Punjab State Board PSEB 11th Class Sociology Important Questions Chapter 12 Western Sociological Thinkers Important Questions and Answers.
PSEB 11th Class Sociology Important Questions Chapter 12 Western Sociological Thinkers
Multiple Choice Questions:
1. Who is known as the father of Sociology?
(a) Anguste Comte
(b) Karl Marx
(d) Max Weber
(a) Auguste Comte
2. In which year the word Sociology was used for the first time?
3. When was Karl Marx born?
4. Who wrote Communist Manifesto?
(a) Weber and Marx
(b) Marx and Durkheim
(c) Durkheim and Weber
(d) Marx and Engles
(d) Marx and Engles
5. According to Marx, how many classes are there?
6. Which of these classes present in every type of society?
(a) Capitalist Class
(b) Labour Class
(c) a + b
(d) None of these
(c) a + b
7. According to Karl Marx, what is the reason of class struggle in society?
(a) Exploitation of labourers by capitalists
(b) Exploitation of capitalists by labourers
(c) Historical problems between the both
(d) All of these
(a) Exploitation of labourers by capitalists
8. Which of these concepts was given by Karl Marx?
(a) Class struggle
(b) Historical Materialism
(c) Theory of Surplus value
(d) All of these
(d) All of these
9. When was Durkheim born?
10. Who is known as the successor of Comte in France?
11. Which of these books was written by Durkheim?
(a) Division of labour in society
(b) Suicide-A study of Sociology
(c) The Rules of Sociological Method
(d) All of these
(d) All of these
12. Which of these concept was given by Durkheim?
(a) Division of Labour
(b) Social Fact
(d) All of these
(d) All of these
13. How many types of Social Facts are given by Durkheim?
14. Which of these concepts was given by Weber?
(b) Ideal type
(c) Social action
(d) All of these
(d) All of these
Fill in the Blanks:
1. Karl Marx was a ……………… philosopher.
2. Max Weber gave the concept of Social …………….
3. The concept of division of labour was given by ……………….
4. Historical materialism is the contribution of ………………
5. Karl Marx gave the theory of Class ……………..
6. According to Weber, ……………… religion is responsible for the advent of capitalism.
7. The theory of suicide was given by ……………….
1. Durkheim was born in France.
2. Durkheim explained about three types of suicide.
3. Weber gave four types of authority.
4. According to Marx, there are three types of classes in society.
5. Labour class exploits the capitalist class.
6. The concept of social solidarity was given by Dürkheim.
One Word/Line Question Answers:
Who is known as the father of Sociology?
Auguste Comte is known as the father of Sociology.
When was the word Sociology used for the first time?
An 1839 A.D. the word Sociology was used for the first time.
When and where was Karl Marx born?
Karl Marx was born on 5th May, 1818 at Rearcity of Ryan state of Prussia.
When and where did Karl Marx receive his Doctrate?
Karl Marx received his Doctrate in 1841 at Jena University.
When and who wrote ‘Communist Manifesto’?
Karl Marx and Engles wrote ‘Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 A.D.
When did Karl Marx die?
Karl Marx died on 14th March, 1883.
According to Karl Marx, how many classes are there in society?
According to Karl Marx, there exist two classes in society, Capitalist class and Labour class.
Name the Concepts given by Karl Marx.
Class Struggle, Historical Materialism, Dialectic Materialism, Social Change, Alienation, Surplus Value etc.
Who is known as the successor of Comte in France?
Emile Durkheim is known as the successor of Comte in France.
In which university, Durkheim was appointed as a professor in Sociology?
In Paris University, Durkheim was appointed as a professor in Sociology.
Name the Concepts given by Durkheim.
Social Fact, Suicide, Religion, Division of Labour etc.
Name the types of authority given by Max Weber.
Max Weber gave three types of authority-traditional, legal and charismatic.
According to Weber, which religion is responsible for the emergence of capitalism?
Weber was of the view that Protestant religion was responsible for the emergence of capitalism,
Name the concepts given by Max Weber.
Authority and its types, domination, ideal type Capitalism, Protestant Ethics and the spirit of capitalism, social action, Verstehen etc.
Very Short Answer Type Questions:
What is Capitalist Class?
According to Karl Marx, Capitalist Class is that which owns all the means of production with the help of which it exploits all the other classes. With the help of means of production, it earns more money and spends its leisureful life. Marx was of the view that one day will come when labour class will throw away its power and authority.
What is Labour Class?
According to Marx, labour class is that which does not own any means of production. It does not have any money or wealth. It does not have anything to sell except its labour to earn its livehood. It is always exploited by the capitalist class.
What is Social Solidarity?
According to Durkheim, each society has some of its own ideals, beliefs, ways of behaviour, institutions and laws which bind it. Due to such elements, solidarity is maintained in society. They help in the formation of social relations and create unity in society which is known as social solidarity.
What is Capitalism?
Capitalism is an economic system in which private property is of great importance and there is negligible govt, control on the market. Every one earns according to his qualification and ability. In Capitalism, capitalist earns more money with the help of its existing resources and exploits the labour class.
What is Division of Labour?
According to Durkheim, division of labour is the division of work among the people or groups, according to their ability so that the work could be done in an organised and efficient way. It exists in every society. It does not originate but it gradually develops.
Short Answer Type Questions:
What is Class Struggle?
Karl Marx has studied two classes in every society. According to him, in every society two opposite classes are there. One who exploits and other who is exploited by first one and there is always a struggle in them. To this struggle Marx has given the name of Class struggle. The class which exploits, to whom he gives the name of Capitalist class or Bourgouise, has all the means of production. With these means of production it always tries to suppress the other classes. Second class to which he has given the’name of Labour class or Proletariats, don’t have any means of production. They don’t have anything to earn their livelihood except to sell their labour. They are always exploited by Capitalist class. A continuous struggle is always going on in these both the classes. To this struggle Marx has given the name of ‘Class Struggle’.
When class and class struggle will come to an end?
Under the leadership of labour class with the help of class struggle, the tools of state will come in its hands and then the age of Socialism will start. According to Marx, “State is the biggest tool in the hands of capitalists to exploit others.” After the revolution, Feudalism and Capitalism will try for anti revolution. That’s why the stage of Socialism from Capitalism is the temporary stage of authority of labourers. After the establishment of Socialism, exploitation will come to an end, groups also will come to an end and every one will be able to get according to his labour. But in the developed stage of communism every one will be able to get according to his needs. Slowly and slowly the state will disintegrate and the institution based on cooperation will come into being and class and class struggle will come to an end.
What is Capitalist Class?
Marx has given the concept of Capitalist Class. According to him, one group in society is of that type which has all the means of production and which is the owner of all the means of production. With the help of its means of production it always exploits other classes. With the help of its means it earns more money and becomes more and more rich. Because of the ownership of money and means of production the capitalist lives a luxurious life. It is a developing class which has become the powerful owner of production forces in a short span of time. It stops the social progress and exploits the labour class. One day will come when the labour class will throw away their authority and will establish a Socialist Society.
What is Labour class or Proletariat class?
According to Marx, there are two classes in society—Capitalist class and labour class. Labour class doesn’t have the ownership of means of production. It doesn’t have any money. It doesn’t have any other way to earn their livelihood except selling its labour. They are always exploited at the hand of capitalist class. Capitalist class always take more work from them and pays less money for their work, Because of the labour of labour class always produces surplus value and keeps it with themselves. Because of this exploitation labourer will become poorer and poorer. One day will come when a struggle will start in both the classes and labour class will throw the capitalist class from their authority and Socialist Society will be established.
What is meant by Capitalism?
About Capitalism Marx was of the view that the reason of exploitation is Capitalism. Capitalists always taking away everything economically from labourers. They are taking extra work from labourers but are not paying them enough money. The capitalist is taking away the whole surplus value produced by labourer. Labourers are forced to do more work than the definite time. Capitalists are taking advantage of thier economic condition and are not giving them enough money. In this condition one day will come when all the labourers will unite and throw away the whole Capitalism.
What is a Social Fact?
In every type of society some facts are there which are different from materialistic, Biological—Psychological facts. This type of facts Durkheim calls as social facts. Durkheim has given some definitions of social fact. At one place Durkheim writes, “Social facts are those ways of thinking, doing work and feeling which has the special characteristics to maintain its existence exterior to the individual consciousness.” At one more place Durkheim writes, “Social facts are those ways of working, thinking and feeling which are exterior to man and which controls the men by their power of constraint.”
Give Types of Social Fact.
Durkheim has described two types of social facts—Normal social fact and Pathological social fact. Normal social facts are those facts which are scattered everywhere in the human society and if they are not common among all the persons then atleast they are common in most of them. Pathological social facts are those social facts which are not scattered everywhere in human society but are available at some places or at some particular place.
What is Division of Labour?
According to Durkheim, meaning of division of labour is division of functions among different people according to their ability and capacity. Works are divided in this so that the work could be done in an organized way. Division of labour is a social fact, moral system and a universal phenomenon which exist in all the societies. It does not originate but it develops.
What is Social Solidarity?
Answer: Durkheim says that in every society some values, ideas, beliefs, ways of behaviour, institutions and laws are there which binds the society in one knot. Because of these elements, the relations and unity or solidarity exists in society. These elements increase acceptance and solidarity in society. This type of solidarity is known as social solidarity. If these elements start to disintegrate then the society will also start to disintegrate.
What is meant by Mechanical solidarity?
According to Durkheim Mechanical solidarity can be seen in the repressive laws of society. The basis of this solidarity are the similarities exist among the members of society. The society in which the life of members is full of similarities, where general norms of thoughts, beliefs, functions, life styles and ideas are there and the society which thinks, works as a collective unit on the basis of these similarities shows mechanical solidarity. Its members are united like parts of a machine. In old primitive socieities, mechanical solidarity was there.
What is meant by Organic solidarity?
Darkheim says that second type of solidarity is organic solidarity. In modern societies man is not directly united with group. In these socieities, there is a lot of importance of mutual human relations. That’s why Durkheim was of the view that Restitutive laws are important in modern socieities. In the societies, which are based on differences, humans are dependent upon each other. Each individual can specialize in one field and for other works, he is dependent upon others. This interdependence of members of group or society and their personal inequalities force them to come closer to each other. It leads to establishment of solidarity in society. This, according to Durkheim, is organic solidarity.
Give four differences between Mechanical and Organic solidarity.
- We can see mechanical solidarity in repressive laws but organic solidarity could be seen in restitutive laws of society.
- Mechanical solidarity is based on similarities but organic solidarity is based on division of labour.
- Mechanical solidarity lies in the hands of collective representation but organic solidarity lies in the hands of functional differences.
- Mechanical solidarity establishes direct relations between an individual and society but in organic solidarity no direct relation is there between society and an individual.
What is Ideal Type?
Weber has used the term Ideal Type not to indicate any ideal thought or some normative ideology but as a specific name for general nomenclature of the social phenomena or the social events. This is based on rational understanding and characteristics. This ideal type forms the basis of his methodology. In fact, this ideal type is an attempt at a scientific explanation of the social phenomenon. Martindale has defined it in these words, “Ideal types are hypothetical concrete individuals constructive out of their relevant components by researchers for the purpose of instituting precise comparison.” Ideal type is not a general or abstract concept but they are such assumed ideal units that have a realistic acceptance.
What is Social Action?
According to Weber, social action is very much different from individual action. While giving its definition Weber has written, “Action is social in so far as, by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual or it takes into account of the behaviour of others and is there by oriented in its course.” Weber has not recognised very overaction as a social action. Social action has to be guided by the object or the meaning because of which it has been done. Similarly, it is to have a social connotation. Every action or any action that is guided towards inanimate object alone, is not a social action. It has to be a meaningful orientation to the actor imitating it.
What is Legal Authority?
Authority based upon formal rules and laws is known as legal authority. This type of authority is being given by laws or rules of the country. Jurisdiction of the concerned person is being given in this. Authoritative person uses this type of authority according to the definite rules and he can be punished if he will go beyond his Jurisdiction. All the persons, who have got legal authority, don’t have same type of authority but the authority of the concerned person depends upon his post. There is a definite hierarchy among the different posts.
What is meant by Traditional Authority?
Authority given on the basis of Social values, folkways, mores, traditions, customs etc. is known as traditional authority. No written rules or laws are behind this authority. Traditional authority always depends upon unwritten rules. Social Sanction is the main force behind this type of authority. If anyone defies this type of authority then he is punished by social boycot. Example of this type of authority is head of the joint family in Indian Society. Authority of Brahmins in caste sytem was also based upon traditions.
What is Charismatic Authority?
The source of individual authority can be completely different from traditional authority. The power of order can be used by a leader, a prophet, a hero etc. but this type of person can be a charismatic leader if he has any magical power, revelation or any other extraordinary quality and he has some sort of charisma.
This type of authority is neither based on legislative rules and nor on tradition but is based on some sort of charisma. This type of power only those people who have some charismatic forces. It takes a lot of time to achieve this type of authority. In other words the person should develop his personality in such a way that the people should be able to understand that this person has developed some charismatic powers and people accept his authority. Magicians, Prophets, Pir, Military-General, Religious leaders come in this type of category.
What were Weber’s views about Social Actibn?
- Weber says that social action can be influenced by the past, present or future’s behaviour of other persons. If we are doing any action for the answer of our past action then it will be a past action. If we are doing any action in present then it will be a present action and if we will do any action while keeping in mind the future then it will be a futuristic action.
- Weber says that every type of external action cannot be a social action. Exterior action can be non-social action if it is influenced by non-living things.
- Few human contacts can come in the category of social action upto that extent when these contacts are influenced by the meaningful behaviour of others.
- If so many persons are doing some action then it cannot be called a social action and that action also cannot be called a social action which is only influenced by other persons.
Law of three stages.
In the field of Sociological concepts, Comte has given a very important contribution and that is the concept of ‘Law of three stages’ given by him. He has written about this concept in his famous book ‘Positive Philosophy’. Comte gave this concept in 1822 when he was only 24 years of age. Comte got the thought of this law from ‘Conderecet’, Turoget and from ‘Saint Simon’. Comte wrote that the human knowledge was not developed at once. It came through a number of stages. Comte says that by studying the intellectual development of man in all ages and societies, we can come to know about its base and basic law under which man’s thinking is there and whose concrete result is included in the facts of our structure and in our historical experiences. These laws are like this. Our every main concept, every branch of our conceptual knowledge goes through three different stages and these three stages are :
- Theological or Fictitious Stage
- Metaphysical or Abstract Stage
- Scientific or Positive Stage
In simple words, the meaning of this law is that when humans wanted to get knowledge about any subject then they were thinking on the theological basis. With the passage of time, people started to get knowledge about any subject on metaphysical basis instead of theological basis. But again with the passage of time, instead of using these two bases, -people started to understand any phenomena on positivistic basis. In first stage fiction, in second stage feeling and in third stage rational or reason became important.
In the conceptual scheme of Comte this theological stage is of great importance. According to him to understand the beginning of social evolution, evaluation of first stage is must. In theological stage thoughts or views of man were fiction or of imagination. Man sees, believes and understands all things as a result of actions at that time of God. They believe that all things whether they are living or non-living are supernatural. It means that there exists some supernatural power in all the things. While talking about human thoughts in religious stage Comte says that in theological stage while finding the essential nature of the universe and while finding the last reasons of natural phenomena human mind believes that all phenomena are the proof of the phenomena of supernatural beings.
In this stage man believed too much in magic and totemism. He believed that in every object, one God or soul or the other resides. That’s why they had separate gods for separate things. As a result of this a number of Gods multiplied. When this number became quite large then an hierarchical order was established and the most important God was placed at first. According to Comte, this stage can be divided in three different sub-stages and these three sub-stages are :
Comte has called this stage the revolutionary time of modern society. This stage lasts long for five centuries and infact it was started in 14th century and lasted upto 19th century. We can divide this passage of time in two parts. In first part revolutionary movement was started automatically or by itself. Second part started in 16th century. In this negative principle was started whose main aim was social change. The start of revolutionary stage can be accepted as from the time of differentiation of spiritual and worldly powers of monotheism. Revolutionaly Philosophy was started from the arrival of Protestentism in 16th century. Here one thing should be kept in mind that in Roman Catholicism the differentiation of spiritual and worldly powers has also encouraged the theological questions to think over the social problems. The second part of metaphysical stage can be divided in three parts. In first part old system came on to an end automatically at the end of 15th century.
In second stage Protestentism came in front of us. Here there was complete independence of observation but it was limited only to Christian religious matter. In third stage deism came forward in 18th century. It has broken all the limits of observation and said that it has no limit. In this stage the middle aged Philosophy and experts of Law came forward and got higher status in society. These both attacked a lot on Catholic System. Because of it Spiritualism came down. Feudal Society and higher class also see a lot of downfall in them. Protestantism has shown the way of wider independence with the help of which people became ready to finish the social and intellectual elements of old system. In this stage Negative philosophy was established.
At the start of this stage two things are important. First thing is this that Comte views it as Industrial society. Second thing is that he believes that it was started in 14th century. It means that this stage was started in comparison with metaphysical or revolutionary stage but in 19th century it started to gain momentum. One difference came into being between the concept and its usage in this stage. Intellectual imagination was divided in three parts. These are Industrial, Asthetic and scientific or philosophical. These three stages are matching with three aspects of every subject like Good or Useful, Beautiful and Truth. From these three parts the most important part is industrial part on the basis of which we can- compare primitive society with modern stage. The special quality of industrial movement was the birth of political independence. One more quality is its revolutionary aspect.
Long Answer Type Questions:
Law of Three Stages:
Explain Comte’s theory of Law of Three Stages.
What do you know about Comte’s Law of Three Stages? Give in detail.
In the field of sociological theories, one of the major contribution of Comte is the theory of Law of Three Stages. He gave this theory in his book ‘Positive Philosophy. He created this concept in 1822 when he was only 24 years of age. Comte got this concept from Conderecet, Turoget and Saint Simon. Comte was of the view that human knowledge and contemplation processes did not develop momentarily. It has crossed many stages, Comte was of the view that after studying human intellectual development in all ages, we come to know about the basic rules under which human contemplation does occur and its result is included in our historical experiences and organisational facts.
All of our major concepts, every branch of knowledge has gone through three separate theoretical conditions and these are—Theological or fictious stage, Metaphysical or abstract stage and Scientific or positive stage. In simple words, this rule says that initially in human life, when people wanted to get knowledge on any subject, they thought about it on theological base. Gradually, instead of thinking on theological level, people started thinking on metaphysical level. Later on, humans left both the levels and started to observe any phenomenon on scientific or positive level. In first stage, imagination was important. Feeling in second stage and reason in third stage became important.
Comte made this law on the basis of different aspects of human nature. There are three important aspects of human nature and these are :
- Feelings. Human feelings motivate a person to do work and these feelings serve his functions.
- Thought. An individual always thinks to satisfy his feelings and makes a few thoughts. These thoughts take responsibility of satisfying such feelings and help in regulating them.
- Action. Humans do work (action) to satisfy their feelings.
Comte was of the view that an individual can live life after maintaining balance in all the three aspects of his nature. If human feelings are different, he thinks differently and acts differently, he cannot live a simple life. In this way, there is a need of a system of knowledge, institutions and beliefs for the existence and continuation of a system regulating behaviour between social individuals. It can lead to the successful establishment of ideological relations between different members of society.
Comte studied the history of human society and said that for giving answer to the given problem, three social systems developed, during the course of time, which had such co-ordination. These three systems were :
- Theological Stage
- Metaphysical Stage
- Positive Stage.
1. Theological Stage. Theological stage has an important place in the conceptual scheme of Comte. According to Comte to understand the beginning of social evolution, the proper observation of first stage is necessary. He believed that in theological stage, all the human ideas were imaginative. Humans always considered every thing as a consequence of activities of a supernatural power i.e. God. He believed that in all the things—alive or lifeless, that supernatural power exists. About human views in theological stage, Comte writes that human brain believed that all the events occurred in the world, are the proof of instant events of that supernatural power. According to Comte, this stage can be divided into three sub stages and these are :
1. Fetishism. Comte established social mobility as a basic element in his philosophy and used it to study human society. Comte believed that his basic element will help in the re-establishment of social sciences. Comte believed that theological stage starts with fetishism. In human thinking, it was a naturally born idea that all the external things have humans like life. At this stage feelings were more dominant than intellectual life. The basic element of fetishism philosophy was the belief that some unidentified influences on human life come forward due to actions of few . things which they considered are alive. Fetishism is an impaired form of theology but is one of its sources.
Fetishism had a close relation with morality, language, intellect and society. At the initial level of human life, sentiments were quite dominant and that is why much stress was given on morality and moral values. Language had no symbolic base. Comte believed that human language has a formative structure. At intellectual level, fetishism was a thumping system. At this stage, humans could only understand theological concepts. There were very few natural phenomenon of which he had personal experience and about which he had very good knowledge. Consequently, the level of this stage’s civilization was of low level. At social level, fetishism gave birth to a specific type of priesthood or clericalism. In this, priests came into being who were astrologers and knew the art of magic. In this stage, humans had direct relation with everything. That is why priesthood or clericalism did not develop in an organised way. The fetish gods did not influence much human life. Consequently, there was not any chance of the birth of intellectual class in this stage.
Here one thing should be kept in mind that in the sub stage, humans started conquering over nature. The most important aspect in this sub stage was the domestication of animals. Comte was of the view that Polytheism, which is the second sub stage, beginning was started in Fetishism. He takes this stage to a historical level. To reach the second sub stage of theological stage, the most important change came at intellectual level was the change in human views about stars. Stars were worshipped in fetishism but when they reached the level of Gods, it took a concrete form.
2. Polytheism. This stage remained for the maximum time. To explain this sub stage, Comte tells us about his analysis method. He tells us that our analytical method must study abstractly the major features of polytheism. After that, polytheism must be analysed in the context of its features. Basically, Polytheism was completely against every type of scientific explanation but the beginning of science started in this stage. Actually reaching polytheism from fetishism was one of the major achievements of human intellect. The social thought of polytheism can be observed from two sides and these are political and moral.
1. Political Structure. Humans sowed the seeds of politics, right from the beginning, in many ways. Initially in politics, military features such as courage and strength were the most important aspects in politics. Later on intelligence and diplomacy became the base of politics. According to Comte, there were many aspects of political structure in Polytheism such as, religious wars (crusades) and military system. In this sub stage, religion gained social importance. Religious festivals in the Greek civilisation express this aspect very well. Except this, in this sub stage, there was a need of military development. The major reason of military development was that without this, the political structure and its progress was almost impossible. Polytheism not only established military discipline but it maintained this discipline as well. Political structure of Polytheism had two important features and these were slavery and centralisation of spiritual and temporal forces.
2. Morality. The above given explanation of political structure clearly tells us that morality, at this stage, was not in good shape. According to Comte, under the system of slavery, personal, familial and social relations became corrupt to a great extent. Except this, in comparison with political structure, morality was at its lower level. -According to
Comte, Polytheism had three phases :
1. Comte gives the name of Egyptian phase to the first phase. Intellectual and social elements of primary phase can develop only when whole power comes in the hands of priest class. Its important function was to accept different occupations on a large scale. Consequently, in this stage, one important institution came into being which is known as caste system. First of all, caste system developed in the Asian countries. Yet, the caste system emerged out of military system but it curbed the wartime interests and gave authority to the priest class. Caste system did not develop in the western societies. According to Comte, social equalitarianism was the main aspect of the civilisation. Sometimes he seems to agree with Karl Marx when he says that Colonialism was good for the Asian countries because the equalitarianism of western countries played an important role in breaking the clutches of caste system. Its universality is a major proof of its activeness for the human needs. Major role of caste system in the intellectual progress is to differentiate theory and its execution. Politically, its importance was to maintain system and peace in society. Even after having many advantages, this phase was against any type of progress or change.
2. Second phase was Greek or intellectual in which, first time, discrepancy was created between intellectual and social progress. In this stage, in Greece, one such intellectual class took birth which did not do any work except the conceptual framing. That is why it emerged as an alternative to the pries’! class. Its direct impact was on the progress of science. The revolutionary change occurred in this was the progress in Geometry. The progress of philosophy was started with the progress of science.
3. Comte gave the name Roman or Military phase to the third phase. Major achievement of Rome was to make free itself from the priest class. Consequently the authority of Senate was established in Rome or Roman Civilisation. The centralised feature of the Roman Civilisation was its war policy. Main objective of the wars was to establish colonial areas. The development of individual personality was based on war culture. Humans were nurtured under military discipline. The reasons of Rome’s decline can be seen in its expansionist policy.
These three phases of Polytheism had a universal character. Comte observes them as a specimen of Egypt, Greece and Rome. His main objective was to express three types of Polytheism.
3. Monotheism. When Rome united whole of the civilised world, Monotheism got a chance to work on intellectual level to raise the living standard. Intellectual decline of theological philosophy was bound to happen. Comte gave the example of Roman Catholicism to explain this stage. Monotheism basically is a belief system which is independent from the political system. Differentiation of religion and political power was the major achievement of modern age. One of the achievements of Roman Catholicism was to bring morality under its control. Initially, morality was controlled by political needs. In this stage, an independent and effective existence of an intellectual class was established. Consequently differentiation between theory and its usage came into being. Now, there is no need of empirical context to create new theories. To bring reforms in political system, abstract theories can be created. In the same way, talks could take place about the needs of future society.
In Monotheism’s sub stage, feudalism could be considered as a base of modern society. In the field of morality, Roman Catholicism was able to maintain a universal morality. It helped in creating different moralities such as personal morality, familial and social morality but there was an intellectual decline in this stage. In comparison to this stage, Polytheism was having better opportunities of intellectual progress.
2. Metaphysical Stage. Comte gave the name of revolutionary time of modern society to this stage. This stage remained for five centuries i.e. from 14th till 19ril centuries. This stage can be divided into two parts. In first part, revolutionary movement started without any deliberate efforts. Second stage started in the 16th century. One negative theory started in this whose main aim was to bring social change. The time of revolutionary stage could be considered at the time of differentiation of spiritual and worldly powers in Monotheism. Revolutionary philosophy started in 16th century with the advent of ‘Protestantism’. Second part of Metaphysical stage can be divided into three phases :
- In first phase, old system automatically ended in the later part of 15th century.
- In second phase, Protestantism came into being. In this, there was a complete right of observation but it remained confined with the Christian religion. It broke the limits of observation and said that it has no limits.
- In third stage, Deism came forward in the 18th century. It broke the limited limits of observation. This phase established the authority of medieval philosophy and legal experts. These both gave a great blow to the Catholic system. Consequently, spiritualism declined which greatly affected the world. Feudalism and upper classes also declined. Protestantism gave birth to universal freedom and consequently people became ready to remove social and intellectual elements of ancient system. Negative philosophy was also established in this stage.
3. Positive Stage. To understand the beginning of positive stage, two things should be kept in mind. First of all, Comte considered it as Industrial society. Secondly, he considers the beginning of this stage also from the 14th century. It means that the positive stage also started with the revolutionary stage but it started dominating in the 14th century. In the positive stage, one difference occurred in its concept and usage. Intellectual imagination was divided in three phases and these were’ industrial, aesthetic and scientific. All of these phases were similar in three aspects of each subject such as good or profitable, beautiful and truth. Most important aspect out of these is industrial on the basis of which, we can compare ancient society with modern system. Major feature of the industrial aspect was the advent of political freedom. One of its another feature is its revolutionary nature.
Explain Positivism theory given by Auguste Comte.
Discuss the theory of Positivism given by Comte.
Auguste Comte used the word ‘Positivism’ in his book ‘Positive Philosophy’ in a way that it became polemical. Actually, he used this word as an ideological weapon to struggle against the revolutionary culture. Comte’s main objective, to understand social phenomenon, was to dismiss critical and destructive theories of negative philosophy and, in place of it, to establish formative and constructive theories of positive philosophy. In other words, main objective of Comte was to bring social study and research at scientific level. Positivism wanted to use methods of natural sciences in social studies and to make social sciences more realistic such as Physics, Chemistry etc. He believed that through positivism, real and positive knowledge could be attained. He said that through their practical use, social progress could be made possible. Real and positive knowledge will become strong base of social reorganisation. In this way, the ultimate objective of positivism is social reconstruction or reorganisation.
Now the question is that what is meant by the concept of Positivism given by Comte. In simple words, the scientific method used by Comte to study social phenomenon is positivism. Comte adopted this method as study method from Huem, Kont and Gaul. He used positivism while formulating his theories but never gave its clear cut explanation in his books. He never tried to prove the correctness of its rules. He did so deliberately because he believed that the explanation of method cannot be differentiated from the study of its phenomenon which can be found through these methods.
After studying Comte’s writings, we can say that the meaning of positivism is a scientific method. Scientific method is the method in which, to understand and explain any subject matter, there is no place of imagination, guessing, exchange etc. It is a systematic functional method of observation, experience, classification, comparison and scientific method. In this, to understand and to gain any knowledge of any subject, the scientific method based on observation, experience, classification, comparison and historical method is known as positivism.
Chamblis explained the meaning of Comte’s positivism in these words. Comte rejected the thing that positivism is antitheist because, in any form, it is not attached with supernaturality. He also believed that positivism is not fatalist because it accepts that change can come in outer phase. It is also not optimistic because it lacks the metaphysical base of optimism. Positivism is related with reality, not with imagination, is related with useful knowledge, not with complete knowledge. It is related with those definite facts whose pre-knowledge is possible. It is also related with real knowledge, not with indefinite ideas. In short, positivism is the system of ideas which is universally accepted.
From the given description, it is clear that positivism is the scientific method based on observation, explanation, classification, comparison and historical method through which the real and positive knowledge about any subject is gained. While following Huem and Kont, Comte was clear about the fact that what any science should achieve and what it should try to achieve. The scope of scientific knowledge is limited. Such logics are included in scientific knowledge which are about the relations of traditions and can be checked. These logics, are of two types :
- Uniformity of co-existence
- Uniformities of succession.
During the times of Comte, natural sciences such as mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology were completely developed and the study of their subject matter was done through scientific method. But Comte was not satisfied with the study system of social phenomenon through prevailing hypostatical and religious methods. He gave the utmost importance to scientific method. He was in favour of bringing social study system into the scientific study system of observation, classification, analysis etc. Comte was of the view that, with the help of systematic functional systems based on observation, experience, classification etc., the study of not only natural phenomenon is possible but the study of society is also possible because society is a part of nature. The way in which natural phenomenon are based on few definite rules, in the same way, as a part of nature, social phenomenon also occur according to certain rules.
Social phenomenon never occur suddenly but occur according to pre-determined rules. It means that the study of collective life and its related basic rules is realistically possible. This is the basic concept of positivism. So, it is clear that Comte’s Positivism is not based on imagination but is based on the systematic functional system of observation, comparison, classification, historical method which explains social tradition and instead of finding reasons, it gives more stress on finding causal-effect relationship.
It is clear from the given description that in positivistic system, initially we select a topic and then, through observation, we collect all the related facts. In the eyes of Comte, observation is the major method to study any phenomenon, natural or social. After this, it is explained, analysed and on the basis of general features, they are classified. In the end, related with the topic, conclusions are drawn and they are verified by using comparison and historical method.
Theory Of Social Action:
Discuss Max Weber’s theory of Social Action.
Among the propounders of the theory of Social Action, Max Weber is quite prominent. Weber gave a detailed and scientific explanation of the theory,of Social Action. Only through the concept of Social Action, Weber explains scientific nature of Sociology. A number of Sociologists, such as Raymond Aaron, Irwing Zetlin, Bogardax, Rex etc. criticised Max Weber and they started their work of criticism only with the theory of Social Action. Before the beginning of this theory, we must keep in mind that there must be no technical difference between action and behaviour. It is necessary for the members of the society to interact with others for the formation of relations. There is always an objective behind every type of human action. One needs to act to achieve his objective. As a sociologist, one cannot include all the actions in the purview of Social Action. Only such actions come in its purview which are given any particular meaning by the actor. This action of an individual can be external, internal, mental and material. Along with this, actions can be related with any time present, future or past. It means it can be related with any age.
First of all the theory of Social Action was given by ‘Alfred Marshall’. Marshall studied Utilitarianism and developed the concept of action. Marshall considered action as a special category of value. After Marshall, Vilfredo Pareto developed the theory of ‘elites’ and ‘circulation of elites’. In this category, Durkheim gave the theory of ‘Social Fact’. In modern age, major propounder of the concept of Social Action was Max Weber who gave the concept of meaningful ‘Social Action’. In the same way the names of Weblin, Commons, Karl Manheim, Parsons and Merton are quite important. We can also include the names of William White and C. Right Mills in this category. Max Weber gave his theory of ‘Social Action’ in his book ‘The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation’.
Weber says that social action is very much different from individual action. While defining social action, Max Weber writes that, “That action is social in so far as by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by acting individual it takes account of the behaviour of others and is ther eby oriented in its course.” To explain his concept of social action, Weber divided it into four parts. According to Weber, this classification of Weber is based on the relations with things. Parsons considered it a form of orientation. Gerth and Mills call it as a motivational direction.
Before understanding Weber’s classification of action, we need to understand the concept of Social Action. According to Weber, we need to keep in mind four things before accepting any action as Social Action :
- Weber believed that social action can be affected by the past, present and future behaviour of other individuals. If we act in accordance with our action of past, it will be a past action. If we act in present time, it is a present action and if we act while keeping in mind future, it will be a future action.
- Weber says that every exterior action cannot be a social action. Exterior action is non-social which is influenced completely by non-living things.
- Few human contacts come in the category of social action till the extent that they are related and influenced by meaningful behaviour of others.
- Action is neither called social if same type of action is done by many and nor it can be called social which is only affected by others. For example, during rain, if every one opens up his umbrella, it cannot be a social action because action of every one is not related with the action of others. Weber says that imitation of someone’s action is not social until your action is having a meaningful relation with others’ action.
Types Of Social Action:
1. Rational Action. Rational Action (also known as value-rational ones, wertrational) is the action which is taken because it leads to a valued goal, but with no thought of its consequences and often without consideration of the appropriateness of the means chosen to achieve it (‘the end justifies the means’). Value rational or Instrumentally rational social action is divided into two groups : rational consideration and rational orientation. Rational consideration is when secondary results are taken into account rationally. This is also considered alternative means when secondary consequences have ended. Determining this mean of action is quite hard and even incompatible. Rational orientation is being able to recognize and understand certain mediums under common conditions. According to Weber, heterogeneous actors and groups that are competing, find it hard to settle on a certain medium and understand the common social action.
2. Instrumental Action (also known as value relation, goal-instrumental ones, zweckrational): actions which are planned and taken after evaluating the goal in relation to other goals, and after thorough consideration of various means (and consequences) to achieve it. An example would be a high school student preparing for life as a lawyer. The student knows that in order to get into college, he/she must take the appropriate tests and fill out the proper forms to get into college and then do well in college in order to get into law school and ultimately realize his/her goal of becoming a lawyer. If the student chooses not to do well in college, he/she knows that it will be difficult to get into law school and ultimately achieve the goal of being a lawyer. Thus the student must take the appropriate steps to reach the ultimate goal.
Another example would be most economic transactions. Value Relation is divided into the subgroups commands and demands. According to the law, people are given commands and must use the whole system of private laws to break down the central government or domination in the legal rights which a citizen possess. Demands can be based on justice or human dignity just for morality. These demands have posed several problems. Even legal formalism has been put to the test. These demands seem to weigh on the society and at times can make them feel immoral.
The rational choice approach to religion draws a close analogy between religion and the market economy. Religious firms compete against one another to offer religious products and services to consumers, who choose between the firms. To the extent that there are many religious firms competing against each other, they will tend to specialize and cater to the particular needs of some segments of religious consumers. This specialization and catering in turn increase the number of religious consumers actively engaged in the religious economy. This proposition has been confirmed in a number of empirical studies.
It is well known that strict churches are strong and growing in the contemporary United States, whereas liberal ones are declining. For lannaccone’s religious experience is a jointly produced collective good. Thus members of a church face a collective action problem. Strict churches, which often impose’ costly and esoteric requirements on their members, are able to solve this problem by weeding out potential free riders, since only the very committed would join the church in the face of such requirements. Consistent with the notion that religious experience is a collective good, lannaccone et al. show that churches that extract more resources from their members (in the form of time and money) tend to grow in membership.
3. Affectional Action (also known as emotional actions) are the actions which are taken due to one’s emotions, to express personal feelings. For example, cheering after a victory, crying at a funeral would be affectional actions. Affectual is divided into two subgroups : uncontrolled reaction and emotional tension. In uncontrolled reaction there is no restraint and there is lack of discretion. A person with an uncontrolled reaction becomes less inclined to consider other peoples’ feelings as much as his own. Emotional tension comes from a basic belief that a person is unworthy or powerless to obtain his/her deepest aspirations. When aspirations are not fulfilled there is internal unrest. It is often difficult to be productive in society because of the unfulfilled life. Emotion is often neglected because of concepts at the core of exchange theory. A common example is behavioral and rational choice assumptions. From the behavioral view, emotions are often inseparable from punishments.
Emotion. Emotions are one’s feelings in response to a certain situation. There are six types of emotion : social emotions, counterfactual emotions, emotions generated by what may happen (often manifested as anxiety), emotions generated by joy and grief (examples found in responses typically seen when a student gets a good grade, and when a person is at a funeral, respectively), thought-triggered emotions (sometimes manifested as flashbacks), and finally emotions of love and disgust. All of these emotions are considered to be unresolved. There are six features that are used to define emotions : intentional objects, valence, cognitive antecedents, physiological arousal, action tendencies, and lastly physiological expressions. These six concepts were identified by Aristotle and are still the topic of several talks.
4. Rational choice theorists, on the other hand, believe that all social actions are rationally motivated. Rationality means that the actions taken are analyzed and calculated for the greatest amount of (self)-gain and efficiency. Rational choice theory although increasingly colonized by economist, it does differ from microeconomic conceptions. Yet rational choice theory can be similar to microeconomic arguments. Rational choice assumes individuals to be egoistic and hyperrational although theorists mitigate these assumptions by adding variables to their models.
5. Traditional actions. Actions which are carried out due to tradition, because they are always carried out in a particular manner for certain situations. An example would be putting on clothes or relaxing on Sundays. Some traditional actions can become a cultural artifact. Traditional is divided into two subgroups: customs and habits. A custom is a practice that rests among familiarity. It is continually perpetuated and is ingrained in a culture. Customs usually last for generations. A habit is a series of steps learned gradually and sometimes without conscious awareness. As the old cliche goes, “old habits are hard to break” and new habits are difficult to form.
Social Action models help to explain social outcomes because of basic sociological ideas such as the Looking Glass Self. The Idea of Cooley’s Looking Glass Self is that our sense of self develops as we observe and reflect upon others and what they may think of our actions. Additionally, impression formation processes allow us to interpret the significance of others’ actions.
Social Actions and Institutions Model. An ‘institution’ consists of specialized roles and settings that are linked together semantically, with the complex typically being devoted to serving some function within society.
In sociological hierarchy, social action is more advanced than behavior, action and social behaviour, and is in turn followed by more advanced social contact, social interaction and social relation.
Weber said that social actions are directed in three ways :
- Traditional Usage: It means that which is edited on the basis of tradition. Social customs affect human actions. Consequently human actions never move away from social traditions which led to the maintenance of social decorum.
- Interest: The meaning of interest is by such similarities in which actions could be understood in the form of prudential guidance.
- Legitimate Order: In this, actions are directed by actor’s ideals.
Authority-Concept And Types:
What is meant by Authority? Explain the types of authority given by Max Weber.
Human activities are always according to social structure. In each organised group, elements of authority are always there. In an organised group, few general members are there and few other members are there who are given responsibility as well as authority. Few persons work as administrators. Composition of a group is always according to this rule of authority which states that few are empty handed and few are given enough. Legal or sanctioned form of power is known as authority. Meaning of sanction of power is by that power which is sanctioned by society. This sanction can be given through written rules, laws, traditions or written norms. Power is the capacity of a person or a group of influencing other’s behaviour according to one’s wish. Power is an institutionalised concept and Weber’s analysis is in this direction. Weber has given three basic types of authority and these are :
- Legal Authority
- Traditional Authority
- Charismatic Authority
1. Legal Authority. The authority based upon formal rules and laws is known as legal authority. This type of authority is being given by laws or rules of the country. Jurisdiction of the concerned person is being given is this. Authoritative person uses this type of authority according to the definite rules and he can be punished if he will go beyond his jurisdiction. All the persons, who have got legal authority, don’t have some type of authority but the authority of the concerned person depends upon his post. There is definite hierarchy among the different posts..
There are certain rules in using authority which keep restrictions on those who use authority. Authority differentiates his personality as an individual and as an authoritative person. It is expected from him to keep all of his activities in written form. In this way State makes certain rules according to which few statuses are there with which some authority is associated. So if any person gets that status, he automatically enjoys the authority associated with that status.
In this type of authority, the source of authority is not the individual prestige of a person but is the authority associated with the rules. For this his scope is limited until the authority is given to him by laws. An individual cannot go beyond the limits of authority which is given to him by his official status or laws. In this way there is a basic difference between his scope of official activities and personal activities. For example, if any one is working as an officer then in office he enjoys certain type of authority which he cannot enjoy at home. At home he enjoys the authority of a father and a husband but not of an officer. In any complex society, legal authority is not the same in every one’s hand but there is definitely a hierarchy in it. It means that in legal authority certain higher and lower authorities are there.
2. Traditional Authority. Authority given on the basis of social values, folkways, mores, traditions, customs etc. is known as traditional authority. No written rules or laws are behind this type of authority. Traditional authority always depends upon unwritten rules. Social sanction is the main force behind this type of authority. If any one defies this type of authority then he is punished by social boycot. Example of this type of authority is head of the joint family in Indian society. Every one obeys the orders of head of the family due to traditions. Authority of Brahmins caste system was also based upon traditions. They are considered as superior to other castes and they have the permission to perform religious rituals. Even today, Brahmin plays a very important role as a religious consultant. In the same way authority of husband over wife is the fine example of traditional authority in Indian society.
This type of authority is not given according to one’s status or is given to any one under certain rules but one enjoys it because authority to him is given by tradition. This status is defined according to traditional system because of which one gets a specific type of authority. In this way authority based on traditional beliefs is known as traditional authority. For example, in earlier times, the authority given to panchs in panchayat was not according to certain rules but was according to traditions associated with the status of panchs. Even the authority of panchs was compared with the authority of God. It means that panch was seen as replica of God. In the same way the authority given to father in a patriarchal society is not according to rules but is based on traditions. We do not follow father’s orders because of any legal authority given to him but we follow him because traditionally this process is going on from the ages. Legal authority is definite and limited according to certain defined rules but this is not the case in traditional authority because traditions are not clearly defined and they don’t have any definiteness. There is no limit of this type of authority. For example, the limit of authority of an officer can be defined but we cannot define his authority as a father or as a husband.
3. Charismatic Authority. The source of charismatic authority can be completely differ ent from traditional authority. The power of order can be used by a leader, a prophet, a hero etc. but this type of person can be a charismatic leader if he has any magical power, revaluation or any other extraordinary quality and he has some sort of charisma. Those people who obey his orders, are his followers who, instead of belie’zing in legal or traditional authority, believe in his charismatic abilities and individual charisma. Those followers can barely be characterized as an organisation and their activi ties are based on the authority of the leaders. Officials of this type of organisation can be designated by ithe leader not by any rule or tradition. They are bounid to the orders given by their charismatic leader.
This type of authority is neither’ based on legislative? rules and nor on tradition but i:s based on some sor-t of charisma. This type of power only those people enjoy who have some charismatic forces. It takes a lot of time to achieve this type of authority. In other words; the person should develop his personality in such a way that the people- should be able to understand that this, person has developed some charismatic powers and people mus?t accept his authority. Magicians, Prophets, Pir, Military General, Religious leaders come in this type of authority. People accept authority of thin type of person because they feel that this person has some charismatic traits; which ordinary people don’t have. Thai’s why they even bow in front of him. This type of au thority don’t have any limit. This type of authority has a feat ure that after some time, it changes into either legal or traditional autho:rity.
Explain the concept of Social Fact of Durkheim. Critically examine it also. .
Explain the nature and characteristics of Social Fact. Criticise it also.
The analysis of‘social fact’ given by Karl Marx is very important. Durkheim’s views about ‘Social Fact’ can be seen in his second main book ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’. Durkheim felt that Sociology cannot be established as independent science until or unless its subject matter is not clear and for the analysis of this there is need of systematic objective methodology. Because of these two objectives Durkheim wrote ‘The Rules of Sociological Method.’Durkheim clearly felt the drawbacks of Sociologists like Comte, Spencer, Mill etc. and clearly wrote, “These Sociologists have gone forward unclear towards the relations between nature of Sociology and Socio-biological areas.”
What are Social Facts? From the point of view of subject matter and study methodology, Durkheim has tried to establish Sociology as an independent Social Science. Durkheim was of the view that Sociology does not include all the human activities in its study’ but it limits itself to the study of social facts. In this chapter Durkheim tries to clarify that actually which facts oan be called as Social Facts? What are the characteristics of social facts and how these can be studied?
While explaining the meaning of Social Fact, Durkheim said that there are many wrong views about social fact and that’s why many misconceptions are there regarding the subject matter of Psychology, Biology and Sociology. Himself Durkheim has written, “Before knowing methodology of social facts we should know that which facts are generally known as ‘Social’? This is also important from this point that the word ‘Social’ has been used in very indefinite way. Today this word is used for that phenomenon which occurs in society. That is a different thing that how much interest that phenomenon have in society. But we don’t have any human phenomenon which cannot be called as social. Every man is sleeping, eating, drinking and thinking and it is in the interest of society that everthing should be done in a systematic way. If we’ll call all these social facts then there will be no independent subject matter of Sociology and there will be a great confusion in Sociology and Psychology and Biology.
While explaining the meaning of social fact, first of all Durkheim said that social facts should be seen as things. Yet Durkheim has not given clear meaning of the word ‘thing’. Durkheim has used the word ‘thing’ in four different meanings. These are :
- Social fact is that thing which has some characteristics and externally which can be seen.
- Social fact is that thing which we can know with experience only.
- Social fact is that thing whose existence is not dependent upon humans,
- Social fact is that thing about which we can understand externally. But because social fact is like thing so it is not a static concept but it should be taken as moveable concept.
In this way we can see that in every type of society some those type of facts are there which are quite different from Material, Biological and Psychological. To this type of facts Durkheim is calling them social fact. Durkheim has given many definitions of social facts. At one place Durkheim has written, “Social facts are those ways of doing work, thinking and experiencing, in which they have extraordinary characteristic of keeping their existence outside of personal consciousness.” At another place Durkheim has written, “Social facts are the ways of doing work, thinking and experiencing, which are external from man and which controls the man with the help of their power of constraint.”
In the end of first chapter of his book Durkheim gave clear definition of social fact. He wrote, “A social fact is a temporary, permanent way of doing work, which is capable of putting external pressure or every way of doing any work which is available in any society in general form but with that they are independent from personal consciousness and have their independent existence.”
From all these definitions of Durkheim it is clear that way of acting are social facts. In ways of acting all human behaviour are included which are related with his thinking, feeling and acting. These are the parts of social reality. These phenomenon can be temporary or can be permanent. For example in any society there is little bit difference between numbers of suicide, marriages and dead people. It means that their annual rate is .generally static or permanent. So these can be called social facts. In this way ‘God’ cannot be called as social fact because it is always from real observation.
In this way any thought of mind cannot be called as social fact because it doesn’t have any external form. But any concept as rule given by any scholar or any pray, in which Totemism is included, can be called as social fact because their real observation is possible. Language, folk stories, religious beliefs, business laws, actions moral rules are the best examples of social facts because their observation, experimentation is possible and they are external of humans and they are capable to pressurise them.
Characteristics of Social Facts:
On the basis of given description we can say that there are three characteristics of social facts. These are :
1. Exteriority. The first and most important characteristic of social fact is its exteriority. By exteriority it means that it is right that social facts are made by the members of society but when they are developed once then they are not under control of any particular person and they are taken as independent reality. Then they don’t have any internal relation with scientist or maker of that fact and no one can influence these social facts.
To explain exteriority of social facts Durkheim has explained this on the basis of difference between individual consciousness and collective consciousness. According to Durkheim if we will analyse the organization and forms of individual consciousness then it will be clear that the main bases of individual consciousness are sentiments. Sentiments are the results of interaction of different cells. But these sentiments, which develop from different cells, have their own characteristics which are not there before the birth of cells. With collection a system comes in front. To this concept Durkheim is calling ‘Synthesis and Suigeneris. Durkheim believes that the way in which the main base of personal thoughts is the different collection of cells, in that same way the main base of social thoughts is members of society. Collective consciouness is developed from the organization of personal consciousness. In this way “these show the exceptional fact of living outside of individual consciousness.”
2. Constraint. The second characteristic of social fact is its constraint. In other words, social facts have a type of pressure or constraint on man. Social fact cannot be made by one man or by some men, it will be made by many or a number of humAnswer: So that why these are very powerful and they can put effect of constraint on any man. Durkheim was of the view that social facts not only affect the behaviour of man but they affect his way of thinking and doing work. In this way according to Durkheim we can see this characteristic of social fact in this way that it is not according to the interests of humans but the behaviour of humans is according to them. Durkheim is giving a number of explanations to explain this characteristic.
According to him, the behaviour and ways of humans all are influenced by many social facts like moral rules, religious beliefs, economic systems etc. Durkheim has written, “Constraint is their internal characteristic and its proof is that how much I am trying to opposing them they are exerting more pressure or constraint on me. If I will not use the ways of my country, If I will not wear clothes and obey rules of my country then my countrymen will keep me away from them. In actual words these are as effective as punishment. Yet these are indirect but still they are influential.”
At another place Durkheim has written, “It is’not necessary for me to talk with other French people in French language or I should use popular currency, but it will not be possible for me to do work against this. As an industrialist I am free to use old methods of business but if I will do this then definitely I will’ call my destruction. It means that these social facts are exerting on me to work according to them.”
In this way social facts are coming in the category of collective consciousness and collective consciousness is the collection of individual consciousness. This is the consciousness of consciousnesses. A social fact can be seen with the power of constraint pressure.
3. Generality. The third characteristic of social fact is its generality and these have been distributed right from the ancient times till today and these are spread in every sphere of life. These are common to all. These do not belong to any particular person. This generality is not just the collection of many personal facts. They are collective by nature and they are influencing people because of their characteristics of generality and collectiveness. In this way we can see that according to Durkheim, there are three important characteristics of social facts :
- Social facts are keeping their independent existence from personal thoughts.
- Social facts have an effect of constraint on humans.
- They are universal and general and are available everywhere.
In short, according to Durkheim social fact is the every way of doing work which is external, puts pressure on humans and are general in nature.
Rules For Distinguishing Between Normal and Pathological Facts. In his 3rd chapter Durkheim has given laws for distinguishing normal and pathological facts. Marx has said that the social facts of subject matter of Sociology generally are coming in front of us in two forms. First are those which are according to the accepted behaviour of the society and others are those which are different from these. To these Durkheim has given types of social facts and these are of two types.
- Normal facts
- Pathological facts
According to Durkheim, science must have power to formulate those rules on the basis of which we can differentiate these normal and pathological facts. Normal social facts are those facts which are spread everywhere in human society and if they are not spread in all then atleast they are spread in most of these.
Pathological social facts are those facts which are not spread everywhere but are spread only in some parts. To clarify Durkheim’s view, Raymond Arron has written, “Any phenomenon is normal at that time when they are found in the special stage of evolution of any particular society.” With this definition of Arron the types of facts will be cleared. According to him any social phenomena or fact will be normal in that condition when it is available in any particular stage of evolution of one particular society. In contrary to that if any fact is not of that type or it don’t have characteristic of this type then it can be called as pathological fact.
Durkheim has given three important rules to -differentiate in Normal and Pathological facts.
1. According to Durkheim, the first important rule of differentiating between these two is Generality. Generality is called to that fact when any characteristic or fact is available in most of the members of the group. According to Durkheim the General Phenomenon available in any society or group can be called as normal. Those phenomenon or facts don’t have this characteristic means the phenomenofi which are not average those will be called as Pathological.
In this way Generality is the main base of differentiating in Normal and Pathological facts but Generality is a neutral concept. It is not sure that we can find all the facts everywhere and in every type of society. We can give two examples to clarify this rule. In U.S.A. ‘Kissing’ at any place is a General Phenomena but it is not in India. In this way ‘untouchability’ was a general phenomena in India before independence but now it is not.
2. The second rule of differentiating between normal and pathological fact according to Durkheim is that all use the result of preceding method (Generality) to show that the Generality of the phenomena is related with the general condition of community life of that society. It means that if it is called any fact as general fact according to first rule then to verify our result we can say that this phenomenon is related with the general conditions of community life of that society. For example, marriage is a social phenomena which can be found in every type of society. It is general because it is related closely with our life.
3. According to Durkheim’s 3rd rule we can verify any social phenomena as formal fact in that condition when that normal fact is available in that society which has not evolutionized fully or which is in underdeveloped condition. It is must in that condition when that particular fact is available in that society which has not evolutionized fully.
Division Of Labour:
What do you know about the concept of Division of Labour given by Durkheim? Give its functions and reasons also.
Write a note on ‘Division of Labour’ as described by Durkheim.
In 1893 Durkheim published his first book in French language called ‘De La Division due Trovail Social’. Though it was his first writing yet it was a strong base for his popularity. On this book only he got doctorate from Paris University in 1893. In this great book he has fully explained the social division of labour. Durkheim’s this book has been divided into three parts. In every part he has analysed the different aspects of division of labour. These three parts are :
- The Functions of Division of Labour
- Causes and Conditions
- Abnormal forms of Division of Labour
In the first part of this book ‘Functions of Division of Labour’ he has tried to prove that division of labour is the base of social solidarity. With that from the point of view of scientific study he has explained different forms of Law, types of solidarity, different forms of human relations, crime, punishment, social evolution and some problems of society. In second part of this book he has given detailed explanation of reasons and results of division of labour. In third part of this book he has given some abnormal forms of division of labour.
Here we will give brief description of two parts and with this we will explain the concept of division of labour.
Functions of Division of Labour:
Durkheim accepts every social fact as moral fact. Any social behaviour lives on the base of moral base. As a functionalist first of all Durkheim has given function of division of labour. According to him, division of labour is a social fact, that’s why he started his book from its functional analysis. First of all, Durkheim has given the meaning of function. He has given two meanings of function:
- Meaning of function is from system of movement it means from action.
- Second meaning of function is from this action or movement and from interrelation according to its needs which means the need to be fulfilled by action.
Here Durkheim is using meaning of function from second point of view. In this way by function of division of labour his meaning is that which basic of social existence is fulfilled by the process of division of labour. Function is that in the absence of which, the basic needs of its units cannot be fulfilled. Generally it has been said that the function of division of labour is the development of Society because it is a truth that with the development of division of labour and
- Penal law. These are related with giving suffering, causing loss, to kill and to obstruct independence. We can call them organised Repressive laws.
- Diffused law. Some repressive laws are there which are spread in the whole society or group on the basis of morality. That’s why Durkheim is calling them diffused law.
According to Durkheim, Repressive laws are related with criminal functions. These laws explain the crime and its punishment. These laws also show the basic conditions of collective life of society. Every society has its basic circumstances. So in different societies repressive laws are also different. The power of these repressive laws is based in collective mind and collective mind gets power from equalities.
2. Restitutive law. Another type of law is Restitutive law system. These laws provide balance to the imbalance produced in the human relations. In this group civil laws, business laws, constitutional laws, administrative laws are coming. These laws are not related with the whole society but are related with human. These laws are regulating the balance and imbalance produced in the personal relations of members of society. Restitutive laws are joining individuals and society with some middle institutions.
On the basis of these two types of laws according to Durkheim two types of solidarities can be made. These two types of solidarities are the result of two different types of life styles. Repressive laws are related with general nature of man and with equalities. But Restitutive laws are realted with differences or with division of labour. The type of solidarity which comes due to Repressive Jaws, according to Durkheim, it is Mechanical Solidarity arid the solidarity which comes due to Restitutive laws is called Organic Solidarity whose base is division of labour.
In this way according to Durkheim there are two types of social solidarities :
1. Mechanical Solidarity. According to Durkheim, Mechanical Solidarity can be seen in the repressive laws of society. The basis of this solidarity are the equalities available in the members of society. The society in which the life of members is full of equalities, where general norms of thoughts, beliefs, functions, life style and ideal are there and the society which thinks, works as a collective unit on the basis of these equalities shows mechanical solidarity. Its members are united like a machine. In old primitive socieities mechanical solidarity was there. He was of the view that even crime helps in binding the people in solidarity. In this way there is existence of one social solidarity which comes out of definite conditions of consciousness which are normal for the members of any society. These can be shown by Repressive laws. These are based on the power of collective consciousness.
2. Organic Solidarity. According to Durkheim, second type of solidarity is organic solidarity. The power of Repressive laws is in collective consciousness. Collective consciousness gets power from equalities. In primitive societies repressive laws were there because the base of social life was equalities. According to Durkheim, modern societies are influenced by division of labour and specialization in which instead of equalities, inequalities are the base. This difference of group or collective life gives importance to individual consciousness.
In modern societies man is not directly united with group. In-these societies there is a lot of importance of mutual relations of humAnswer: That’s why he was of the view that in modern societies instead of Repressive laws, Restitutive laws are important. In the societies which are based on differences humans are dependent upon each other. Every human can specialize in one field and for other works he is dependent upon others. This interdependent of members of group or society and their personal inequalities force them to come closer to each other with the help of which solidarity in society would be established. To this type of solidarity Durkheim is saying organic solidarity. This can be seen in restitutive social system.
According to Durkheim, this solidarity is just like Physical solidarity of man. Because of their specialized functions Hand, Feet, Nose, Ear, Eye etc. have different existence as independent parts of body but their function is possible in that condition when they are united with each other. Hand cannot work until or unless it is not joined with body. In other words, there is unity or solidarity between different parts of body but that is dependent upon mutual dependence. With the increase of population, needs also increase. For the growing demands of people division of labour and specialization take place and with that organic solidarity can be seen in modern societies.
3. Contractual Solidarity. After analysing mechanical and organic solidarity Durkheim has also written about one more solidarity which is known as Contractual Solidarity. According to Durkheim, the process of division of labour gives birth to contractual relationships. People of a group are getting the services of each other on the basis of mutual contracts and mutually they are cooperating with each other. It is right that in modern societies people are establishing cooperation and solidarity on the basis of contracts. But the function of division’of labour is not to give birth to contractual solidarity. According to him, contractual solidarity is individual fact, but it is regulated by society.
Social Evolution. Durkheim has explained social evolution on the basis of development of division of labour. He was of the view that the social evolution from primitive society to modern society should be called as result of continuously increasing division of labour. The changes which came in the social life of primitive societies which were easy and based on equalities, all those can be found in the explanation of process of division of labour. In other words, according to Durkheim, the development of division of labour is social evolution.
Causes and Conditions:
Second part of book ‘Division of Labour in Society’ is related with causes, conditions and results and these are given below :
Causes of Division of Labour. Durkheim has explained division of labour on Sociological basis. He has found the causes of division of labour in the conditions of social life and in the social needs produced from them. From this point of view, he had divided the cause of division of labour in two parts :
- Primary Causes
- Secondary Causes,
In Primary causes Durkheim has taken the cause of increase of population and its result. To Secondary reasons he has divided them in two parts and these are increasing unclarity of General consciousness and the decreasing influence of Ancestors. Now we explain them in detail :
(1) Increase in the size and density of Population. According to Durkheim, the increase in size and density of population is the central and Primary reason of division of labour. He says that the increase of population has two aspects—increase in size of population and increase in density of population. These both aspects give birth to division of labour. With the increase in population old primitive societies are disintegrating and new mixed societies are coming into being. Population started to concentrate in few centres. The density of population he has divided in two parts :
- Material Density. From physical point of view concentration of people at one place is material density.
- Moral Density. Because of material density relations of the people are increasing with which actions and reactions are increasing. To the complexity coming out of increased mutual relations and inter-relations Durkheim gives the name of dynamic or moral Density.
(2) Unclarity of Collective Consciousness. In secondary reasons of division of labour he has given first place to unclarity of collective consciousness. In equality based societies, collective consciousness is quite strong because of which members of societies cannot be motivated by individual or personal point of view. Collective feelings are showing them the way. Durkheim was of the view that division of labour and individual specialization is possible in that condition when instead of collective point of view, individual point of view will develop and when individual consciousness suppresses collective consciousness. So according to him the development of division of labour will be slow and difficult if collective consciousness is strong and definite. If this collective consciouness will be loose enough then the’ division of labour will move with quite a good speed.
(3) Ancestral reasons and division of labour. The second cause of division of labour according to Durkheim is the decreasing influence of ancestral influence. How much more influence these ancestral qualities can exert on man that much less chances will be there for change. In other words for the development of division of labour it is must that we should not give importance to ancestral qualities. The development of division of labour is possible only if there will be differences in the nature and behaviour of the people.
The result of classifying people on the base of their ancestral qualities and binding them with their ancestors is that man has not been able to develop his special qualities and does not change. In this way it is an obstacle in the distribution of division of labour. He was of view that with the passage of time ancestral binding will become so weak and their ancestral qualities will also become weak. So slowly and slowly different qualities of people will develop and then division of labour will also develop. In this way we have seen that Durkheim was of the view that increase of population, unclarity of collective consciousness and decreasing influence of ancestral qualities are the causes of division of labour.
3. Consequences of Division of Labour:
After giving primary and secondary factors of division of labour Durkheim gives us the results or consequences which come out of development of division of labour. We should keep in mind that ‘Functions’ and. ‘Consequences’ are two different words. So many facts which just seem like functions of this, are actually consequences of this. He has given a number of consequences of division of labour and some of these are given below :
1. Functional independence and specialization. Durkheim has differentiated between physical division of labour and Social division of labour and has given consequences of social division of labour. According to him, its one result is this that, the way in which work will be divided in that some way the independence of doing work and mobility also increases. Because of division of labour man keeps his special qualities in special function. So according to him, the result of development of division of labour is that the functions of humans become independent from their physical features. In other words human’s structural qualities are not influencing its functional nature.
2. Development of civilization. In the early part of the first part of his book he clarifies that development of civilization is not the function of division of labour because division of labour is a moral fact and all aspects of civilization-industrial, scientific and intellectual aspects don’t have any relation with moral development.
He has given development of civilization as a result of division of labour. He was of the view that the increase in size and density of population makes the development of civilization compulsory. Division of labour arid civilization both develop side by side but division of labour develops first and then because of its result civilization develops. So in this way he was of the view that civilization is not the aim and function of division of labour but it is its compulsory result-.
3. Social development. Development is the result of change. Division of labour gives birth to change. Change is a continuous process in society, so development is also a continuous process in society. According to him, the main result of this change is division of labour. Because of division of labour changes come and with change development comes. In this way social development is the result of division of labour. He said that the main reason of development is society. We change because society changes. Development will stop if the movement of society will be stopped but from scientific point of view it is not possible. So according to him, development is the result of social life.
4. Social Change and Individual Change. Durkheim has also explained social change on the basis of division of labour.The change which happens in individual is the result of changes in society. He was of the view that the main reason of changes of society is the change of size, distribution and density of population which does division of labour in humans are all individual changes. It happens due to result of these social changes.
5. Origin of new groups and interdependence. According to him, one of the results of division of labour is the development of social interest of persons engaged in special functions. For the security of their special interests new groups will be formed. In this way how much more division of labour is there that much more interdependence will be there. Interdependence gives birth to cooperation and division of labour makes compulsory the process of cooperation in social life.
6. Individual Ideology. He was of the view that because of division of labour individual ideology develops. Now there is less control of collective consciousness. Individual independence and specialization gives birth to individual ideology. So in the end because of division of labour individual ideology came into being.
7. Restitutive Laws and Moral Pressure. According to Durkheim, division of labour changes the law system. Because of division of labour mutual relations increase and because of functional relations and complexity, the importance of personal contract reduces. To keep a balance between contractual relations of humans restitutive laws develop. On one side division of labour promotes individualism and on other side it makes moral awareness related to social welfare and social behaviour of the people. According to Durkheim’s views individualism is not the result of human’s wish but is a compulsory result of social circumstances coming out of division of labour.
8. Organic Social Solidarity. To establish the organic solidarity is the function of division of labour. Therefore the end of function is result. That’s why we can take it in the consequences of division of labour.