Becker is the disproportionateamount of research into juvenile behaviour and crimewhich is conducted. According to Becker, mostresearchers begin by asking ‘what is wrong with thekids of today?’ This shows an immediate bias towardsthe status quo, reflecting the views of the police,parents and social workers. Resulting explanations, ifallowed to masquerade as value-free science, take onthe status of ‘truth’. This could be to the detriment ofthose involved, particularly the young. Openlypartisan, Becker sympathises with the underdog,suggesting that it would be equally valid to ask thequestion ‘what is wrong with the parents of today?’

MarxismA similar campaigning thrust exists among Marxists,taking their cue from Karl Marx’s statement (1845):‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world indifferent ways; the point is to change it.’ Marxism isopenly value-laden in its examination of socialdynamics, being anti-capitalist and pro-communist,although Marxists nevertheless believe that theirdepiction of reality is objective and scientific: theprogression from capitalism to communism isinevitable.

FeminismLikewise with feminism, which criticises existingsociology for reflecting male values and male methods.Explicitly feminist knowledge, it has been claimed(Harding, 1987), ‘emerges for the oppressed onlythrough the struggles they wage against theiroppressors. It is through feminist struggles against maledomination that women’s experience can be made toyield up a truer (or less false) image of a social realitythan that available only from the perspective of the

Sociological perspectives 13

social experience of the ruling class races. Thus afeminist standpoint is not something anyone can haveby claiming it, but an achievement. (A standpointdiffers in this respect from a perspective).’

Ann Oakley (1981) argues that feminism demands aparticular rationale of research, which breaks downpatriarchal approaches by seeing respondents asequals, to whom information is divulged by theresearcher as willingly as it is given by the respondent.Feminist theory therefore has a built-in inclinationtowards qualitative methods.

The problem of objectivity and value freedom isunlikely to be easily solved. Because sociology is thestudy of humans by other humans, the problem ofconsciousness and selective perception will always bepresent. Whether this jeopardises the possibility of a‘scientific’ status for sociology depends on how bothsociology and science are defined.

Post-modernismPost-modernist theorists argue that language is valueladen, and social phenomena cannot really be definedin a value-free way. For example, knowing what toinclude in a study of the sociology of art depends on avalue judgement as to what constitutes, or does notconstitute, art. A similar problem is encountered inthe study of poverty. Shipman (1981) argues thatvalues are implicit in the selection and use ofestablished evidence, a body of work whichconstitutes what he terms ‘the mythodology of thesubject’. Some studies are frequently mentioned yetthe evidence on which they are based is frail.Shipman gives the example of the Hawthorneexperiments of the 1930s, which examined theimportance of human relations in the workplace. Heargues that the superiority of good human relations inthe workplace over good material conditions andfinancial regard does not seem justified by the resultsof the experiment, but it was a ‘comfortable’conclusion to draw. This is ultimately because of thesupport that it gave to other values in our culture.

Questions

1 You have read the section on sociology and values.Now try to define the following terms:(a) objectivity (b) subjectivity(c) value freedom (d) ideology(e) patriarchy

2 Are sociological perspectives value free or shouldthey be viewed as ideologies?

Sociological perspectivesMost sociology textbooks, this one included, presentsociology as a divided discipline, with a markedcleavage between two philosophical traditions. Figure1.1 reflects the commonly accepted structure ofsociological perspectives.

Positivism

macro

structure

consensuse.g. Functionalism

conflicte.g. Marxism

Phenomenology

micro

action

Symbolicinteractionism

Ethnomethodology

Social action theorye.g. Weberianism

Figure 1.1

Positivism and phenomenologyPositivism and phenomenology are the philosophicalroots or traditions from which the main perspectivesin sociology have evolved. Positivism, a term firstbrought into use by Auguste Comte (1798–1857),holds that all knowledge can be based on science andscientific thought, and that all behaviour, whether ofobjects or of people, is subject to general laws. Thepossibility of identifying these laws inspired ageneration of mid-to-late nineteenth-century theoristsin many areas of knowledge, although the extent ofits influence on writers such as Marx and Durkheimremains under dispute.

The term phenomenology is most closely associatedwith Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), and in sociologywith Alfred Schutz (1899–1959). In this tradition thebelief is that positivism’s search for social causes isillusory, falling into the trap of determinism.Phenomenology denies that social behaviour, like themovement of atoms and molecules, is determined byexternal forces which are beyond human control. Allthat can realistically be achieved is an understanding ofhow people, individually and collectively, interpret,understand and place meaning on their social reality.Phenomenologists assert that people possess a greaterdegree of free will than positivist sociologists arewilling to admit.

Structure and actionThe debate between the two camps of sociology canalso be seen as one between the concepts of structureand action. For the structuralists, sociology should bethe study of the effects of the structure of society onsocial life – the macro or large-scale view. Patterns


created by structures such as religion, the family,organisations or, for Marxists, capitalist relations ofproduction, are seen to be the starting point inexplaining anything in society. The analysis begins at astructural level. Hence some may argue that anincrease in unemployment can lead to an increase inthe crime rate, or that social disintegration is thecause of suicide. ‘Social facts’ exist as definite realities.

Other sociologists, taking the micro or small-scaleview, doubt the validity of this position. The idea of asocial structure is an abstract one, assuming a world‘out there’ for us to investigate. The truth is that weare already in that world, with each of us having verydifferent assumptions of what it looks like. They arguethat the search for structural clues to social causes andeffects should be abandoned in favour of piecingtogether the way individuals and groups make senseof the world they live in. This involves the analysis ofsocial action, not the intangible structures they arethought to inhabit. ‘Social facts’ do not exist but arecreated and constructed in the process of socialinteraction.

These two approaches can be compared to atelescope. One end will show everything in enlargedform and in great detail (the microview), the otherwill display a world that is small and distant (themacroview). Both are ‘true’ pictures of the samething. In sociology, there is no agreement about whichapproach is best or how the two can be madecompatible.

Marxism and functionalismMarxism and functionalism are seen as twoperspectives both of which look at how the structureof society determines behaviour.

Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodologySymbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology arepresented as perspectives emphasising small-scaleunderstanding of how groups and individualsstructure their perception of action and meaning insociety. These perspectives are often referred tocollectively as interpretive sociology. Somewhere inbetween the two is the tradition emanating from MaxWeber, which explores the possibility of unitingtheories of structure and action in society.

This view of sociology is certainly common. Atypical exam question, implicitly or explicitly,amounts to ‘Compare and contrast Marxist andinteractionist views of sociology’, and most textbooksare written to cater for this demand.

Whether intended or not, the end result is anintellectual condition known as ‘perspectivitis’, whosemain symptoms are the obsessive need to label a pieceof sociological research positivist or phenomenological,Marxist, functionalist or Weberian, interactionist orethnomethodological. The truth is, however, that suchsimplistic labelling can be misleading.

‘Good’ sociologyWhile it is certainly true to say that clearly discerniblesociological traditions of thought do exist, very fewwriters begin their sociological research solely in orderto contribute to the body of knowledge of a givenperspective. What they are principally trying to createis ‘good’ sociology, attempting to answer the question:‘How much can we reliably and validly know abouthuman societies?’ If they find that the best way to dothis is by drawing on the theoretical assumptions andmethodological techniques of the dominantsociological traditions, then so be it. There is noreason, as Paul Willis (1977) found, why someoneusing observation techniques, typical of theinteractionist perspective, should not come toconclusions informed by Marxism. Similarly, feminismdraws from all perspectives, while at the same timebeing both critical and sceptical of the inherent malebias in sociological theory and research to date.

Questions

1 You have looked at a discussion of sociologicalperspectives. Now try to define the following terms:(a) a sociological perspective(b) positivism(c) phenomenology

2 What is meant by ‘structure’ and ‘action’ in sociology?

FunctionalismNo one has ever seen a society. All they can ever seeis small parts at work at different times in differentplaces. The nearest anyone could come would be toobserve a small community, preferably with whatseems to be a simple way of going about theireveryday life. It should then be possible to work outwhat the importance of the things these people do isto the way their community works. Some anthropol-ogists, who themselves come from industrial societies,have undertaken studies of pre-industrial societies stillin existence. Among the best known is A. R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955). A central part of the way he

Sociological perspectives 15

observed these pre-industrial societies was his beliefthat social activity, if it was recurrent, must befunctional to the working of that community. In otherwords, an observable pattern of group activity musthelp maintain the life of that community: it musthave a function. If, for example, a group of people areregularly observed sitting around smoking pipescommunally, this activity may function to bindtogether or integrate the group as a community andreinforce the values of friendliness and co-operation.If the men taking part in this activity are elderly thenit may be one way of maintaining their social power,and a respect for age.

In this way, a wider picture of how society workscan be built up. Like many sociologists before him,Radcliffe-Brown made great use of what is called theorganic analogy in his examination of the waysocieties work, though this idea really comes fromHerbert Spencer (1820–1903) and was also used byEmile Durkheim.

involved in digestion and so on. Each organ has afunction which contributes to the working of thegreater whole. So too with society, where the organsmight be the family, education, the system of religion,work, etc. Any examination of these institutions shouldbegin by asking the question: ‘What does it do to helpthe wider society function?’ Homeostasis is the termapplied to the way in which an organism regulatesitself to cope with changes in internal and externalconditions. For example, after exercise, the heated-upbody sweats to help the body temperature to staystable. When this concept is used to understand howequilibrium is maintained in society, then the organicanalogy becomes more effective.

The analogy also has many limits, however. It isdifficult, for example, to compare the way organismsgrow to the way societies grow and change. Is there asocial equivalent to DNA, the genetic programmepresent in every species? Does a society really have aseries of complementary institutions which worktogether to make the whole function smoothly to themutual benefit of all? In the same way that the skinholds a human body together, so too do norms andvalues bind society together. But does this help usunderstand who determines the norms and values bywhich we live and how the wider society is organised?

Another way of looking at society is to compare itto a mechanism in the way it works, where all thesmall parts, such as in a clockwork watch, functiontogether to achieve the aim of demonstrating the timeof day. Similarly, when people pull together in society,they can achieve collectively held goals such asimprovement in the overall standard of living.

Parsonian functionalismThis is close to Talcott Parsons’ (1902–79) view of theway society functions, and in the 1950s and 1960sParsonian functionalism was virtually the dominantparadigm in sociology. The model of society he putforward has been subsequently heavily criticised, butit is important to understand how his model of societyworked in order to understand the criticisms.

Parsons argues that any society has four functionalneeds or prerequisites that need to be met for it tosurvive: these are adaptation, goal attainment,integration and latency (AGIL). It is hard to believenow that sociologists were excited by the bland andfruitless way that Parsons went about examiningsociety, but many US college students went into theirexams with the four letters AGIL stuck in their heads(or on the palms of their hands).

EMILE DURKHEIM (1858–1917)

French sociologist who did much to establish sociology as adiscipline, particularly with works such as Suicide (1897). Heemphasised the importance of examining society as a wholeand the role of the ‘collective conscience’. He stronglyinfluenced the work of Talcott Parsons and the developmentof American structural functionalism.

The organic analogyThe idea behind the organic analogy is that societiescan be compared to the way a biological organismworks. Someone who had no idea how the body worksmight find, from slicing a human apart, that there werevarious organs inside that make humans work. Theheart functions to pump blood around the veins andarteries, the kidneys clean the blood, the intestines are


They then would have given Parsons’ view that,firstly, all societies must have ways of adapting tochange, whatever that change might be (A); theymust have social aims that everyone wants whichhelp the society determine the direction it’s going in(G); they must have ways of binding their memberstogether to identify with and realise these collectivegoals whether through religion or newspapers ormarriage or whatever (I); and there must be a way inwhich a society’s way of living can survive throughgenerations of people (L). This scheme can be founddetailed in works of his such as The Social System(1951). People born within this system are socialised into it and come to take on the roles thesystem demands: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Manifest and latent functionsOne of the key additions to Parsons’ structural-functionalism has been made by his Americancontemporary, Robert Merton (born 1910). This is thedistinction between manifest and latent functions. Amanifest function is evident when an institutionachieves the goal it clearly intended, for example theway a family socialises its young. A latent functionwould be an unintended consequence of an aspect insociety. No one commits a crime with the deliberateintention of revealing the boundaries of normativebehaviour to the rest of society! Nevertheless, a latentfunction of their criminal behaviour is to demonstratethe limits of socially acceptable behaviour.

Criticisms of functionalismOne of the most frequent criticisms of thefunctionalist perspective is of a logical problem itembraces: if something in society is recurrent,functionalists say that it must be meeting a need. Buthow do we know that this need exists? Because of thephenomenon that we observe! It exists because itexists; it is because it is. In philosophy, this type ofgoing-nowhere argument is known as a tautology.

Secondly, because it focuses on the way in whichdifferent members of society integrate and work inharmony around a value consensus, functionalismlacks any real power to explain social change. Oneconcept that attempts to overcome this is Merton’s useof the concept of dysfunction: the way in which someaspects of society work against its overall harmonyand consensus. Functionalism leans heavily towardsdescribing society in a stable condition, and seems toemphasise the status quo: inequality is inevitable;poverty is inevitable; the media reflect all views;women are domestically orientated; marriages arehappy. Functionalists such as Parsons and Mertonappear to be using their own middle-class, middle-American view of the world and saying this is whatsociety is like.

Functionalism should not be dismissed too quickly,however. Functionalists argue that advancedindustrial societies are stable: people do seem to havefaith in their political system in a democracy;industrial conflict is diminishing; and the majorpolitical parties are competing for the same middleground. It is not difficult even now to make a strongcase for arguing that a value consensus exists inadvanced societies.

Question

You have now looked at an introduction tofunctionalism. Try to define the following terms:(a) the organic analogy(b) functional needs(c) the mechanical analogy(d) a manifest function(e) dysfunction

MarxismAt first sight, Marxism seems difficult to understand.It seems to use more new words and phrases than anyother perspective in sociology. This is not becauseMarx was being awkward, but because of the richlycreative nature of his thought. He needed a number ofnew terms to describe his ideas.

Marx’s historical materialismMarx did not want to simply analyse the world; hewanted to play a part in changing it. His life’s workwas devoted to understanding the way in whichmodern industrial societies change. Marx’s theory issometimes described as ‘historical materialism’. The

TALCOTT PARSONS (1902–79)

American sociological theorist and leader of the functionalistschool that dominated American sociology from the 1940s tothe 1960s. In his famous work The Social System (1951)Parsons tried to show how consensus based on shared valuesis essential to social order. The stratification system is crucialin maintaining consensus in society.

cambridge international as and a level sociology

Documents

level sociology

cambridge cb2

burgess kirby

gce advancedsubsidiary

levelsociologyandy barnard

levelandy barnard

acknowledgementsterry

sociology explained0521