SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION AND INVESTIGATION LECTURE 3 Three Classical Roles of the Sociologist (Before going on to discuss Durkheim’s (positivist) social science) 1. All three founders aimed to be ‘scientific’, but they meant different things by ‘science’:DURKHEIM - His scientific sociology was in direct line of succession from Comte’s notion of ‘Sociology as Queen of the Sciences’ (because more inclusive than other natural sciences, but like them). Therefore, naturalistic. MARX - Looked to a ‘unity of science’ ‘Natural science will one day incroporate the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate natural science; there will be a single science’ Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts , 1844. Not Sociology modelled on natural science; therefore semi-naturalistic. WEBER - Wrote famous essay on ‘Science as a Vocation’, which included Sociology. But its task was understanding the personal meanings that motivated action. Therefore, Non-naturalistic. 2. Their different concepts of society (social ontologies) deeply affected how they defined the role of Sociologist (for themselves, others and us). Saw last week that all social concepts are theory-laden. This means we must assess these theoretical concepts (criticise, refine etc) We cannot just ‘pick and mix’ from different and contradictory perspectives. Nor can we ‘take the bit that works best’ for a given purpose (example given) {We cannot eliminate theoretical variety by taking from each ‘what works best’ and splicing them together (known as ‘perspectivism’ and empirically resolved by ‘instrumentalism’) Here want to show that conceptual differences are not open to empirical resolution (by asking, instrumentally, ‘which is the most useful?’). Empirical resolution is only possible if the same assumptions go into concept formation. (THUS it is poss. to ask whether the Registrars’ General 5 class model is more or less useful than the Hall-Jones scale of 8 categories for, say, predicting school achievement or home ownership, because they contain no serious differences in assumptions). BUT, instrumentalism is itself a value - it will buy the assumptions of whatever ‘works best’ for problems X and Y and Z. (It is intrinsically amoral & this has consequences) Suppose what does ‘work best’ for problem X (house buying) is a ‘subjective’ concept of class, but what ‘works best’ for problem Y (striking) is an 1 ‘objective’ concept - THEN the instrumentalist is condemned to accepting two contradictory assumptions about ‘class’ AND ones which assigns the same people to different classes! SO, there are fundamental conceptual issues which have to be debated - the criterion of ‘workability’ cannot do this task for us.} It is all the more necessary when it is the very concept of society which is at stake (and underlies each founder’s entire theoretical approach) These concepts differed hugely for the thee founders, in terms of What is society like (what is an analogy for it?) Is it an aggregate or a whole? Is it going somewhere ( an historical trajectory) or not? Is it ‘out there’ (external to us) or ‘in here’ (in our heads) They answered these differently because they held three different ‘images of society’ (which meant they held different social ontologies) DURKHEIM - Society modelled on an Organism (like a body) MARX - Society modelled as Base and Superstructure (hub and spokes model) WEBER - Society modelled as an ‘endless flux’ of meaningful actions (like weaving and re-weaving) To these models corresponded their different definitions of a ‘science of society’ And, consequently, different roles for the social scientist :DURKHEIM - applied science MARX committed science WEBER - Science as a ‘calling’ ROLE Social Engineer ROLE Advocate of the Exploited ROLE Interpreter of Others We will now look briefly at the three in turn. 3. Durkheim - the Organic Analogy - the Sociologist as Social Engineer D. begins from the analogy of society as an organism - like the body, each part is interrelated and thus must be studied holistically; it has an objective preferred state (health) and deviations from it (pathologies). D. is also the Worried Man of the Third Republic, wondering specifically how France can regain socio-political ‘health’, i.e. stability/order. (I) Every study is rooted in the organic analogy/image - meaning Society must be studied as a whole, in its own right, not, as it were, at the level of its cells:“for a whole is not identical with the sum of its parts, and its properties differ from those of its component parts[....] society is not the mere sum of individuals. Rather, the system formed by their association represents a specific reality which has its own characteristics” Rules , p. 103. 2 The state of the body social is crucial because “individual natures are merely the indeterminate material that the social moulds and transforms” Rules, p. 106 (II) SO, each study is about how the relations of the parts (not the people) produces either ‘health’ or ‘pathology’. Division of labour - held that capitalist societies could show ‘organic solidarity’ because occupational specialisation allows different groups to attain diff. ends without conflict being inevitable. “The soldier seeks military glory, the priest moral authority, the statesman power, the businessman riches, the scholar scientific renown. Each of them can attain his end without preventing others from attaining theirs[...] since they perform different services, they can perform them parallely” Division of Labour, p.267. Ideally, the div. of lab. promotes co-operation differentiation interdependence re-integration. BUT ‘pathologies’ develop - the ‘forced’ & ‘anomic’ forms. D. responds with remedies, e.g. common education, meritocracy, abolition of inherited wealth, occupational associations. SUICIDE Its rise in Europe indicates the same pathology -a decline in social integration. REMEDY -(among others) after finding suicide rate is lower among the married - make dIvorce more difficult. ELEMENTARY FORMS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE FINDING: traditional religion no longer performed its old integrative function REMEDY: create a new form of moral cement - 'civic morals' Can see how his 'image' of society being like an organism licensed him to solve his moral anxiety about France's instability by Social Engineering. 4. MARX: Base, Superstructure and Midwifery Marx's image was one where all societies shared a cornmon structure - their core feature was their BASE (forces and relations of production), which are the foundation of all other social institutions (SUPERSTRUCTURE). Although wanting to produce a scientific analysis, this should also be a committed one: The point of studying the world is to change it > open advocacy of working class interests. His 'image' or 'model' was also allied to a 'process' of change -in all social formations this was due to the forces and relations of production coming into 'contradiction '. When they did, then class action could introduce radical social transformation. "In the social production which men carryon they enter into defInite relations which are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material powers of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society -the real foundation, on which legal and political superstructures arise and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond […] At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production come into conflict with the existing relations of production […] Then occurs a period of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed" (1859) ‘Preface to a Critique of Political Economy’ 3 But any 'contradiction' and ensuing transformation is dependent upon (class) action: it is 'activity-dependent' > therefore, it may not happen at all or it may happen slowly. The task of the sociologist is not merely to detect which historical stage has been reached, BUT to speed up the process. HENCE Marx talked about our role as 'midwives of the revolution'. His role as ADVOCATE of the working class is evident in his two types of publications: academic for the academics, but also the ‘Communist Manifesto’, intended to be read by workers and acted upon. 5. Weber: the endless flux of social action -and sociological investigation Weber did not have an image of society as always being ordered in the same basic patter (unlike Durkheim's 'organism' or Marx's 'base and superstructure' model). However, to see history as an ‘endless flux’ without any particular and recurrent structured form, is still to have an image – of it being woven and re-woven. It sets us a different task: namely to discover why 'things were so and not otherwise' at any given time/place, rather than supplying us with a model of what to look for. 'Images' of society direct our investigations of it. How can Weber's do so? Weber's own answer hinges on discovering the ‘meanings’ held by people that together produce a pattern at any given time:"(The) sociologist begins with the question: what motives determine and lead individual members and participants in this [… ] community to behave in such a way that the community came into being in the first place and that it continues to exist" ‘Theory of Social and Economic Organisation ‘ This leads to a task that is alien to an 'objectivist' sociology, which examines external relations. Here, instead, we are to understand motives, which means we have to grasp meanings of people in society. FOR all social action is action in which individuals orientate themselves to others (as either means or goals) and this entails grasping their meanings in doing so. We are aided in being of the same kind (people) as our subject matter. This is an advantage we have over natural scientists of matter. BUT it involves getting at non-observables (motives, attitudes, opinions, beliefs), some of which may not be clear to the subjects themselves. So he puts forward his method of 'interpretative understanding' (verstehen which is not the same as empathy) -of people in their context, from which he seeks to build up a typology - a motivational classification of those with the same orientations (these are his Ideal Types, e.g. of the early capitalist who reinvests because of his Calvinistic insecurity about his salvation). IF this works (meaning it is an assertion warranted by the evidence), then he can claim to have contributed to explaining 'why things were so and not otherwise’. 4 Conclusion What is central to the role of the sociologist is always his/her concept of society. Theory and practice/ theory and methods always inter-linked. The social ontology grounding the theory also shapes the practical and moral role of the sociologist. 5