Learning Objective:

In this lecture, students will be able to understand about the meaning of sociology and the origin
of sociology with respect to the major sociologists.

Following topics will be covered in this lecture:

 Meaning of sociology

 Scientific thinking vs. tradition

 August Comte

 Herbert Spencer

 Karl Marx

 Emile Durkheim

Click here to view the PPTs of Lesson-1

Topic-001: Meaning of Sociology

Sociology is the systematic and scientific study of society, social structures, and human
behaviour. Sociologists examine how these social structures and institutions come into being as
well as the structural and institutional influences that impact our daily lives, behaviours, and
societal values. The fact that sociology is an academic field of study does not, however, imply
that it is merely "a thing to be studied... sociology is, first and foremost, a thing lived" (Lemert,
2008: xv). The sociologist Peter Berger (1963:4) may have been correct when he stated that
"Sociology is not a practise but an attempt to understand." This necessitates that sociologists
approach routine events in a slightly different way than the majority of people do (Thomson and
Hickey, 2016).

Topic-002: Scientific Thinking vs Tradition

The scientific revolution of the 17th century opened the way for a fresh perspective on the
universe. Systematic observation and empirical data were highly valued components of the
scientific method. This approach challenged conventional wisdom and notions. It led to the
development of new academic specialties like sociology. Sociology was developed as a result of
the social problems and changes of the contemporary era. It made an effort to use science to
investigate social problems. Sociology sought to provide a logical and ordered understanding of
society and human behaviour. It challenged established ways of thinking and offered new
perspectives on the social environment.

Major Sociologists
Topic-003: Positivism: Auguste Comte (1798-1857)

According to Blumberg (1974), Auguste Comte had a science education while being raised as a
Catholic nobleman. He was Claude Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825)'s (1760–1825) private
secretary and partner for a long time. Saint-Simon promoted an observational, positivist social
scientific technique. The word "sociology," which Comte popularized, was used to convey his
idea that a social physics, or science that would mimic the natural sciences, might reveal general
principles characterizing society. Comte is recognized for creating a "Positive Philosophy" for
the study of humanity (Dillon 2014).

Focus on Objectivity

According to Comte, sociology should only consider observable evidence and approach its
subject with the same objectivity and impartiality, as well as the same systematic attention to
processes and causes, that physical scientists employ, as demonstrated, for instance, in the study
of plants by biologists. Comte felt that social life could be researched in a manner comparable to
how we don't anticipate a biologist's actual findings of plant life to be influenced by his or her
values or social background (Dillon 2014).

Positivism

Auguste Comte is credited with being the first to advocate positive thinking, or the application of
the scientific method to the social context. Comte's views on the French Revolution's upheavals
and the changes he experienced when he moved to Paris from the little hamlet where he had
grown up led him to become interested in the links that bind society. He began to wonder what
causes social order, as opposed to chaos or anarchy. He wondered what causes society to change
once it has set itself on a certain course. Comte came to the conclusion that these problems
required the application of the scientific method. Just as the scientific approach had revealed the
law of gravity, the laws underpinning society will be revealed. Comte first used the term
"sociology" to refer to this novel area of research, which he called "the study of society" (from
the Greek logos, "study of," and the Latin socius, "companion," or "being with others"). He
asserted that the objective of this new science was to identify social principles and then use them
to promote social improvement. Comte developed the lofty expectation that sociologists can
fundamentally alter society and improve conditions for everybody (Henslin 2010).

Law of three Stages

According to Comte, sociology is the end result of a three-stage historical progression. People
held the religious belief that society is how God's will is manifested from the beginning of
human history until the end of the European Middle Ages about 1350 C.E. The theological
perspective gave way to a metaphysical period of history when people began to see society as a
natural system rather than a supernatural one with the advent of the Renaissance in the fifteenth
century. Early scientists like the Polish astronomer Copernicus (1473–1543), the Italian
astronomer and physicist Galileo (1564–1642), and the English physicist and mathematician
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) contributed to what Comte called the scientific stage of history.
Comte made a contribution by extending the scientific method—first employed to explore the
physical world—to the study of society. in 2012 (Macionis).

Topic-004: Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

Spencer was born on April 27, 1820, in England. He is frequently referred to as the second
founder of sociology and is regarded as the British counterpart to Aristotle. His thoughts had a
significant influence on subsequent writers. It is impossible to separate the name of Spencer from
the introduction of sociology to England. He might be thought of as an original and independent
thinker. The fields of philosophy, biology, psychology, anthropology, and sociology have all
benefited greatly from his contributions. The following is a list of Herbert Spencer's major
works.

1. Social Statics (1850)

2. First Principles (1862).

3. The study of Sociology (1873)

4. The Principles of Sociology in three volumes (1876-96)

5. The Man verses the State (1884)

Spencer’s evolutionary theory and Sociology

He asserted that cultures evolve naturally from more primitive ("barbarian") to more
sophisticated ("civilised") forms. This natural process improves civilization. The strongest and
smartest members of a society—often referred to as "the fittest"—survive while the less capable
and intelligent individuals perish. The fittest people will create a more advanced civilisation,
unless misguided good people get in the way and let the less fit (the lower classes) survive.
Spencer referred to this idea as "survival of the fittest." Charles Darwin is widely credited with
having proposed that species evolve over time as they adapt to their environment (Henslin 2010),
despite the fact that Spencer coined the phrase. Spencer and Social Darwinism Darwin
discusses the evolution of species, while Spencer discusses the evolution of society. Because
Darwin is more well-known, Spencer's thesis is known as social Darwinism. (If the situation had
been different, we might be discussing "biological Spencerism."). Others felt Spencer's assertion
that helping the needy was improper offensive. Many wealthy merchants of the day, however,
supported the theory of the survival of the fittest because they thought they were "the fittest" and,
therefore, superior. Thanks to Spencer's perspectives, I'm positive some of them were able to
avoid feeling bad about living opulently while those around them were hungry (Henslin, 2010).

Ethics and Politics

Spencer argues that morality was formed by people, even though God decides what is good and
bad. The failure of a civilization to adapt to its surroundings was the root of evil, which would
have lessened in a properly evolved society. Spencer's opposition to government meddling in
private concerns, especially economic ones, can be characterized as libertarian politics. He also
disapproved of organizations, schools, and other services run by the government, such as rubbish
collection. Additionally, he was against private altruism since he adhered to the idea that only the
strongest would survive. Whether it came from the government or an individual, he thought
charitable giving benefited the ill and underutilized elements of society.

Topic-005: Capitalism: Karl Marx (1818-1883)

He was a political philosopher and economist from Germany who was born in Prussia in 1818.
In Europe, 1848 was known as the "Year of Revolutions" because workers' and commoners'
uprisings against the monarchs in Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, and France. The
Communist Manifesto was written that year by Marx and Friedrich Engels, who had both
participated in the German revolutionary movement. Marx's revolutionary beliefs led to his
expulsion from Germany and later France. 1883 saw his passing (Dillon 2014).

Wage labor

Although wage workers may believe they are only attempting to make ends meet, in reality, their
labour power is a commodity that is bought and sold on the market for the benefit of others'
profit-seeking (Dillon 2014).

Alienation

It could seem that the division of labour is necessary in order to assign responsibility and
expertise for the many complex activities that must be completed in society and to ensure that
labour is used efficiently to produce the large amount of commodities needed to meet consumer
demand. Marx wants us to see it otherwise, as dehumanizing to the individual and to society.
According to Marx, commercialization of labour culminates in the reduction of employees to
commodities (with exchange- and use-value), which leads to alienation, or alienated labour. Due
to capitalism's profit-driven production goals and labor-dividend mechanisms, as well as its
economic and social structure (Dillon 2014), alienated labour is a result.

Capitalism as Structured Inequality

Contrary to state ownership in socialist states, such as North Korea, capitalism is a form of
production based on unequal private ownership of the means of production. The proletariat, who
must toil hard to meet production demands in factories, farms, mines, corporate offices, and
hotels, and who through their work transform raw materials into commodities (including services
and information), is the class of capitalists known as the bourgeoisie who own and control the
means of production, i.e., property, such as land, oil wells, railroads, factories, and corporations.
The property-less workers, such as hotel housekeepers, continue to toil for low wages,
maintaining, as Marx argued, the ever-widening economic and social gap between capitalists and
workers (Dillon 2014). As a result, capitalists use this profit to increase their ownership of
private property.

Dialectical Materialism
Marx believed that history wasn't a smooth process. It is demonstrated that there are conflicts or
tensions in each historical-economic age (such as capitalism, feudalism, and slave societies).
Change only happens when social revolution—"revolution is the driving force of history"—
makes these contradictions, as well as the social forces and ties that reproduce them, public and
shatters them. Marx's historical perspective holds that particular economic and
social practices are the outcome of the economic conditions that people have developed and put
in place at a specific historical epoch. These behaviours motivate some groups to challenge the
unfair living conditions they are forced to endure, which opens the door for the development of
new social and material (economic) conditions. Dialectical materialism was the term Marx used
to describe this historical process. The word "dialectic" is derived from the Greek verb dialegein,
which means "to argue," and was used by philosophers from Plato to Hegel to highlight the
errors in the logical justification for philosophical notions. Instead than following a linear
framework, this approach frequently uses a thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure. Marx put more
emphasis on "the production of material life itself" than on the development of ideas, which he
believed to be the real history (Dillon 2014).

Topic-006: Empiricism: Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

In April 1858, Emile Durkheim was born in France to a traditional middle-class family. Given
that he lived through a period of significant social, economic, and political upheaval, it is not
unexpected that he, like Marx, focused on social change and industrial civilization. However,
Durkheim was more concerned with the topic of social order than Marx, who focused on the
structural problems with capitalism (such as class inequality). He had a similar curiosity to Saint-
Simon, Comte, and Rousseau in how social order might be produced and maintained as social
evolution took place (Bellah 1973: xviii).

Social Structures

Durkheim viewed society as a complex system whose constituent components or structures (such
as economic activity, law, science, family structure, etc.) are all interrelated but whose separate
functioning permits the efficient operation of the entire society. His sociology is frequently
referred to as functionalism or structural functionalism as a result (Dillon 2014).

Scientific Sociology: The Study of Social Facts

Durkheim still has an impact on sociology as it is used today. This is true, especially in
American sociology. Even though many contemporary sociologists might dispute any debt to
Durkheim, his method of analysis has had a profound impact on how sociologists examine the
world today. He provided a scientific sociological approach in The Rules of Sociological
Method, which was first published in 1895. He presented the scientific technique that has
affected what sociologists undertake when undertaking quantitative research in a ground-
breaking study of suicide rates in nineteenth-century Europe (published in Suicide, 1897). This
comprises investigating the statistical correlations between independent and dependent variables
as well as defining and measuring social variables. Durkheim used the phrase "social facts" to
refer to all of the collective and external ways that society shapes, structures, and controls the
behaviour of its members. According to Durkheim, the first and most important rule is to
approach social facts as objects, as entities that exist in society objectively and that can be
investigated objectively. Since social facts are things that objectively exist outside of ourselves
and can be objectively quantified using a number of indicators, we can study social phenomena
regardless of our personal thoughts or attitudes towards the topic. Consider religion. There are
many unresolved issues with religion. Is there a God? Does God hear our prayers? Is there an
afterlife? These questions cannot be experimentally answered by any researcher, not even the
most fervent follower of their faith. But many sociologists, following Durkheim, look at religion
as a social fact, an objective thing in society, using signs of its thingness, such as how regularly
individuals attend church. The sociologists then investigate how various social activities, such as
voting, drinking alcohol, and doing community service, can affect or be affected by how
frequently people attend church.

Even though all of these statistics are social facts because they establish social norms, cultural
expectations, and individual choices, they should not be confused with "statistical facts," such as
divorce or birth rates, or the proportions of girls and boys who attend college. Social facts, which
go well beyond statistical data (Dillon 2014), include how social institutions, social norms, and
society expectations govern social behaviour.

Nature of Society

According to Durkheim, society is a collectivity with its own qualities and characteristics rather
than just a group of people. Society is more than the sum of the individuals that make it up; it
consists of social relationships (such as family, friends, and community), social patterns (such as
demographic trends), and social organization structures (such as occupational divisions,
bureaucracy, marriage, and the church), all of which independently control how people behave
both individually and in groups. Although a marriage is a contract between two people, marriage
as a social fact predates and outlives the lifetime of any couple, and people's propensity to marry
is itself limited by a variety of social facts, such as the state of the economy, religious
expectations and prohibitions, divorce laws, and cultural expectations (such as those regarding
age of marriage/cohabitation). So, according to Durkheim, society has its own reality, or what he
refers to as a sui generis reality, which is a collective reality that acts independently of individual
actors. Therefore, society limits our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours by the numerous social
structures, common practices, and standards that it has established. These external restraints are
external to the self; they have a separate existence in society and are not reducible by the will of
the person (Dillon 2014).

Data centered Sociology/Empirical Sociology

According to Durkheim, seeing phenomena as objects entails treating them as data, and thus
serves as the foundation for science. The entire social reality is up for empirical inquiry in this
scientific process, and "the conventional character of a practise or an institution should never be
assumed in advance," according to the scientific method. As a result, even though we study
topics like friendship, crime, and families that may seem obvious or that we assume we already
know, by studying these social phenomena scientifically - using data and drawing conclusions
from data - we are likely to discover or clarify aspects of the phenomenon. He did an empirical
research, Suicide (1897), where he looked at suicide rates in 19th-century Europe, to show this.
He investigates how social integration or regulation differs by a number of independent
(predictor) characteristics to increase the chance of suicide using suicide as the dependent
(outcome) variable (Dillon 2014).

Suicide: A Social Fact

Despite being a personal decision, suicide is a social phenomenon. Even though we could view
suicide as a "social problem," Durkheim thought that every civilization deals with some level of
suicide. Harriet Martineau defined suicide as "the voluntary surrender of life from any cause" as
early as the seventeenth century, and like Durkheim, she acknowledged it as a common social
fact that was a symptom of varied social integration and regulation. Therefore, independent of
the precise personal circumstances in which individuals commit suicide, Durkheim believed that
suicide may - and should, in his opinion - be explored in terms of its antecedent social
environment, particularly, its relationship to social integration. From his analysis of suicide rates
in Western Europe, Durkheim concluded that "suicide varies inversely with the degree of
integration of the social groups of which the individual forms a part" (Su 209). The social groups
a person belongs to and how tightly they are integrated into those groups determine how free
they can be. He distinguished between four major categories of suicide (Dillon 2014).

Altruistic Suicide

Altruistic suicide, according to Dillon (2014), is the kind of suicide that happens when a person
integrates too much with his social group. When there is great social integration, people are so
focused on living up to the expectations of the community or group that when they fall short of
those goals, suicide becomes the only honourable course of action (Su 221).

Egoistic Suicide

Egoistic suicide, as the name implies, refers to suicide in social contexts where people are overly
self-centered and, as a result, only weakly connected to other people and social groupings.
Individualism is strongly appreciated in contemporary western culture; nevertheless, as
Durkheim stressed, the sophisticated division of labour brought about
by industrialization necessitates individual specialization. The communal conscience
really honors individual freedom and ambition rather than curbing each person's egoistic desires.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that some people become so self-centered that they have
fewer opportunities and outlets for social relationships (family, friends, community) (Dillon
2014).

Anomic Suicide

The French word "anomie," which means "the absence of norms or established standards,"
describes situations in which the typical social patterns are abruptly disrupted. It is challenging
for today's communities to act as a socially integrating anchor for individuals and families
because many people now reside in what could be aptly described as "places without roots,"
communities that draw transients and people on the move for a variety of economic and personal
reasons. We would anticipate significant suicide rates in these dark environments (Dillon 2014).
Social Solidarity: Organic Solidarity and Mechanical Solidarity

Mechanical Solidarity

The ideas and social ties that define traditional societies' structural and cultural sameness result
in what Durkheim refers to as mechanical solidarity; social bonds are formed and maintained in
this way because they are part of the community's fundamental structure. It is extremely simple
to create social cohesion when members of a community share overlapping social relationships,
comparable family histories, vocations, experiences, and beliefs. The mechanical solidarity that
Durkheim assigns to traditional communities is well-illustrated by Vacherie, Louisiana, the most
rooted town in the most rooted state in America. A mechanical maintenance of the community's
social ties, order, and cohesion is ensured by its closely bound and overlapping family and
neighbourhood relationships, the force of its collective expectations on social habits (such as
Sunday dinner with the extended family), and long-established shared occupational histories and
leisure routines (Dillon 2014).

Organic Solidarity

The highly specialised division of labour necessitates and produces interdependence, which
results in what Durkheim refers to as "organic solidarity." This solidarity is comparable to that
seen in higher animals. While it is true that each organ has unique qualities and a degree of
autonomy all its own, the more the organism functions as a whole, the more distinct the
individualization of its parts becomes. Using this comparison, we suggest designating the
solidarity that comes from the division of labour as "organic" (Dillon 2014).

Collective Conscience

Durkheim uses this phrase (which is translated from the French conscience collective) to refer to
a society's or community's collectively held sentiments, values, and ideals. The collective
conscience exercises great control over the entire community, upholding social harmony and
order by stringently policing individual expectations and conduct. For instance, it would be
challenging for a woman to refuse the expectation that she assist in making the Sunday supper
for the extended family in Vacherie, Louisiana. The individual rather "is absorbed into the
collective" in traditional communities where there is minimal independence, no personal
freedom, and little anonymity. This creates a strong sense of social belonging but also limits an
individual's ability to deviate from the rules and authorities of the group. Anyone who grew up in
a small town can relate to this sentiment; it can be difficult to escape your neighbor's prying eyes,
and especially as you navigate your adolescent years in search of adventure, you might find the
"social horizon" of the neighbourhood to be too restrictive, too limiting, and overwhelming of
your personal desires (Dillon 2014).

Religion and Science

Durkheim understood that the dogmatic hold of conventional religious systems would dissolve
with the development of modern society, particularly the emergence of individualism (needed by
the specialized division of labour) and the expansion of science as the base of knowledge.
Durkheim, however, also thought that bringing people together through science was not enough.
He did not view science and religion as being in opposition to one another, but rather as serving
related purposes. Religion (and its functional analogues, such as baseball, soccer, etc.) gives
action — the "moral remaking" and social bonding that centre around its rituals. Science supplies
information. Therefore, "science cannot take the place of religion. Because even while science
may express life, it cannot create it. It does not strengthen social ties. So, according to Durkheim,
religion would continue to exist as an enduring social truth and would change and adapt rather
than dwindle. As we can see, traditional religion continues to play an important role in social
integration in many societies, particularly in the US, but there are also a variety of other sacred
activities that bring people together and strengthen social cohesion and solidarity, such as
sporting events, knitting circles, and book clubs (Dillon 2014).

Learning Objective:

In this lecture, students will be able to understand the broader social phenomena including
human behavior and causality by understanding and applying the concept of sociological
imagination.

Following topics will be covered in this lecture:

 Sociological Imagination

 Thinking like a Sociologist: Key Questions

 Sociology and common sense

 Perspectivising human behavior

 Understanding causality

 Sociological Themes and Topics

Click here to view the PPTs of Lesson-2

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
A interesting glimpse of social life is provided by sociology. The sociological viewpoint (or
imagination) provides a portal into unfamiliar environments and a new perspective on ones that
are already well-known. The social surroundings in which people live are important from a
sociological standpoint. It looks into the effects these circumstances have on people's lives. The
topic of how individuals are impacted by groups, particularly by their society—a group of people
who share a culture and a territory—lies at the core of the sociological approach. Sociologists
examine social location—the spaces in life that people occupy as a result of their social position
—to learn why people behave in certain ways. Sociologists study how people's beliefs and
actions are influenced by their jobs, income, education, gender, race, and ethnicity. Think about
how, for instance, growing up and being associated with a group called males or females shaped
your ideas of who you are today. Growing up as a male or female also shaped your ideas of what
you should achieve in life and how you should interact with others. According to sociology C.
Wright Mills, "the sociological imagination enables us to grasp the connection between history
and biography." According to Mills, each culture is a part of a vast stream of historical events.
This provides each community unique traits, such its views on the appropriate roles for men and
women. Mills defined biography as our experiences within these historical contexts, which shape
our worldviews. In other words, people don't act in certain ways because of internal mechanisms
they inherited, like instincts. The society in which we grow up, and our placement in that society,
lie at the centre of what we do and how we think; rather, external influences—our experiences—
become part of our drive. (2011) Henslin.

The Global Context and the Local

How things have evolved! Our ancestors resided in sleepy towns and remote fields. They
produced their own clothing and farmed their own food. Only sugar, coffee, and a few other non-
producible commodities were purchased. A world that they could only dimly perceive lay
beyond the boundaries of their little settlements. Contrarily, the labels on our apparel (from Hong
Kong to Italy) and the numerous other imported goods that have entered our daily lives scream
that our world has become a little, interconnected community. We continue to live in our own
little worlds despite the fact that we have access to instant communication with everyone on the
earth via phone or the Internet. Our worlds are also characterised by differences in family
background, religion, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic class, just as those of our
forebears. We continue to discover new perspectives on the world in these nooks. one of the
lovely—and

The ability to examine both sides of our contemporary reality—our participation in a global
network and our singular experiences in our more intimate spheres of existence—is one of
sociology's most exciting features. Both of these worlds are represented in this literature and are
crucial to comprehending who we are (Henslin 2011).

Social Problems

Who or what inspires sociologists to study social phenomena? Why, for instance, do they
research obesity as a social phenomenon? The fact that a subject is studied by sociologists is
significant when considering whether or not it is a social problem. But what exactly are social
issues? An issue that (Mills, 2000): i. Goes beyond the individual (it impacts many people); ii. Is
an issue about which many people are concerned (it is in conflict with particular principles).

As more people are impacted (criterion 1) and as they are in greater conflict with prevailing
ideals (criterion 2), social problems become more serious.

Topic-007: Sociological Imagination (C. Wright Mills)

We can perceive how society and ourselves relate to one another more clearly by applying our
social imaginations. This, according to sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959), necessitates our
understanding of the relationship between biography (a person's life experiences within a
particular community) and history (events that have molded an entire society's values and
beliefs). Although it is sometimes disregarded, this crucial connection is crucial for sociological
understanding because it sets individual behaviour in a broader societal framework. It serves as a
reminder that we are, in part, products of the particular society and historical era in which we
currently reside, but it also recognizes that we are history makers who shape society via our
deeds (Thompson and Hickey 2016).

Personal Issues vs. Social Problems: The relationship between personal problems that impact an
individual (such as becoming an alcoholic) and social problems that represent a problem for the
entire society (such as alcoholism) can be seen as being significant when using a sociological
imagination (Mills, 1959). Because it allows us to recognize the general in the specific, this
distinction is essential to sociology (Berger, 1963). Sociologists examine behavioral patterns to
make general judgements about a social issue that go beyond the impact of the problem or issue
on any particular person. For instance, sociology concentrates on the bigger issue of alcoholism
and its effects on society, despite the fact that it may have catastrophic effects on the alcoholic
and his or her immediate family. This larger sociological perspective may cover topics like trans-
cultural values and attitudes towards alcohol use, alcohol abuse and use on college campuses,
drinking and driving, the distinctions and overlaps between alcoholism and other types of drug
abuse, as well as other sociological concerns. This is not to argue that sociologists don't care
about people and their lives; rather, sociology focuses on how people interact with one another,
how they fit into society, and how society and people are intertwined (Thompson and Hickey
2016).

Topic-008: Thinking like a Sociologist: Key Questions

 What are the institutions and social structures that influence how people behave?

 How do social norms, values, and beliefs affect how people act and interact with one
another?

 How do inequality and power function in society?

 What are the root causes and effects of societal issues?

 How do people and communities establish and uphold social order?

  What effects do social movements and societal transformation have on people and society
as a whole?

 How may sociological understanding be applied to advance social justice and transform
society?

 Using Pakistani society as an example, consider how caste and religion influence social
stratification and inequality.

Topic-009: Sociology and Common Sense

Sociology ought to make common sense, right? This topic may be brought up with you by a
friend, a member of your family, or someone else you chatted to about sociology. Sociology is a
very new topic of study, having only just started in earnest about 1900, as compared to other
academic fields like physics and biology. In a little more than 100 years, during which time there
has been a significant improvement in scientific observations and interpretations, it has evolved
into a renowned social science with evident societal value. However, oftentimes people are
unable to see the advances made in sociology and think that it is only another sort of received
wisdom. Why do individuals sometimes think in this way?

In his book Why Everything is Obvious—Once You Know the Facts, sociologist Duncan Watts
argues that common sense helps us to find solutions to the challenges we encounter every day.
To provide a few examples, how should we conduct ourselves when engaging with others, how
do we navigate the traffic to work, and how do we keep up good relationships. We typically use
common sense automatically to solve a range of little issues. He also makes it clear that when it
comes to understanding social phenomena, this method of thinking is frequently wholly
inaccurate. What's worse is that common sense mistakes can happen to anyone; individuals
frequently mistakenly feel that only other people make them. Watts was a mathematician and
physicist before he developed an interest in sociology. He adds the intriguing point that many
individuals still do so when it comes to social phenomena, yet few people today would dare to do
so when it comes to physics, which regularly produces paradoxical findings. Being human makes
it easier to explain human behaviour than it would be to put oneself in the position of, say, an
electron and describe how electrons behave. Watts claims that people put too much trust in their
common sense while trying to understand such social behaviours.

Expertise in sociology regularly challenges common sense, or peoples' perceptions of reality and
their descriptions of it. Indeed, one of the most important tasks for sociologists is debunking
myths and spotting society trends, some of which can be unexpected and unreasonable. We are
all private sociologists because we engage in social interactions and generate our own,
unique judgments about social phenomena, including what's happening and why. For the
majority of everyday situations, our common sense is typically sufficient, but there is a big
difference between the common sense of private sociologists and academic sociology. One
difference is that knowledge is made available to others, is made public, is seen as "objective,"
and is therefore the subject of intense scrutiny and study.

Topic-010: Perspectivising Human Behavior

  Realizing that a variety of factors, such as social, cultural, and psychological influences,
have an impact on how people behave

 Appreciating the diversity and complexity of human experience and behaviour;

Examining the interaction between individual and societal factors in shaping
behaviour; Recognizing the influence of power and inequality on individual and group
behaviour; Using various theoretical perspectives to analyse human behaviour, such as
functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism; Applying the findings to
real-world situations

 Analyzing the influence of the honour culture on people's behaviour and social
interactions is an example from Pakistani society.

Topic-011: Understanding Causality

To prove causality, three conditions must be met: temporal order, empirical association, and the
exclusion of reasonable alternatives. The fact that the causal relationship makes sense or accords
with more general presumptions or a theoretical framework is an implied fourth requirement.
Let's look at the three fundamental conditions. A complete explanation must additionally define
the causal mechanism and lay out a causal chain in addition to these three elements.

1. Temporal order states that a cause must occur before an effect. The direction of causality is
established by this commonsense presumption: from the cause to the result. You might wonder
how the cause can occur after the effect. However, temporal order is only one of the prerequisites
for causality, therefore it cannot. Although necessary, temporal order alone does not prove
causality.

2. To associate two phenomena is to say that they routinely occur together or seem to act in
concert. Frequently, people conflate the terms connection and correlation. Technically speaking,
correlation has a definite meaning, and it has certain prerequisites in terms of statistics. The
broader concept is that of association.

3. By excluding alternatives, we must demonstrate that the effect is caused by the causative
variable and not by another factor. It is also known as no spuriousness since a spurious link is
one that appears to be causal but is actually caused by a different, unknown source. We are able
to see temporal order and relationships, but we are unable to objectively rule out all logical
possibilities. It is best to rule out any potential alternatives. This means that we can either rule
out the more obvious alternative explanations or only indirectly demonstrate this.

4. Identifying the mechanism in a causal link necessitates the use of more than two correlated
variables when developing a causal explanation, and "a satisfactory explanation requires that we
also identify the social 'cogs and wheels. We go beyond merely asserting a relationship between
an independent and a dependent variable, as if there were some mysterious "black box"
underlying the relationship. A complete causal explanation specifies a causal mechanism as well
as a causal relationship (Neuman 2014).
Topic-012: Sociological Themes and Topics

 Race, ethnicity, and discrimination.

 Gender and sexuality; families and kinship.

 Education and socialization; religion and spirituality.

 Globalization and transnationalism; health, disease and medicine.

Learning Objective:

In this lecture, students will be able to understand the classical and contemporary theoretical
perspectives in sociology.

Following topics will be covered in this lecture:

 Levels of analysis (Micro, Meso, Macro)

 Structural functionalism

 Conflict

 Symbolic Interactionism

 Contemporary Theoretical Approaches

Click here to view the PPTs of Lesson-3

Never let the facts speak for themselves. We integrate our experiences—our "facts"—into a
framework of roughly comparable concepts in order to make sense of existence. This enables us
to interpret them in a certain way. Additionally, sociologists accomplish this, but they do so by
integrating their findings into a theoretical framework known as a theory. A theory is a broad
assertion about how certain elements of the world fit together and function. It explains the
connections between a pair of "facts" or more. The three main theories used by sociologists are
conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, and functional analysis. According to Henslin (2011),
each theory acts as a lens through which we can perceive social existence.
Topic-013: Levels of Analysis: Micro, Macro, Meso

The depth of analysis used by these three theoretical approaches is one of their main
differences. Focusing on the macro level, functionalists and conflict theorists look at societal
trends on a big scale. Symbolic internationalists, in contrast, frequently concentrate on the micro
level, on social interaction—what individuals do when they are around one another. An
illustration can help to clarify this difference.

For instance, symbolic internationalists would concentrate on the micro level when studying
homeless individuals. They would examine what homeless individuals do both on the streets
and in shelters. They would also evaluate their verbal and nonverbal communication, including
their utilization of space and gesticulations. Functionalists and conflict theorists, however,
wouldn't be interested in this micro level. Instead of the micro level, they would concentrate on
how changes in specific societal segments create homelessness. Functionalists may examine the
fact that employment has declined, that there is less need for unskilled labour, and that millions
of jobs have been outsourced to workers in other countries. Or they can concentrate on how the
family has changed, how many unemployed individuals have no one to turn to because of
divorce and smaller families. Conflict theorists, on the other hand, would emphasis the conflict
between socioeconomic classes. They would be curious about how decisions made by global
elites impact local job markets, unemployment rates, and homelessness in addition to global
production and trade.

Topic-014: Structural Functionalism

The fundamental tenet of functional analysis is that society functions as a cohesive whole
composed of interconnected pieces. The foundations of functional analysis, sometimes referred
to as functionalism and structural functionalism, may be found in sociology. Both August Comte
and Herbert Spencer thought of society as a living thing. They claimed that society operates in a
similar manner to how a person or animal's organs work in concert. And just like an organism,
for society to run well, all of its components must get along. Emile Durkheim shared the idea
that society is made up of various components, each serving a certain purpose. A "normal"
condition of society is one in which every component of it is carrying out its duties. If they fail to
carry out their duties, society is said to be in a "abnormal" or "pathological" state. Functionalists
contend that in order to comprehend society, we must consider both its structure—how its
constituent pieces come together to form the whole—and its function—what each component
accomplishes and how it contributes to society (Henslin 2011).

Robert Merton and Functionalism: The biological analogy was rejected by Robert Merton
(1910–2003), but he upheld the core of functionalism—the idea that society is made up of
interdependent pieces. Merton coined the word "functions" to describe how people's actions
have positive outcomes: A group's (society's, social system's) functions help maintain
equilibrium. Dis functions, on the other hand, are negative effects of people's behaviour. They
threaten the stability of a system. Functions might be latent or apparent. A manifest function is
when an action is meant to benefit a particular component of a system. Imagine, for instance, that
authorities from the government start to worry about how few children women are having. Every
kid born to a married couple receives a $10,000 bonus from Congress. The bonus's manifest
function is to encourage more pregnancies within the household. Merton emphasized that human
behaviour can also have hidden functions, or unexpected results that aid in system adjustment.
Assume the bonus is effective. Diapers and baby furnishings sales increase in tandem with the
rise in birth rates. The advantages to these businesses are latent functions of the bonus because
they were not the planned outcomes. Of course, human behaviour can harm a system as well.
Merton referred to these effects as latent dysfunctions because they are typically unplanned.
Assume for the moment that the government hasn't defined a "stopping point" for its bonus
programme. Some folks keep having children in order to accrue extra bonuses. But the more kids
they have, the more they depend on the next bonus to get by. As poverty rises, large families
become more typical. Taxes rise, welfare is reinstated, and a national outcry results. These
outcomes would represent latent dysfunctions of the bonus programme because they were not
intended and were detrimental to the social system.

In conclusion, society is seen through the lens of functional analysis as a working whole, with
each component connected to the others. Every time we analyse a smaller component, we must
search for its features and flaws to understand how it relates to the larger unit. Any social group,
whether an entire civilization, a college, or even a tiny group like a family, can use this
fundamental methodology (Henslin 2011).

Topic-015: Conflict Theory

A third perspective on social life is provided by conflict theory. Conflict theorists emphasis that
society is made up of groups that are vying with one another for limited resources, in contrast to
functionalists who see society as a harmonious whole with its parts cooperating. While
cooperation may appear to be present on the surface, digging beneath reveals a power struggle.

Karl Marx and Conflict Theory

Conflict theory's creator, Karl Marx, saw how the Industrial Revolution changed Europe. He
observed that farmers who moved to the cities to find work made hardly enough money to eat.
According to Edgerton (1992:87), conditions were so poor that the average worker passed away
at age 30 and the average wealthy person at age 50. Marx started to study society and history
after being horrified by this misery and exploitation. He built conflict theory as he went along.
Class antagonism, he reasoned, is the key to understanding human history. Every society has a
small clique that controls the means of production and takes advantage of the people who don't
have power. The proletariat, the vast majority of workers who are exploited by the bourgeoisie,
and the bourgeoisie, the small group of capitalists who control the means to produce wealth, are
at odds in industrialized nations. If the workers revolt, the capitalists will use the state's power
to put an end to it because they control the legal and political systems. Marx made his views
during a time when capitalism was still developing and employees were mostly at the mercy of
their employers. Employees had

None of the modern conveniences we've grown accustomed to, such as minimum salaries,
eight-hour workdays, coffee breaks, five-day workweeks, paid holidays and vacations, health
insurance, sick leave, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and, for unionised workers, the
ability to strike. Marx's critique serves as a reminder that these rewards were not the result of
bosses making kind gestures, but rather of employees pressuring them into doing so.

Conflict Theory Today

Many sociologists go beyond the interaction between capitalists and workers to use conflict
theory. They look at how conflicting interests permeate every level of society, whether it is a
single person, a single organization, a single community, or the entire social structure. For
instance, resistance and anger are produced when authorities such as the police, teachers, and
parents attempt to impose conformity. The similar thing happens when a teen tries to "change
the rules" in order to become more independent. So, there is a perpetual struggle going on in
society to decide who has power or influence and to what extent that domination extends
(Turner 1978; Piven 2008; Manza and McCarthy 2011). Lewis Coser, a sociologist who lived
from 1913 to 2003, noted that persons in close connections are more likely to experience
conflict. These people have figured out how to divide up authority, privilege, tasks, and
incentives. Any modification to this arrangement has the risk of causing resentment,
disagreement, and hurt feelings. People balance their lives constantly, even in close
relationships, with conflict lurking uncomfortably just below the surface.

Conflict theory and feminists: Many feminists study the antagonism between males and women
in the same way that Marx analyzed the conflict between capitalists and workers. Their main
concern is the disparities between men and women in history, today, and around the world, as
well as how to end traditional male domination and achieve gender equality. However, the
conflict perspective does not unite feminists. They cover a wide range of subjects while using
the relevant theories (Henslin 2011).

Topic-016: Symbolic Interactionism

The fundamental tenet of symbolic interactionism is that comprehending how we see the
environment and interact with one another depends on symbols, or objects to which we attribute
meaning. Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929) and George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) are two
prominent sociologists who created this viewpoint. Let's examine this theory's primary
components.

Signs We See Everyday: Our social existence wouldn't be any more complex than that of
animals without symbols. Without symbols, for instance, we wouldn't have brothers and sisters,
employers, teachers, or even aunts and uncles. Although it may sound unusual, our relationships
are defined by symbols. Naturally, reproduction would continue, but there would be no signals
to indicate our family relationships. Without knowing who we owe respect and duties to, or who
we can anticipate privileges from, human relationships would not be what they are.

Relationships and society as a whole both rely on symbols. We couldn't coordinate our actions
with others' without symbols. We were unable to make plans for an upcoming day, time, or
location. We were unable to construct bridges and roadways because we were unable to
establish deadlines, materials, sizes, or objectives. We wouldn't have hospitals, musical
instruments, films, the government, or religion without symbols. Both the course you are
enrolled in and this book are impossibilities. The absence of war would be a benefit (Henslin
2011).

Topic-017: Contemporary Theoretical Approaches (Feminism, Post Colonialism, Post

Modernism)

A theoretical perspective known as feminism emphasizes the significance of gender in

determining social connections and systems. A theoretical perspective known as post
colonialism emphasizes the significance of colonialism and its lasting effects on social
structures and relationships. Postmodernism is a theoretical school of thought that places a
strong emphasis on the role that language and discourse play in forming social structures and
relationships. Feminism can be used to examine how gender affects social inequality in
Pakistani society, post colonialism to examine how British colonialism has affected social
structures, and postmodernism to examine how media and language affect cultural norms and
values. Combining the different theoretical viewpoints

Which of these theoretical viewpoints is correct? As you can see, each one creates a different
perspective on divorce. The images that form are very different from the perception that two
persons are just "incompatible," as is common sense. Each theory offers a unique interpretation
since they each concentrate on various aspects of social life. As a result, in order to study human
behaviour, we must consider all three theoretical perspectives. We can get a more complete
picture of social life by merging the contributions of each individual. (2011) Henslin.

Learning Objective:

In this lecture students will be able to understand the the scientific nature of sociology in terms
of the various processes it goes through to generate knowledge of society.

Following topics will be covered in this lecture:

 What is Science?

 Theory Building Process: Inductive vs. Deductive

 Theory Building Process: Concepts and Variables

 Theory Building Process: Causation vs. Correlation

 Is Sociology a Science?

Click here to view the PPTs of Lesson-4

Topic-018: What is Science?

Verifiable evidence is the foundation of science. By evidence, we mean factual observations that
can be verified by other observers through weighting, counting, and accuracy checks. Simply
"looking at things" is not the same as conducting a scientific observation. Although we have all
spent our entire lives looking at things, this does not equate to becoming scientific observers, any
more than a lifetime of swatting flies equates to being entomologists. The following are some
ways that scientific observation varies from regular observation.

Scientific Observation is Accurate

Scientific observation avoids making assumptions and checks that things are exactly as they are
presented. While novelists and politicians may embellish, scientists must strive for accuracy.

Scientific Observation is Precise: Precision refers to degree of measurement.

Scientific Observation is Systematic: Observations turn out to be patchy and insufficient unless
they are gathered in a planned, methodical programme. Because scientific observation is
objective, it is unaffected by the observers' personal values, preferences, or worldviews. To view
and accept the facts as they are, rather than how one may wish they were, is what it means to be
objective (Horton and Hunt 2004).

The Goals of Science

Each science starts out by attempting to explain why something occurs. The second objective is
to generalist, which means to go beyond the specific instance and create claims that apply to a
larger population or circumstance. For instance, a sociologist would seek to explain not only why
Mary attended college or turned into an armed robber, but also why others who have her traits
are more likely than others to do so. Sociologists search for patterns, recurrent traits, or
occurrences in order to make generalizations. Predicting or defining what will happen in the
future in light of current knowledge is the third scientific goal. Scientists conduct methodical
study rather than relying on magic, superstition, or widespread beliefs to achieve these goals.
They detail their methodology in detail so that others can review their work. Secretiveness,
bigotry, and other prejudices are incompatible with science. In addition to going beyond
common sense, or what "everyone knows" to be true, sociologists and other sciences do the
same. Like when everyone believed that the globe was flat or that humans could never walk on
the moon, "everyone" can be mistaken today. The results of sociologists' research may support or
refute widely held beliefs about how society functions (Horton and Hunt 2004).

Sociology as a science: A science may be defined in at least two ways:

1. A science is a body of organized, verified knowledge which has been secured through
scientific investigation.
 2. A science is a method of study whereby a body of organized, verified knowledge is
discovered.

Of fact, these are really two ways of saying the same thing. According to the first definition,
sociology is a science to the extent that it creates a corpus of categorized, validated knowledge
that is founded on scientific research. Sociology is a science to the extent that it rejects myth,
folklore, and wishful thinking in favour of basing its conclusions on empirical research.
Sociology is a science to the extent that it employs scientific methods of inquiry, if science is
defined as a method of study. If one is willing to apply scientific procedures, all natural
occurrences can be explored in a scientific manner. Any type of behaviour, whether it be that of
atoms, animals, or teenagers, is an appropriate topic for scientific investigation. Few decisions
made by humans throughout history have been supported by facts; instead, individuals have
mostly relied on mythology, habits, and educated guesswork. Before a few centuries ago,
relatively few people agreed that the best way to learn about the natural world was through
careful study of it, as opposed to consulting oracles, ancestors, and intuition. The contemporary
world was spawned by this novel idea. We started acting on the presumption that this same
methodology may provide insightful knowledge about human social behaviour a few decades
ago (Horton and Hunt 2004).

Topic-019: Theory Building Process: Inductive vs Deductive

Inductive process

Reasoning through inductive logic involves converting particular data into universal theories.
This method of thought involves moving from the particular to the universal, as in "I have some
interesting data here; I wonder what they mean."

Deductive Process

Deductive logical thought is reasoning that turns general theory into specific hypotheses that can
be tested. This second type of logical thought travels "downward," in the opposite direction. The
researcher's thought process shifts from the broad to the specific: "I have this suspicion about
human behaviour; let's gather some data and test it." Working deductively, the researcher first
formulates the idea as a hypothesis before deciding on a strategy to test it. A researcher comes to
the conclusion that the theory is true to the extent that the data support it; yet, when the data
contradict the theory, it may need to be updated or even dismissed outright. Researchers
frequently use both types of logical thought, just as they frequently use a variety of procedures
within a single study.

Topic-020: Concepts and Variables

Concepts are the Building Blocks of Theory. A theoretical notion is an idea that can be
expressed verbally or symbolically. In natural science and mathematics, we frequently describe
theoretical concepts in symbolic forms, such as Greek letters or formulas (for example, s=d/t).
Let's examine a straightforward example idea that you are already familiar with: height. Height
can be written as the letter h or uttered out loud. In your mind, the word's letter combination or
sound represents or stands for a notion. Outside of social science theory, concepts exist. We
frequently utilised them, and they are all around us. What does the simple concept of height
entail in everyday life? The concept of height may be simple to use, yet it can be challenging to
explain or describe. This is frequently the case: Despite the fact that we may employ concepts, it
might be challenging to fully understand their significance and provide accurate definitions. The
idea of height is a vague one concerning a physical connection. It serves as a measurement of a
physical object's height from top to bottom. Typically, when defining a topic, examples and
similar concepts are used. With the aid of the ideas of top, bottom, and distance, we are able to
define height and provide countless examples from the real world.

Concepts have Two Parts

A definition and a sign (a word, phrase, or written character). We acquire definitions in a variety
of ways. Our parents are most likely where we first learnt the meaning of the word height as well
as the concept it stands for. As we learn to speak a language and become socialized to a culture,
we pick up a lot of concepts. Most likely, our parents did not provide us with a dictionary
definition. Instead, they used a subtle, nonverbal, and informal method to teach us. They gave
us numerous instances, and we heard and watched how other people used the phrase. When we
used the word wrong, we either received confused looks or were corrected. Others could
understand us because we used it properly. We eventually grasped the idea. Most common
language concepts are learned in this way. We would have had trouble interacting with others if
our parents had kept us away from television and other people while also teaching us that the
word for the concept of distance from top to bottom is zodige. People must communicate the
meanings of idea symbols and phrases in order for them to be useful. Most of the terms we use
on a daily basis have ambiguous, hazy definitions. Similar to how a culture's ideals and
experiences can expand or contract common notions. People from preindustrial times who never
used a telephone and lived in a rural region without electricity have a hard time understanding
what a computer or the Internet is. Additionally, some commonplace ideas (such bad spirits and
demons) have their origins in myths from the past, folklore, or misinterpretation. Social scientific
ideas and common conceptions have different meanings, although the differences are not strict or
obvious. A few ideas from the social sciences that were initially formed in research studies and
had specific technical definitions have filtered through to the larger culture and language. They
have either lost their accuracy over time or changed their significance. Social theories originally
used terms like "sexism," "lifestyle," "peer group," "urban sprawl," and "social class" as
technical notions (Neuman 2014).

Topic-021: Causation vs Correlation

Sociologists should be careful when relating variables to avoid confusing correlation—where

two variables are connected such that a change in one causes a change in the other—and
causation, where a change in one causes a change in the other. In order to prove causality, three
conditions must be met: (1) the two variables must be related; (2) the cause must occur before
the effect; and (3) the relationship between the two variables must hold even after controlling for
all other pertinent variables. An apparent association between two variables can occasionally
mean nothing. This kind of relationship is referred to as bogus. For instance, it may be proven
that swimsuit sales increase as the tax filing deadline draws near. It would be absurd to claim that
paying taxes makes individuals desire to wear swimsuits despite the significant statistical
association between the two. The tax filing deadline falling on April 15—around the same time
summer gear makes its debut in department stores—makes it far more likely that individuals are
already looking forward to the upcoming swimming season. Do you have any examples of
fictitious partnerships that are widely believed and might not be questioned? Does watching
violent content on television, for instance, encourage aggressive and violent behaviour? Does the
death penalty prevent crime? In 2016, Thomson and Hickey.

Topic-022: Is Sociology a Science?

Sociology investigates social phenomena using scientific approaches. To comprehend the social
world, it makes use of empirical observation, data analysis, and theory development. It seeks to
create explanations for social phenomena that can be tested and refuted. Peer review and
replication are used to guarantee the accuracy and dependability of the results. However, some
contend that because of the complexity and subjectivity of social processes, sociology cannot be
a science. Others contend that sociology can qualify as a science provided it follows sound
scientific ideas and practises. Sociological illustration: Investigating the connection between
religion and mental health using rational means.