Definition, Nature and Scope

The question ‘what is sociology’ is, indeed, a question pertaining to the definition of
sociology. No student can rightfully be expected to enter on a field of study, which is totally
undefined or unbounded. At the same time, it is not an easy task to set some fixed limits to
a field of study. It is true in the case of sociology. Hence it is difficult to give a brief and a
comprehensive definition of sociology.

Sociology is an engrossing subject because it concerns our own lives as human beings.
All humans are social – we could not develop as children, or exist as adults, without having
social ties to others. Society is thus the very condition of human existence. At the same
time, we all actively shape the society in which we live. As sociologists, we seek to
understand both how, as individuals, all of us are influenced by the wider society, and at the
same time, how we actively structure that society, in our own actions. More than most other
intellectual endeavors, Sociology, presumes the use of disciplined imagination.
Imagination, because the sociologist must distance her or himself from the here and now in
order to grasp how societies have changed in the past and what potential transformations lie
in store; discipline, because the creative ability of the imagination has to be restrained by
conceptual and empirical rigour.

Defining Sociology

How should ‘sociology’ be defined? Let us begin with a banality. Sociology is

concerned with the study of human societies. Now the notion of society can be formulated
in only a very general way. For under the general category of ‘societies’ we want to include
not only the industrialized countries, but also large agrarian imperial states (such as the
Roman Empire, or traditional China), and, at the other end of the scale, small tribal
communities that may comprise only a tiny number of individuals.

A society is a cluster, or system, of institutionalized modes of conduct. To speak of

‘institutionalized’ forms of social conduct is to refer to modes of belief and behaviour that
occur and recur – or, as the terminology of modern social theory would have it, are socially
reproduced – across long spans of time and space. Language is an excellent example of
such a form of institutionalized activity, or institution, since it is so fundamental into social
life. All of us speak languages which none of us, as individuals, created although we all use
language creatively. But many other aspects of social life may be institutionalized: that is,

VAJIRAM & RAVI 1

 become commonly adopted practices, which persist, in recognizably similar form across the
generations. Hence we can speak of economic institutions, political institution and so on.
Such a use of the concept ‘institution’, it should be pointed out, differs from the way in
which the terms is often employed in ordinary language, as a loose synonym for ‘group’
‘collectivity’ etc.

In the 19th century a French philosopher named Auguste Come (1978-1857) gave the
name ‘sociology’ to this new social science. ‘Sociology’ is composed of two words: socius,
meaning companion or associates, and logos meaning word. Thus, the term formed from
these two words means talking about society, as Geology (geos meaning earth) means
talking about the earth, Biology (bios meaning life) means talking about life and
Anthropology (anthropos meaning man) means talking about man/women. Socius is a
Latin word and Logos is a Greek word, and the name of our discipline is thus a hybrid
offspring of two languages. Since then the definition of sociology is changing in terms of
time and space. Sociology has been defined in a number of ways by different sociologists.
No single definition has, yet accepted as completely satisfactory. In fact, there are as many
definitions of sociology as there are sociologists. For our purpose of study a few definitions
may be cited here.

1. Auguste Come, the founding father of sociology, defines sociology as the science of social
phenomena “subject to natural and invariable laws, the discovery of which is the object of
investigation”.

2. Kingsley Davis says, “Sociology is a general science of society”.

3. Harry M.Johnson opines, “Sociology is the science that deals with social groups”.

4. Emile Durkheim defines sociology as the “science of social institutions”.

5. Park regards sociology as “the science of collective behaviour”.

6. Small defines sociology as “the science of collective behaviour”.

7. Marshal Jones defines sociology as “the study of man-in-relationship-to-men”.

8. Ogburn and Nimkoff define sociology as “the scientific study of social life”

9. Franklin Henry Fairchild defines sociology as “the science of social phenomena”.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 2

10. Henry Fairchild defines sociology as “the study of man and his human environment in their
elations to each other”.

11. Max Weber defines sociology as “the science which attempts the interpretative
understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a casual explanation of its course
and effects”.

12. Alex Inkeles says, “Sociology is the study of systems of social action and of their inter-
relations”.

13. Kimball Young and Raymond W.Mack define sociology as “the scientific study of the
social aspects of human life”.

14. Morris Ginsberg: Of the various definitions of sociology the one given by Mnorris Ginsberg
seems to be more satisfactory and comprehensive. He defines sociology in the following
way: “In the broadest sense, sociology is the study of human interactions and interrelations,
their conditions and consequences”.

A careful examination of various definitions cited above, makes it evident that

sociologists differ in their opinion about the definition of sociology. Their divergent views
about the definition of sociology only reveal their distinct approaches to its study. However,
the common idea underlying all the definitions mentioned above is that sociology is
concerned with human, s/his social relations and s/his society. Sociology is the study of
human social life, groups and societies. It is a dazzling and compelling enterprise, as its
subject matter is our own behavior as social beings. The scope of sociological study is
extremely wide, ranging from the analysis of the passing encounters between individuals in
the streets to the investigation of global social processes.

It is unfortunately difficult to define what sociology should study. In dealing with a

natural science like mathematics or physics, the solution is relatively simple: in these cases,
science presents itself in the form of a body of proven propositions; and history can, if so
desired, be reduced to the gradual discovery of the truth as it appears to us today. In this
case, history is no more than the discovery of currently accepted truths. But if we employed
such a method in the case of sociology, the consequences would be unfortunate, for there is
great danger that each sociologist would write a different history of sociology, each of such

VAJIRAM & RAVI 3

 histories obligingly leading up to the current situation and the present truth, i.e. the truth
held by the sociologist in question. Strictly speaking, there is the present state of French
sociology, illustrated in the Traite de sociologic published by the Presses Universitaires de
France. But this treatise is not necessarily regarded as the last word on the subject in the
United States, where a more conceptual, more analytic notion of sociology prevails; still
less in the Soviet Union, where a more categorical truth is preferred. However, there can be
general characteristics that can be derived by examining the nature of studies conducted,
theories constructed and methodologies built.

Nature of Sociology
Sociology is not a subject that comes neatly gift-wrapped, making no demands except
that its contents are unpacked. Like all the social sciences, among other disciplines,
anthropology, economics and history- sociology is an inherently controversial endeavor.
That is to say, it is characterized by continuing disputes about its very nature. But this is a
not a weakness, although it has seemed such to many of those who call themselves
professional ‘sociologists’, and also to many others on the outside, who are distressed that
there are numerous varying conceptions of how the subject matter of sociology should be
approached or analyzed. Those who are upset by the persistent character of sociological
debates, and a frequent lack of consensus about how to resolve the ambiguity, usually feel
that this is a sign of the immaturity of the subject. They want sociology to be like a natural
science, and to generate a similar apparatus of universal laws to those, which they see natural
science as having discovered and validated. But it is a mistake to suppose that sociology
should be modeled too closely on the natural sciences, or to imagine that a natural science
of society is either feasible or desirable. To say this, does not mean that the methods and
objectives of the natural sciences are wholly irrelevant to the study of human social
behaviour. Sociology deals with a factually observable subject matter, depends upon
empirical research, and involves attempts to formulate theories and generalizations that will
make sense of facts. But human beings are not the same as material objects in nature;
studying our own behaviour is necessarily entirely different in some very important ways
from studying natural phenomena.

Sociological investigation ranges over much broader arenas, in time as well as in

space, than the immediate settings of interaction with which we are most familiar in the

VAJIRAM & RAVI 4

 daily round. Moreover, sociologists focus attention upon unintended and unanticipated
consequences of human activity, whereas in ordinary activities we concern ourselves mainly
with the intentions and emotions of other people. As Mills also stresses, sociological
thought must take an imaginative leap beyond the familiar, and the sociologist must be
prepared to look behind the routine activities in which much of our mundane life is
enmeshed. Sociology studies the behaviour of human beings in society. It may, however,
be rightly pointed out that other social sciences, such as Political Science, Economics,
History, etc. do the same. How is Sociology different from these disciplines? Sociology
does not, however, study everything that happens in society or under social conditions. For
example, sociologists study religion only in so far as it affects social relationship, i.e. the
relationship of man to man, of one group to another, or of one group to the whole society.
They do not study religion as such, i.e. its theology, beliefs, rituals, etc. Likewise,
sociologists are interested in political organizations or in economic institutions only in so
far as they have a bearing on the social life of man. They will study, for example, economic
division of labour only to the extent that if affects human relationships.

While dealing with the elements of ‘human relationship’ in diverse fields covered by
various social sciences, sociology seeks to discover the interrelationships of human
activities in these fields – familial, educational, economic, political or religious. The basic
assumption of which the sociologists proceed is that happens in any of these fields affects
others. In other words, sociology is concerned with the ‘whole’ of human society, and not
with the ‘parts’ which make up the ‘whole’ seen thus, sociology is not “great residual
category of the social sciences”.

The purpose of sociology study is not, however, simply to describe social

relationships, but also to analyze them and to discriminate between their specific forms,
varieties and patterns. The sociologists are expected to look ahead and to suggest guideposts
for social action in response to the changes, which give rise to social problems. Let us
summerise some of the general points about the nature of sociology. There is, though not
any clear cut watertight prescription of what sociology should study, the following points

VAJIRAM & RAVI 5

 have been derived purely on the basis of the general nature in which sociology, to some
varying extents, has been practiced.

Sociology is an Independent Science

Sociology has now emerged into an independent science. It is not treated and studied
as a branch of any other science like philosophy or political philosophy or history. As an
independent science it has its own field of study, boundary and method.

Sociology is a Social Science and not a Physical Science

Sociology belongs to the family of social sciences and note to the family of physical
sciences. As a social science it concentrates its attention on man, his social behaviour, social
activities and social life. As a member of the family of social sciences it is intimately related
to other social sciences like history, political science, economics, psychology, anthropology
etc. The fact that sociology deals with the Social universe distinguishes it from astronomy,
physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics and other physical sciences.
Sociology is a Categorical and not a Normative Discipline
Sociology “confines itself to statements about what is, not what should be or ought to be”
As a science, sociology is necessarily silent about questions of value. It does not make any
kind of value judgments. Its approach is neither moral nor immoral but amoral. It is
ethically neutral. It cannot decide the directions in which sociology ought to go. It makes
no recommendations on matters of social policy or legislation or programme. But it does
not mean that sociological knowledge is useless and serves no purpose. It only means that
sociology, as a discipline cannot deal with problems of good and evil, right and wrong, and
moral or immoral.

Sociology is a Pure Science and not an Applied Science.

A distinction is often made between pure sciences and applied sciences. The main aim of
pure science is the acquisition of knowledge and it is not bothered whether the acquired
knowledge is useful or can be put to use. On the other hand, the aim of applied science is
to apply the acquired knowledge into life and to put it to use. Each pure science may have
its own applied field. For example, physics is a pure science and engineering is its applied

VAJIRAM & RAVI 6

 field. Similarly the pure science such as economics, political science, history, etc. has their
applied fields like business, politics, journalism respectively. Sociology as a pure science
has its applied field such as administration, diplomacy, social work etc. Each pure science
may have more than one application.

Sociology is a pure science, because the immediate aim of sociology is the acquisition
of knowledge about human society, not the utilization of that knowledge. Sociologists never
determine questions of public policy and do not recommend legislators what laws should be
passed or repealed. But the knowledge acquired by a sociologist is of great help to the
administrator, the legislator, the diplomat, the teacher, the foreman, the supervisor, the social
worker and the citizen. But sociologists themselves do not apply the knowledge to life and
use, as a matter of their duty and profession.

Sociology is relatively an Abstract Science And not a Concrete Science.

This does not mean that sociology is an art and not a science. Nor does it mean, it is
unnecessarily complicated and unduly difficult. It only means that sociology is not
interested in concrete manifestations of human events. It is more concerned with the form
of human events and their patterns. For example, sociology is not concerned with particular
wars and revolutions but with war and revolution in general, as social phenomena, as types
of social conflict. Similarly, sociology does not confine itself to the study of this society or
that particular society or social organization, or marriage, or religion, or group and so on. It
is in this simple sense that sociology is an abstract not a concrete science.

Sociology is a Generalizing and not a Particularizing or Individualizing Science

Sociology tries to find out the general laws or principles about human interaction and
association, about the nature, form, content and structure of human groups and societies,. It
does not study each and every event that takes place in society. It is not possible also. It
tries to make generalizations on the basis of the study of some selected events. For example,
a sociologist makes generalizations about the nature of secondary groups. He may conclude
that secondary groups are comparatively bigger in size, less stable, not necessarily spatially
limited, more specialized, and so on. This, he does, not bye examining all the secondary
groups but by observing and studying a few.
Sociology is a General Science and not a Special Social Science

VAJIRAM & RAVI 7

 The area of inquiry of sociology is general and not specialized. It is concerned with
human interaction and human life in general. Other social science like political science,
history, economics etc. also study man and human interaction, but not all about human
international. They concentrate their attention on certain aspects of human interaction and
activities and specialize themselves in those fields. Accordingly, economics specializes
itself in the study of economic activities, political science concentrates on political activities
and so on. Sociology, of course, does not investigate economic, religious, political, legal,
moral or any other special kind of phenomena in relation to human life and activities as
such. It only studies human activities in a general way. This does not, however, mean that
sociology is the basic social science nor does it imply sociology is the general social science.
Anthropology and social psychology often claim themselves to be general social sciences.

Sociology is Both a Rational and an Empirical Science.

There are two broad ways of approach to scientific knowledge. One, known as empiricism,
is the approach that emphasizes experience and the facts that result from observation and
experimentation. The others, known as rationalism, stresses reason and the theories that
result from logical inference. The empiricist collects facts; the rationalist co-ordinates and
arranges them. Theories and facts are required in the construction of knowledge. In
sociological inquiry both are significant. Theory unsubstantiated by hard, solid facts is
nothing more than an opinion. Facts, by themselves, in their isolated character, are
meaningless and useless. As Immanuel Kant said, “theories without facts are empty and
facts without theories are blind”. All modern sciences, therefore, avail themselves of both
empirical and rational resources. Sociology is not an exception.

It is clear from the above that sociology is an independent, a social, a categorical, a

pure, an abstract, a generalizing, both a rational and an empirical and a general social
science.

Subject matter and Scope of Sociology

Ever since the beginning of sociology, sociologists have shown a great concern in
human and in the dynamics of society. The emphasis has been oscillating between human
and society. “Sometimes the emphasis was on human in society at other times, it was on
human in society. But at no stage of its development, human as an individual was its focus

VAJIRAM & RAVI 8

 of attention. On the contrary, sociology concentrated heavily on society and its major units
and their dynamics. It has been striving to analyze the dynamics of society in terms of
organized patterns of social relations. It may be said that sociology seeks to find
explanations for three basic questions: How and why societies emerge? How and why
societies persist? How and why societies change?

An all-embracive and expanding science like sociology is growing at a fast rate no doubt.
It is quite natural that sociologists have developed different approaches from time to time in
their attempts to enrich its study. Still it is possible to identify some topics, which constitute
the subject matter of sociology on which there is little disagreement among the sociologists.
Such topics and areas broadly constitute the field of sociology. A general outline of the
fields of sociology on which there is considerable agreement among sociologists could be
given here.

Firstly, the major concern of sociology is sociological analysis. It means the sociologist
seeks to provide an analysis of human society and culture with a sociological perspective.
He/She evinces his/her interest in the evolution of society and tries to reconstruct the major
stages in the evolutionary process. An attempt is also made “to analyse the factors and
forces underlying historical transformations of society”. Due importance is given to the
scientific method that is adopted in the sociological analysis. Secondly, sociology has given
sufficient attention to the study of primary units of social life. In this area, it is concerned
with social acts and social relationships, individual personality; groups of all varieties,
communities (urban, rural and tribal), associations, and organizations had populations.
Thirdly, sociology has been concerned with the development, structure and function of a
wide variety of basic social institutions such as the family and kinship, religion and property,
economic, political, legal, educational and scientific, recreational and welfare, aesthetic and
expressive institutions. Fourthly, no sociologist can afford to ignore the fundamental social
processes that play a vital role. The social processes such as co-operation and competition,
accommodation and assimilation social conflict including war and revolution;
communication including opinion formation, expression and change; social differentiation
and stratification, socialization and indoctrination, social control and deviance including
crime, suicide, social integration and social change assume prominence in sociological
studies. Fifthly, sociology has placed high premium on the method of research also.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 9

 Contemporary sociology has tended to become more and more rational and empirical rather
than philosophical and idealistic. Sociologists have sought the application of scientific
method in social researches. Like a natural scientist, a sociologist senses a problem for
investigation. He then tires to formulate it into a researchable proposition. After collecting
the data he tries to establish connections between them. He finally arrives at meaningful
concepts, propositions and generalizations. Sixthly, sociologists are concerned with the task
of “formulating concepts, propositions and theories”, “Concepts are abstracted from
concrete experience to represent a class of phenomena”. For example, terms such as social
stratification, differentiation, conformity, deviance etc., represent concepts. A proposition
“seeks to reflect a relationship between different categories of data or concepts”. For
example “lower-class youths are more likely to commit crimes than middle-class youths”.
This proposition is debatable. It maybe proved to be false, to take another example, it could
be said that, “taking advantage of opportunities of higher education and occupational
mobility leads to the weakening of the ties of kinship and territorial loyalties”. Though this
proposition sounds debatable, it has been established after careful observations, inquiry and
collection of relevant data. Theories go beyond concepts and propositions. “Theories
represent systematically related propositions that explain social phenomena”. Sociological
theories are mostly rooted in factual than philosophical. The sociological perspective
becomes more meaningful and fruitful when one tries to serve insight from concepts,
propositions and theories.

Finally, in the present era of explosion of knowledge sociologists have ventured to

make specializations also. Thus, today a good number of specialized fields of inquiry are
emerging out. Sociology of knowledge, sociology of history, sociology of literature,
sociology of culture, sociology of religion, sociology of family etc., represent such
specialized fields. The field of sociological enquiry is so vast that any student of sociology,
equipped with genius and rich sociological imagination can add new dimensions to the
discipline of sociology as a whole.

Scope of Sociology
The scope of sociology is, indeed, very vast. It studies all the social aspects of society
such as social processes, social control, social change, social stratification, social system,
social groups, social pathology etc. Actually, it is neither possible nor essential to delimit

VAJIRAM & RAVI 10

 the scope of sociology, because, it would be, as Sprott puts it, “A brave attempt to confine
an enormous mass of slippery material into a relatively simple system of pigeonholes”.
Every science has its own areas of study or fields in inquiry. It becomes difficult for any
one to study a science systematically unless its boundaries are demarcated and scope
determined precisely. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the part of sociologist with
regard to the scope of sociology. V.F.Calberton commends, “since sociology is so elastic a
science, it is difficult to determine just where its boundaries begin and end, where sociology,
or where economic theory becomes sociological theory something, which is impossible to
decide”.
Two Schools of Thought

The delineation of sociology as encyclopedic in scope raised opposition from many

quarters, particularly from those who were working in narrower and more specialized fields.
It was argued that the definition of the scope of sociology as an all-embracing science of
society did not permit subtle analysis in most cases. It was, therefore, held that sociology
would forfeit its claim to be treated as a distinct social science.

In view of these criticisms, attempts were made to define the scope of sociology on two
distinct lines. First, sociology was conceived to be a social science concerned with a
specially defined field. It was held that rigorous analysis of chosen fields of social living
would be more rewarding and purposeful, this was called as specialist or formalistic school.
Second, sociology was viewed as a synthesis of all social sciences. That is, there should be
an attempt not at absorbing but at co-ordinating other social science, such as political
science, economics, social philosophy, etc. This school of thought was known as the
synthetic school.

The Specialist or Formalistic School

Among those who conceived of sociology ‘as a clearly defined specialism’ particular
mention may be made of Ferdinand Tonnies, George Simmel, Alfred Vierkandt and Leopold
Von Wiese. Their work was analytical and conceptual in character.

Tonnies classified societies into two categories – namely, Gemeinschaft (or

community) and Gesellschaft (or association) – on the basis of the degree of closeness or

VAJIRAM & RAVI 11

 intimacy among the members of the society. His analysis of social bond followed this
categorization. Like Hobbes, Tonnies was also concerned with the problem of how order is
maintained in society. His investigations into the nature of the tie which binds people to
one another sprang from this basic concern about the problem of social order. “His was the
first successful attempt in analytical sociology and it prepared the way for the development
of the formalists to whom we now turn – Simmel. Vierkandt and von Wiese”. The German
sociologist George Simmel leads this school of thought. The other main advocates of this
school are Vierkandt, Max Weber, Small, Von Wiese and Tonnies.

Simmel and others are of the opinion that sociology is a pure and an independent
science. As a pure science it has a limited scope. Sociology should confine itself to the
study of certain aspects of human relationship only. Further, it should study only the ‘forms’
of social relationship but no their contents. Social relationship such as competition,
subordination, division of labour etc. are expressed in different fields of social life such as
economic, political religious, moral, artistic etc. Sociology should disentangle the forms of
social relationship and study them in abstraction. Sociology as a specific social science
describes, classifies and analyses the forms of social relationships.

According to Simmel, social interactions among people should be analysed and

classified into various forms or types. The description of the forms of this interaction is the
task of formal sociology. He explained his point of view with the help of an analogy. We
express our thoughts through language. A grammarian is not concerned with the contents
of the language, but with the structural forms of the language through which the contents
come to life and become meaningful. Similarly, argued Simmel, social interactions assume
various forms. But some forms of behaviour amongst the members of a society toward one
another may be identified – such as, superiority and subordination, competition and co-
operation, division of labour, etc. “However diverse the interests are that give rise to these
associations, the forms in which the interests are realized may yet be identical.” ‘Simmel
argued that we should abstract from human relationships those forms of interaction which
are common to diverse situations. “It was a cardinal principle in Simmel’s view of sociology
that it should not be encyclopedic, but rather be strictly limited in its scope. Hence, he
defined it in terms of the study of the forms of interaction”.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 12

 Vierkandt took an even more restricted view of sociology than Simmel himself. He
held that sociology should be concerned, not with actual societies, but with forces, which
knit the people together with a society. A particular society – say, an Indian society or a
Chinese society – is of interest to sociologists only as illustrations of particular types of
social relationships. What is of deeper interest to them is to try to understand and analyze
the mental processes, which shape particular types of social relationships. His purpose,
according to Mitchell, was to arrive at basic elements of a social kind. He held that these
are found in such social entities as linking, obeying, submitting etc.” Vierkandt says that
sociology concerns itself with the ultimate form of mental or psychic relationship, which
links men to one another in society. He maintains that in dealing with culture, sociology
should not concern itself with the actual contents evolution but it should confine itself to
only the discovery of the fundamental forces of change and persistence. It should refrain
itself from making a historical study of concrete societies.

Like Simmel, Dr.von Wiese tried to establish sociology as an independent science.

According to him, there are two fundamental social processes in human society, namely,
associative and dissociative. The examples of the former are contact, approach, adaption,
combination, and union, and those of the latter are competition, opposition, and conflict.
There is yet a third category – a mixed form sharing both associative and dissociative social
processes. He applied this classification not only to groups and collectivities but also to
individuals. Each, of these social processes, in its turn, is subdivided into many sub-classes
which, in their totality, give about 650 forms of human relationship”.

Max Weber opined that the aim, of sociology is to interpret or understand social behaviour.
But social behaviour does not cover the whole field of human relations. He further says that
sociology should make an analysis and classification of types of social relationships.

Criticism
The views of Analytical and Formalistic school, as presented above, have been
subjected to various criticisms. In the first place, the Formalistic school has restricted the
scope of sociology to abstract forms without reference to the concrete expressions of these

VAJIRAM & RAVI 13

 forms of social relationship on actual social situations. It is held that such a study would
prove to be absolutely barren. Thus, for example, a study of competition would be
meaningless unless the actual social situation is considered. Economic competition does
not mean the same thing as completion, say, in the field of art. Secondly, Sorokin has raised
a more, fundamental question. It is not fallacious, he argued, “to isolate the ‘social form’
from its content…. and then to state that social forms can remain identical while their
members change’? He elaborated his point thus. “We may fill a glass with wine, water, or
sugar without changing its form; but I cannot conceive of social institution whose ‘form’
would not change when its members, for instance, Americans were superseded by quite a
new and heterogeneous people, e.g. by Chinese or Bushmen”. “Thirdly, the analytical and
formal sociology developed as a reaction to the ‘encyclopedic’ character of sociology. But
Sorokin rightly pointed out, is a worthwhile sociological analysis without borrowing or
using data of biology, anthropology, history, psychology, political science, economics, and
literature? In brief, ‘the sin of encyclopedism’ is as common within the formal sociology as
within the ‘non-formal’ sociology it criticizes”.

(i) Firstly, the formalistic school has unreasonably narrowed the field of sociology.
Sociology should study not only the general forms of social relationships but also their
concrete contents.

(ii) Secondly, the distinction between the forms of social relations and their contents is not
workable. Social forms cannot be abstracted from the content at all, since social forms keep
on changing when the contents change. Sorokin writes, “we may fill a glass with wine,
water or sugar without changing its form, but I cannot conceive of a social institution whose
form would not change when its members change”.

(iii) Thirdly, sociology is not the only science that studies the forms of social relationships.
Other sciences also do that. The study of international law, for example, includes social
relations like conflict, war, oppositions, agreement, contract etc. Political Science,
Economics also study social relationships.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 14

 (iv) Finally, the establishment of pure sociology is impractical. No sociologist has been
able to develop a pure sociology so far. No science can be studied in complete isolation
from the other sciences. Infect, today more emphasis is laid on inter-disciplinary approach.

It follows, therefore, that the advocates of the analytical and formalistic school have
failed to build sociology as an independent and autonomous discipline. The “pretension of
formal sociology to play the same role for other social sciences which is played by
mathematics or physical mechanics in regard to other physical and technical science” is not
justified in any way.

One must concede, however, that the analytical and formal school “the contributed
something valuable to a definite part of sociology in” Sorokin has underscored the value of
the contribution of this school in this systematizing human relations and social processes.
Regard thus: “The multitude of concrete human relationships and the complexity of social
processes make it necessary to classify them into a few large classes, with further sub-
divisions, in this way preventing us from becoming lost in a wild forest of interrelations.”

The Synthetic School

There is yet another school of sociologists who are in favour of adopting a synthetic
approach to sociology. They argue that the different parts as well as the various activities
of society are inter-related and inter-dependent. The society is not certainly organic in
nature. But it is also not entirely mechanical. There are certain ties both psychological and
social, which bind the people together in a society. Different social sciences concern
themselves with different aspects of social living. For example, political science deals with
political activities of social men, Economics with activities of a purely economic nature.
All other social sciences likewise confine themselves to their respective fields. Since the
society is an indivisible whole, one type of activity cannot be isolated from the rest. One
the contrary, one type of activity will impinge on other fields of activity. There s, therefore
the need for a discipline, which would focus attention on the ‘whole’ of society. “It purpose
then would be to discover how the institutions which make up a society are related to one
another in different social systems’ Prominent among those who subscribe to this line of
thinking are Emile Durkheim and Hobhouse, Morris Ginsberg and Sorokin have been the
chief exponents of this school.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 15

 The synthetic school of thought conceives of sociology as a synthesis of the social
sciences. It wants to make sociology a general sociology science and a pure or special social
science. In fact, this school has made sociology synoptic or encyclopedic in character.The
main argument of this school is that all parts of social life are intimately inter-related. Hence
the study of one aspect is not sufficient to understand the entire phenomenon. Hence
sociology should study social life as a whole. This opinion has contributed to the creation
of a general and systematic sociology.
Emile Durkheim
Durkheim divides Sociology into three broad divisions, namely, Social Morphology,
Social Physiology and General Sociology. Social Morphology is concerned with the nature
and extent of influence exercised by such factors as geographical location, size and density
of population. It studies has territorial basis of the life of people and also the problems of
population such as volume and density, local distribution etc.
Social physiology has different branches such as sociology of religion, of morals, of law,
of economic life and of language etc. It deals with the genesis and nature of various social
institutions. Discussions on Social Physiology are so directed as to throw light on the social
background of, say religion, morals, law, economic institutions, etc. In General sociology
attempt is made to find out if there are links among various institutions which would be
treated independently in Social Physiology, and in that event o discover general social laws.
General Sociology can be regarded as the philosophical part of sociology. It deals with the
general character of the social facts. Its function is the formulation of general social laws.
Durkheim lays particular stress on this type of analysis. In his view, whatever happens
in society has one or more social causes which he calls ‘social facts’. For example, in his
analysis of suicide he shows that suicide, though an individual act may be ascribed to social
causes.

Morris Ginsberg
Ginsberg, another advocate of the synthetic school, says that the main tasks of
sociology can be categorized into four branches: Social Morphology, Social Control, Social
Processes and Social Pathology.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 16

 (i) Social Morphology: ‘Social Morphology’ deals with the quantity and quality of
population. It studies the social structure, social groups and institutions.

(ii) Social Control: ‘Social Control’ studies – formal as well as informal – means of social
control such as custom, tradition, morals, religion, convention, and also law, court,
legislation etc. It deals with the regulating agencies of society.

(iii) Social Process: ‘Social processes’ tries to make a study of different modes of
interaction such as cooperation, competition, conflict, accommodation, assimilation,
isolation, integration, differentiation, development, arrest and decay.

(iv) Social Pathology: ‘Social Pathology’ studies social maladjustment and disturbances.
It also includes studies on various social problems like poverty, beggary, unemployment,
over-population, prostitution, crime etc.
Ginsberg has summed up the chief functions of sociology as follows:

(i) Sociology seeks to provide a classification of types and forms of social relationships.
(ii) It tries to determine their elation between different factors of social life, For example,
the economic and political, the moral and the religious, the moral and the legal, the
intellectual and the social elements.

(iii) It tries to disentangle the fundamental conditions of social change and persistence and
to discover sociological principles governing social life.

Hobhouse

Hobhouse represents the philosophical side of sociology, speculative and

evolutionary. He conceives sociology as “a science, which has the whole social life of
man/woman as its sphere”. Its relation with the other social sciences is considered to be
“one of mutual exchange and mutual stimulation”. In his view there are some central
conceptions that pervade the entire society and inform all its parts. It is possible to have a
fuller comprehension of the whole from the study of the parts. General Sociology is thus a
synthesis of the various social sciences. Such a synthesis does not, however, consist “in a

VAJIRAM & RAVI 17

 mechanical juxtaposition” of the finds of various social science. Since central conceptions
pervade the whole, including its part, a mutual relationship of give-and-take exists between
the whole and its parts. While studying the parts, sociologist is to correlate the results of
the study with an eye to the whole of society. The study of the parts then contributes to a
fuller comprehension of the whole.

There is no conflict between an analytical study of the parts, which make up the society
and a synthetic approach to the study of the whole society. The parts of society are so
closely interwoven that it is not possible to study a particular part in isolation from the rest.
At the same time the study of the whole society is not possible without studying the parts,
which make up the whole.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 18