Assignment

On
1. How do physical & social world change? Analyze with reference to Herbert Spencer.
2. Comte’s Contribution to develop theory and methodology of sociology as a separate
discipline.
Course Title: Classical sociological theories.
Course Code: SOC-471

Submitted to
Dr Mohammad Jasim Uddin
Professor
Department of Sociology
Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet
Submitted by
Shah Jalal Ahamed
Regi. No: 2017232074
4th Year 1st Semester
Session:2018-19
Dept. of Sociology, SUST.

Submission date: 02/04/23

 1. Comte Contribution to develop theory and methodology of sociology as a separate
discipline.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was a French philosopher, social thinker, and sociology's founder. He
is regarded as one of the most prominent figures in the development of contemporary social
thought, and he is best known for his positivist philosophy, which emphasized the use of scientific
methods to examine society. Comte believed that sociology could be applied to better understand
the social world, and he advocated for a scientific approach to human behavior research. He is also
credited for coining the word "sociology," as well as creating the concept of the "social organism,"
which compared society to a live entity with its own structure and function. Comte's ideas
influenced the development of social theory and continue to do so in contemporary sociology and
related disciplines.

Comte’s Contribution to develop Sociological Theory

Comte believed that sociology should be based on empirical observation, and that it should be used
to create a better society. He also believed that sociology should be used to study social order and
progress. Comte's ideas helped to establish sociology as a distinct academic discipline. Comte also
proposed a three-stage theory of social development, which is known as the Law of Three Stages.
According to this theory, human societies pass through three stages of development:

• The theological stage: military stage is dominated by ideas that refer to the supernatural
while being structured around slavery and the military.
• The metaphysical stage: judicial stage, which follows from the theological and represents
a transition to the scientific, is typified by ideas that refer to the fundamental essences of
phenomena and by elaborate political and legal forms.
• The positive stage: scientific–industrial stage is dominated by the “positive philosophy of
science” and industrial patterns of social organization.

Comte was impressed with the Newtonian revolution so he argued for a particular view of
sociological theory: All phenomena are subject to invariable natural laws, and sociologists must
use their observations to uncover the laws governing the social universe, in much the same way as
Newton had formulated the law of gravity. In the opening pages of Positive Philosophy, Comte
pointed out three points,
First, sociological theory is not to be concerned with causes per se but, rather, with the laws that
describe the basic and fundamental relations of properties in the social world. Second, sociological
theory must reject arguments by “final causes”—that is, analysis of the results of a particular
phenomenon for the social whole. Third, clearly the goal of sociological activity is to reduce the
number of theoretical principles by seeking only the most abstract and only those that pertain to
understanding fundamental properties of the social world. Comte thus held a vision of sociological
theory as based on the model of the natural sciences, particularly the physics of his time. For this
reason, he preferred the term social physics to sociology.

Comte felt the laws of social organization and change need to be discovered, refined and verified
through a constant interplay between theory and empirical observation. As he said in Positive
Philosophy, “if it is true that every theory must be based upon observed facts, it is equally
true that facts cannot be observed without the guidance of some theory.” In later pages,
Comte became even more assertive and argued against raw empiricism. According to him,
empiricism is the great hindrance to the use of observation, which is introduced into it by
those who, in the name of impartiality, would interdict the use of any theory whatever. And
no real observation of any kind of phenomena is possible, except in as far as it is first directed,
and finally interpreted, by some theory. He also said, isolated empirical observation is idle
and even radically uncertain unless it is connected, at least hypothetically, with some law.

For Comte, society was an organic phenomenon. A major “scientific principle” was that
“there must always be a spontaneous harmony between the whole and the parts of the social
system,” and the only task of any “political system … temporal or spiritual” was to guide the
social system. Then, sociology’s goal was to seek to develop abstract theoretical principles.
Observations of the empirical world must be guided by such principles, and abstract
principles must be tested against the empirical facts. Empirical observations that are
conducted without this goal in mind are not useful in science. For social science “endeavors
to discover . . . the general relations which connect all social phenomena; and each of them is
explained, in the scientific sense of the word, when it has related to the whole of the existing
situation. Comte held a somewhat ambiguous view of how such an abstract science should
be “used” in the practical world of everyday affairs. He clearly intended that sociology must
initially establish a firm theoretical foundation before making efforts to use the laws of
sociology for social engineering. Comte believed that sociology must not allow its scientific
mission to be confounded by empirical descriptions or by an excessive concern with a desire
to manipulate events. Once sociology is well established as a theoretical science, its laws can
be used to “modify” events in the empirical world. Indeed, such was to be the historic mission
of sociology.

Comte’s Contribution to Sociological Methods

Comte was the first social thinker to take methodological questions seriously—that is, how
are facts about the social world to be gathered and used to develop, as well as to test,
theoretical principles? He advocated four methods in the new science of social physics or
present Sociology:

(1) observation: For Comte, positivism was based on use of the senses to observe social facts
—a term that the next great French theorist, Emile Durkheim, made the center of his
sociology. Much of Comte’s discussion of observation involves arguments for the
“subordination of Observation to the statical and dynamical laws of phenomena” rather than
a statement on the procedures by which unbiased observations should be conducted. He
argued that observation of empirical facts, when unguided by theory, will prove useless in
the development of science. He must be given credit, however, for firmly establishing
sociology as a science of social facts, thereby liberating thought from the debilitating realm
of morals and metaphysical speculation.

(2) experimentation: Comte recognized that artificial experimentation with whole societies,
and other social phenomena, was impractical and often impossible. But, he noted, natural
experimentation frequently “takes place whenever the regular course of the phenomenon is
interfered with in any determinate manner.” In particular, he thought that much as is the
case in biology, pathological events allowed “the true equivalent of pure experimentation” in
that they introduced an artificial condition and allowed investigators to see normal
processes reassert themselves in the face of the pathological condition. Biologists can learn
about normal bodily functioning from the study of disease, so also social physicists can learn
about the normal processes of society from the study of pathological cases. Thus, although
Comte’s view of “natural experimentation” was certainly deficient in the logic of the
experimental method, it nonetheless fascinated subsequent generations of scholars.

(3) comparison: Three forms of comparison are possible in sociology: comparison of human
and animal societies, comparison of all existing human societies, and comparison of societies
at different stages of development. The first form of comparison has “scientific utility” in
illustrating the “elementary laws of social interconnection, by exhibiting their action in the
most imperfect state of society”. The second comparison illustrates the different
evolutionary stages of all societies. But it is the third form, historical comparison, that is the
“chief scientific device” for sociology.

(4) historical analysis: Comte originally classified historical analysis as a variation of the
comparative method (i.e., comparing the present with the past). But his “law of the three
stages” emphasized that the laws of social dynamics could ultimately be developed only with
careful observations of the historical movement of societies. (Turner, et al., 2011)

To summarize, Comte considered these four fundamental procedures as appropriate for

sociological study. His methods formulation is rather weak by modern standards, but we
should remember that prior to Comte, little thought had been given to how social facts were
to be acquired. As a result, while the specifics of Comte's methodological proposals are not
always relevant, their spirit and goal are. In his vision, 'social physics' would be a theoretical
discipline capable of formulating and verifying the rules of social organization and change.
This notion gained legitimacy as a result of his description of sociology's methodologies.

According to critics, Comte's philosophy is reductionist, oversimplifying complex social

phenomena and ignoring the role of subjectivity and interpretation. His emphasis on the
progress of society towards a perfect state has also been criticized for being too
deterministic and ignoring the role of human agency. However, Comte's ideas have been
highly influential in the development of modern social thought. His emphasis on systematic
observation and data collection has been adopted by modern sociologists and is seen as a
cornerstone of the discipline. Comte's concept of social physics also laid the groundwork for
the development of sociology as a distinct discipline. Furthermore, his emphasis on the
scientific method has been highly influential in the development of modern social science,
not only in sociology but also in economics, political science, and psychology. In conclusion,
while Comte's work has been subject to criticism, his ideas have had a significant impact on
the development of modern social thought and social sciences.

Reference

Adams, B. N., & Sydie, R. A. (2001). Sociological theory. SAGE Publications, Inc.,

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233925

Ritzer,G.(2011). Sociological theory. New York: Mc-Graw Hill press

Turner, J. H., Beeghley, L., & Powers, C. H. (2011). The Emergence of Sociological Theory.

SAGE Publications.
 2. How does the physical and social world change? Analysis with reference to Herbert
Spencer.

Herbert spencer was used to be considered as one of the founding fathers who ‘shaped the
emergence of sociology as a distinctive scientific discipline’ during his lifetime (Munich, 1994).
But he was almost forgotten after his death due to the significant drawbacks in his theories found
by sociologists. His theory of evolution of societies was prominent. Spencer’s theories were
substantially connected with the evolutionary change in the social structures and the social
institutions (Abraham and Morgan, 1985). The change in the physical and social world can be
analyzed by Spencer’s evolutionary theory.

Although some societies might fail to progress and others might backslide, Spencer believed that,
generally speaking, societies would evolve just as the natural world and human beings evolve.
Spencer used an organic analogy as a basis for understanding the evolution of society and for
classifying societal types based on his observations. He utilized the principles of physical and
biological evolution in order to elaborate and explain his theory of social evolution.

Evolutionary Theory

Herbert Spencer, in the second half of the 19th century, adopted Charles Darwin's principle of
evolution and was enamored by "Social Darwinism". Spencer believed in the doctrine of the
"Survival of the fittest" and argued that only strong creatures survive and evolve while the weak
are gradually eliminated. According to Spencer, evolution is an integration of matter and
concomitant dissipation of motion during which matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent
homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity and during which the retained motion undergoes
a parallel transformation.

According to Lewis A. Coser, “The very- foundation of Spencerism is the evolutionary doctrine
or the law of evolution. In his “First Principles” he traced everything in the world back through
causal chains to two fundamental factors. These are matter and motion—two aspects of force.
According to Spencer, the law of evolution is the supreme law of every becoming. Spencer’s
interpretation of evolutionary theory can be divided into two parts-

A. General or Physical Evolutionary Theory

B. The theory of Social Evolution
 Physical Evolution

In physical evolution, a movement is from indefinite incoherent situation to definite and coherent
situation. Besides, the underlying principles of physical evolution are a movement from simple to
complex and homogeneity to heterogeneity. For Spencer, evolution pervaded the inorganic as well
as organic realm. His voluminous work also treated “Super organic evolution” (Which today we
would term social evolution), and evolution of super organic products (what we call cultural
evolution). Within the Framework of Universal evolution, Spencer developed his basic three laws
and four secondary propositions—each building upon each and all upon the doctrine of evolution.

The Three Basic Laws:

(i) The Law of persistence of force: The First law is energy or force tends to persist. In the course
of evolutionary change there is no increase in energy or force. Energy or Force is persistence. It
undergoes no change. Energy or Force is the cause of evolution, but it is unaffected by the
evolutionary process.

(ii) The Law of the indestructibility of matter: The Second law is “matter is indestructible”. Matter
as one form or aspect of energy is never destroyed. It may undergo formal changes. The changes
in the form of matter are responsible for the evolutionary process. But the fundamental nature of
matter never changes. The basic elements of matter and energy in the world are neither created,
nor destroyed but conserved.

(iii) The law of Continuity of motion: The third law is, “motion is continuous, and it is never
wholly dissipated”. There are of course, changes in the form of motion. On account of these
changes, there are stages in the evolutionary process. There is perpetual continuity of motion in
the world. All things continue in motion.

Four Secondary Propositions:

(i) Persistence of the relationship between the forces. (Harmony of all laws): According to Spencer
there must be harmony among the various laws of evolution. No two laws should contradict each
other. There exists a uniformity or regularity of relationships among defined phenomena in the
world. The world is an order of elements.
(ii) Principle of formal changes and uniformity: Matter and motion is not completely destroyed.
These undergo changes in form only. Of course, during formal change, the quantum of matter and
motion remains static. The force, the elements of matter, the motion are never lost in the process
of change. They are merely transformed into the manifestation of some other event.

(iii) Principle of least resistance and greatest attraction: The direction of evolution is always
towards the line of least resistance or greatest attraction. All forces and elements move along the
line of least resistance and greatest attraction.

(iv) Principle of gradual motion: For evolution, motion is essential, but it is not required that
motion should be at one level all the time. It may speed up or slow down. All phenomena in nature
have their own particular rate and rhythm of movement of duration and development.

Herbert Spencer argued that the evolution of human societies is a special case of a universally
applicable natural law that applies to all aspects of the universe, whether organic or inorganic,
social or non-social. According to Spencer, all phenomena of nature, including inorganic, organic,
and super organic, follow the definite pattern of change from homogeneous to heterogeneous, from
simple to complex, and from undifferentiated to specialized structure and functions. Spencer
attributed this pattern of change to the persistence of force, the indestructibility of the basic
elements of material substance, and the continuity of motion, among other factors.

Social Evolution

From the analysis of physical evolution Spencer convinced that the underlying principles of all
evolution are two:

(i) Movement from- simple to complex.

(ii) Movement from homogeneous to heterogeneous.

From the analysis of biological evolution spencer utilized the principle, that those creatures survive
in the struggle for existence who are able to make effective adjustment with changing
circumstances. So, Spencer utilized both physical and biological evolution for his theory of social
evolution. Like physical evolution, in social evolution there is a movement from simple to
complex. Society is moving from homogeneous to heterogeneous structure. Society is also moving
from indefinite to definite stage.
Spencer has borrowed the idea from biological evolution that those cultures survive which are able
to adjust themselves with the changing circumstances. If a civilization is unable to make
adjustment with the changing circumstances, it caves in and gradually becomes extinct. Spencer’s
theory of social evolution points out to two stages:

1. The movement from simple to compound societies.

2. Change from militant society to industrial society.

The movement from simple to compound societies—This is seen in four types of societies in terms
of evolutionary levels.

• Simple societies are characterized as “headless” because they form a “single working whole
unsubjected to any other,” and the “parts co-operate with or without a regulating center, for certain
public ends”.

• Compound societies result from the merger, either peaceful or because of war, of two or more
simple societies under the regulation of a supreme chief. They are usually more settled agricultural
societies with some basic division of labor and permanent residences.

• Doubly compound societies have more complex political structures, more “rigid and complex”
ecclesiastical forms, and a formal legal system, and they “demonstrate considerable progress in
knowledge and the arts”. Generally, compound societies become doubly compound only after the
parts have consolidated under a single head, whether “by conquest or by federation in war”.

• Trebly compound societies are the “great civilized nations” of the past and the present. These are
the societies in which the complexity of structures and the increased mutual dependence is most
apparent.

In all cases, the stages must be passed through in succession. “No tribe becomes a nation by simple
growth,” and “no great society is formed by the direct union of the smallest societies”.

Change from Military society to Industrial societies:

Spencer classified societies by their degree of complexity. He proposed the basis of internal
regulations within societies. To distinguish between what he called militant and industrial societies,
he used as the basis a difference in social organization brought about through forms of social
regulation. Herbert Spencer stressed that the degree of societal complexity is independent of
Militant-industrial dichotomy. What determines whether a society is militant or industrial is not
the level of complexity but rather the presence or absence of conflict outside. While the
classification of societies in terms of increasing evolutionary complexity gave Spencer’s system
an optimistic cast where he later used the term evolution, he earlier spoke of progress-the militant-
industrial classification led him to less sanguine views of the future of mankind. Spencer was by
no means, as he is often depicted, the unalloyed believer in the continued unilinear process. This
becomes even more evident in his general scheme of evolution.

Spencer's theory has been criticized for being reductionist and deterministic, ignoring the role
cultural and historical factors in society's development, justifying social inequality, and promoting
a "dog-eat-dog" worldview. However, his ideas have had a significant impact on modern social
thought and sociology, with his emphasis on evolution and adaptation being adopted as key
concepts. Spencer's concept of social evolution has also influenced the development of sociology
as a distinct discipline, and his emphasis on individualism and laissez-faire capitalism has had a
significant impact on modern economic thought and policy. Despite its criticism, Spencer's
evolutionary theory has had a lasting influence on the development of modern social thought and
social sciences.

Reference

Turner, J. H., (1993) Classical Sociological Theory A Positivist’s Perspective, Chicago: Nelson-

Hall Publishers.

Turner, Jonathan H., Beeghley, Leonard, & Powers, Charles H. (2002). The emergence of

sociological theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, pp. 55-89.