Docstoc

Sociology

Document Sample
Sociology Powered By Docstoc
					Sociology
Theory of Sociology




     PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information.
                               PDF generated at: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:16:52 UTC
Contents
Articles
   Sociology                                   1
   Positivism                                 24
   Antipositivism                             37
   Structural functionalism                   39
   Conflict theory                            51
   Middle range theory (sociology)            55
   Mathematical sociology                     57
   Critical theory                            60
   Socialization                              65
   Structure and agency                       74


References
   Article Sources and Contributors           79
   Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors   81


Article Licenses
   License                                    82
Sociology                                                                                                                        1



    Sociology
    Sociology is the scientific study of human society[1] and its origins, development, organizations, and institutions.[2] It
    is a social science which uses various methods of empirical investigation[3] and critical analysis[4] to develop a body
    of knowledge about human social activity. For many sociologists the goal is to conduct research which may be
    applied directly to social policy and welfare, while others focus primarily on refining the theoretical understanding of
    social processes. Subject matter ranges from the micro level of individual agency and interaction to the macro level
    of systems and the social structure.[5]
    The traditional focuses of sociology include social stratification, social class, culture, social mobility, religion,
    secularization, law, and deviance. As all spheres of human activity are affected by the interplay between social
    structure and individual agency, sociology has gradually expanded its focus to further subjects, such as health,
    medical, military and penal institutions, the Internet, and the role of social activity in the development of scientific
    knowledge.
    The range of social scientific methods has also expanded. Social researchers draw upon a variety of qualitative and
    quantitative techniques. The linguistic and cultural turns of the mid-twentieth century led to increasingly
    interpretative, hermeneutic, and philosophic approaches to the analysis of society. Conversely, recent decades have
    seen the rise of new analytically, mathematically and computationally rigorous techniques, such as agent-based
    modelling and social network analysis.[6][7] Sociology should not be confused with various general social studies
    courses which bear little relation to sociological theory or social science research methodology.


    History

    Origins
    Sociological reasoning predates the foundation of the discipline. Social
    analysis has origins in the common stock of Western knowledge and
    philosophy, and has been carried out from as far back as the time of ancient
    Greek philosopher Plato if not before. The origin of the survey, i.e., the
    collection of information from a sample of individuals, can be traced back at
    least early as the Domesday Book in 1086,[8][9] while ancient philosophers
    such as Confucius wrote on the importance of social roles. There is evidence
    of early sociology in medieval Islam. Some consider Ibn Khaldun, a 14th
    century Arab Islamic scholar from North Africa, to have been the first
    sociologist; his Muqaddimah was perhaps the first work to advance
    social-scientific reasoning on social cohesion and social conflict. [10] [11] [12]
    [13] [14] [15]


    The word sociology (or "sociologie") is derived from both Latin and Greek
    origins. The Latin word: socius, "companion"; -ology, "the study of", and in
    Greek λόγος, lógos, "word", "knowledge". It was first coined in 1780 by the
                                                                                              Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)
    French essayist Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès (1748–1836) in an unpublished
    manuscript.[16] Sociology was later defined independently by the French
    philosopher of science, Auguste Comte (1798–1857), in 1838.[17] Comte used this term to describe a new way of
    looking at society.[18] Comte had earlier used the term "social physics", but that had subsequently been appropriated
    by others, most notably the Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet. Comte endeavored to unify history, psychology

    and economics through the scientific understanding of the social realm. Writing shortly after the malaise of the
    French Revolution, he proposed that social ills could be remedied through sociological positivism, an
Sociology                                                                                                                   2


    epistemological approach outlined in The Course in Positive Philosophy [1830–1842] and A General View of
    Positivism (1848). Comte believed a positivist stage would mark the final era, after conjectural theological and
    metaphysical phases, in the progression of human understanding.[19] In observing the circular dependence of theory
    and observation in science, and having classified the sciences, Comte may be regarded as the first philosopher of
    science in the modern sense of the term.[20]
            Comte gave a powerful impetus to the development of sociology, an
            impetus which bore fruit in the later decades of the nineteenth century. To
            say this is certainly not to claim that French sociologists such as Durkheim
            were devoted disciples of the high priest of positivism. But by insisting on
            the irreducibility of each of his basic sciences to the particular science of
            sciences which it presupposed in the hierarchy and by emphasizing the
            nature of sociology as the scientific study of social phenomena Comte put
            sociology on the map. To be sure, [its] beginnings can be traced back well
            beyond Montesquieu, for example, and to Condorcet, not to speak of
            Saint-Simon, Comte's immediate predecessor. But Comte's clear
            recognition of sociology as a particular science, with a character of its
            own, justified Durkheim in regarding him as the father or founder of this
            science, in spite of the fact that Durkheim did not accept the idea of the        Auguste Comte (1798-1857)

            three states and criticized Comte's approach to sociology.

                                         — Frederick Copleston A History of Philosophy: IX Modern Philosophy 1974, [21]
                                             Both Auguste Comte and Karl Marx set out to develop scientifically justified
                                             systems in the wake of European industrialization and secularization,
                                             informed by various key movements in the philosophies of history and
                                             science. Marx rejected Comtean positivism but in attempting to develop a
                                             science of society nevertheless came to be recognized as a founder of
                                             sociology as the word gained wider meaning. For Isaiah Berlin, Marx may be
                                             regarded as the "true father" of modern sociology, "in so far as anyone can
                                             claim the title."[22]

                                                  To have given clear and unified answers in familiar empirical terms to
                                                  those theoretical questions which most occupied men's minds at the
               Karl Marx (1818-1883)              time, and to have deduced from them clear practical directives without
                                                  creating obviously artificial links between the two, was the principle
            achievement of Marx's theory. The sociological treatment of historical and moral problems, which Comte and
            after him, Spencer and Taine, had discussed and mapped, became a precise and concrete study only when the
            attack of militant Marxism made its conclusions a burning issue, and so made the search for evidence more
            zealous and the attention to method more intense.

                                                           — Isaiah Berlin Karl Marx: His Life and Environment 1937, [23]
Sociology                                                                                                                      3


    Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was one of the most
    popular and influential 19th century sociologists. It is estimated that he sold one
    million books in his lifetime, far more than any other sociologist at the time. So
    strong was his influence that many other 19th century thinkers, including Émile
    Durkheim, defined their ideas in relation to his. Durkheim’s Division of Labour
    in Society is to a large extent an extended debate with Spencer from whose
    sociology, many commentators now agree, Durkheim borrowed extensively.[24]
    Also a notable biologist, Spencer coined the term "survival of the fittest". Whilst
    Marxian ideas defined one strand of sociology, Spencer was a critic of socialism
    as well as strong advocate for a laissez-faire style of government. His ideas were
                                                                                               Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
    highly observed by conservative political circles, especially in the United States
    and England.[25]


    Foundations of the academic discipline
    Formal academic sociology was established by Émile Durkheim (1858–1917),
    who developed positivism as a foundation to practical social research. While
    Durkheim rejected much of the detail of Comte's philosophy, he retained and
    refined its method, maintaining that the social sciences are a logical continuation
    of the natural ones into the realm of human activity, and insisting that they may
    retain the same objectivity, rationalism, and approach to causality.[26] Durkheim
    set up the first European department of sociology at the University of Bordeaux
    in 1895, publishing his Rules of the Sociological Method (1895).[27] For
    Durkheim, sociology could be described as the "science of institutions, their
    genesis and their functioning".[28]

    Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a case study of suicide rates
    amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, distinguished sociological analysis
                                                                                                     Émile Durkheim
    from psychology or philosophy. It also marked a major contribution to the
    theoretical concept of structural functionalism. By carefully examining suicide
    statistics in different police districts, he attempted to demonstrate that Catholic communities have a lower suicide
    rate than that of Protestants, something he attributed to social (as opposed to individual or psychological) causes. He
    developed the notion of objective suis generis "social facts" to delineate a unique empirical object for the science of
    sociology to study.[26] Through such studies he posited that sociology would be able to determine whether any given
    society is 'healthy' or 'pathological', and seek social reform to negate organic breakdown or "social anomie".

    Sociology quickly evolved as an academic response to the perceived challenges of modernity, such as
    industrialization, urbanization, secularization, and the process of "rationalization".[29] The field predominated in
    continental Europe, with British anthropology and statistics generally following on a separate trajectory. By the turn
    of the 20th century, however, many theorists were active in the Anglo-Saxon world. Few early sociologists were
    confined strictly to the subject, interacting also with economics, jurisprudence, psychology and philosophy, with
    theories being appropriated in a variety of different fields. Since its inception, sociological epistemologies, methods,
    and frames of inquiry, have significantly expanded and diverged.[5]
    Durkheim, Marx, and the German theorist Max Weber are typically cited as the three principal architects of social
    science.[30] Herbert Spencer, William Graham Sumner, Lester F. Ward, Vilfredo Pareto, Alexis de Tocqueville,
    Werner Sombart, Thorstein Veblen, Ferdinand Tönnies, Georg Simmel and Karl Mannheim are occasionally
    included on academic curricula as founding theorists. Each key figure is associated with a particular theoretical
    perspective and orientation.[31]
Sociology                                                                                                                      4


            Marx and Engels associated the emergence of modern society above all with the development of capitalism;
            for Durkheim it was connected in particular with industrialization and the new social division of labor which
            this brought about; for Weber it had to do with the emergence of a distinctive way of thinking, the rational
            calculation which he associated with the Protestant Ethic (more or less what Marx and Engels speak of in
            terms of those 'icy waves of egotistical calculation'). Together the works of these great classical sociologists
            suggest what Giddens has recently described as 'a multidimensional view of institutions of modernity' and
            which emphasizes not only capitalism and industrialism as key institutions of modernity, but also 'surveillance'
            (meaning 'control of information and social supervision') and 'military power' (control of the means of violence
            in the context of the industrialization of war).
             — John Harriss The Second Great Transformation? Capitalism at the End of the Twentieth Century 1992, [31]


    Other developments
                                         The first college course entitled "Sociology" was taught in the United States at
                                         Yale in 1875 by William Graham Sumner.[32] In 1883 Lester F. Ward, the first
                                         president of the American Sociological Association, published Dynamic
                                         Sociology—Or Applied social science as based upon statical sociology and the
                                         less complex sciences and attacked the laissez-faire sociology of Herbert Spencer
                                         and Sumner.[25] Ward's 1200 page book was used as core material in many early
                                         American sociology courses. In 1890, the oldest continuing American course in
                                         the modern tradition began at the University of Kansas, lectured by Frank W.
                                         Blackmar.[33] The Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago was
                                         established in 1892 by Albion Small, who also published the first sociology
       Ferdinand Tönnies' bust in Husum, textbook: An introduction to the study of society 1894.[34] George Herbert Mead
                   Germany
                                         and Charles Cooley, who had met at the University of Michigan in 1891 (along
                                         with John Dewey), would move to Chicago in 1894.[35] Their influence gave rise
    to social psychology and the symbolic interactionism of the modern Chicago School.[36] The American Journal of
    Sociology was founded in 1895, followed by the American Sociological Association (ASA) in 1905.[34] The
    sociological "canon of classics" with Durkheim and Max Weber at the top owes in part to Talcott Parsons, who is
    largely credited with introducing both to American audiences.[37] Parsons consolidated the sociological tradition and
    set the agenda for American sociology at the point of its fastest disciplinary growth. Sociology in the United States
    was less historically influenced by Marxism than its European counterpart, and to this day broadly remains more
    statistical in its approach.[38]

    The first sociology department to be established in the United Kingdom was at the London School of Economics and
    Political Science (home of the British Journal of Sociology) in 1904.[39] Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and Edvard
    Westermarck became the lecturers in the discipline at the University of London in 1907.[40][41] Harriet Martineau, an
    English translator of Comte, has been cited as the first female sociologist.[42] In 1909 the Deutsche Gesellschaft für
    Soziologie (German Sociological Association) was founded by Ferdinand Tönnies and Max Weber, among others.
    Weber established the first department in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in 1919, having
    presented an influential new antipositivist sociology.[43] In 1920, Florian Znaniecki set up the first department in
    Poland. The Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt (later to become the Frankfurt School of
    critical theory) was founded in 1923.[44] International co-operation in sociology began in 1893, when René Worms
    founded the Institut International de Sociologie, an institution later eclipsed by the much larger International
    Sociological Association (ISA), founded in 1949.[45]
Sociology                                                                                                                      5


    Positivism and Anti-positivism

    Positivism
    The overarching methodological principle of positivism is to conduct sociology in broadly the same manner as
    natural science. An emphasis on empiricism and the scientific method is sought to provide a tested foundation for
    sociological research based on the assumption that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that
    such knowledge can only arrive by positive affirmation through scientific methodology.
            "Our main goal is to extend scientific rationalism to human conduct... What has been called our positivism is
            but a consequence of this rationalism."
                                                       — Émile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), [46]
    The term has long since ceased to carry this meaning; there are no fewer than twelve distinct epistemologies that are
    referred to as positivism.[26][47] Many of these approaches do not self-identify as "positivist", some because they
    themselves arose in opposition to older forms of positivism, and some because the label has over time become a term
    of abuse[26] by being mistakenly linked with a theoretical empiricism. The extent of antipositivist criticism has also
    diverged, with many rejecting the scientific method and others only seeking to amend it to reflect 20th century
    developments in the philosophy of science. However, positivism (broadly understood as a scientific approach to the
    study of society) remains dominant in contemporary sociology, especially in the United States.[26]
    Loic Wacquant distinguishes three major strains of positivism: Durkheimian, Logical, and Instrumental.[26] None of
    these are the same as that set forth by Comte, who was unique in advocating such a rigid (and perhaps optimistic)
    version.[48][49] While Émile Durkheim rejected much of the detail of Comte's philosophy, he retained and refined its
    method. Durkheim maintained that the social sciences are a logical continuation of the natural ones into the realm of
    human activity, and insisted that they should retain the same objectivity, rationalism, and approach to causality.[26]
    He developed the notion of objective sui generis "social facts" to delineate a unique empirical object for the science
    of sociology to study.[26]
    The variety of positivism that remains dominant today is termed instrumental positivism. This approach eschews
    epistemological and metaphysical concerns (such as the nature of social facts) in favor of methodological clarity,
    replicability, reliability and validity.[50] This positivism is more or less synonymous with quantitative research, and
    so only resembles older positivism in practice. Since it carries no explicit philosophical commitment, its practitioners
    may not belong to any particular school of thought. Modern sociology of this type is often credited to Paul
    Lazarsfeld,[26] who pioneered large-scale survey studies and developed statistical techniques for analyzing them.
    This approach lends itself to what Robert K. Merton called middle-range theory: abstract statements that generalize
    from segregated hypotheses and empirical regularities rather than starting with an abstract idea of a social whole.[51]


    Anti-positivism
    Reactions against social empiricism began when German philosopher Hegel voiced opposition to both empiricism,
    which he rejected as uncritical, and determinism, which he viewed as overly mechanistic.[52] Karl Marx's
    methodology borrowed from Hegelian dialecticism but also a rejection of positivism in favour of critical analysis,
    seeking to supplement the empirical acquisition of "facts" with the elimination of illusions.[53] He maintained that
    appearances need to be critiqued rather than simply documented. Early hermeneuticians such as Wilhelm Dilthey
    pioneered the distinction between natural and social science ('Geisteswissenschaft'). Various neo-Kantian
    philosophers, phenomenologists and human scientists further theorized how the analysis of the social world differs to
    that of the natural world due to the irreducibly complex aspects of human society, culture, and being.[54]
    At the turn of the 20th century the first generation of German sociologists formally introduced methodological
    anti-positivism, proposing that research should concentrate on human cultural norms, values, symbols, and social
    processes viewed from a resolutely subjective perspective. Max Weber argued that sociology may be loosely
Sociology                                                                                                                          6


    described as a science as it is able to identify causal relationships of human "social action"—especially among "ideal
    types", or hypothetical simplifications of complex social phenomena.[55] As a non-positivist, however, Weber sought
    relationships that are not as "historical, invariant, or generalizable"[56] as those pursued by natural scientists. Fellow
    German sociologist, Ferdinand Tönnies, theorized on two crucial abstract concepts with his work on "Gemeinschaft
    and Gesellschaft" (lit. community and society). Tönnies marked a sharp line between the realm of concepts and the
    reality of social action: the first must be treated axiomatically and in a deductive way ("pure sociology"), whereas the
    second empirically and inductively ("applied sociology").[57]
                                                  [Sociology is ] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of
                                                  social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which
                                                  the action proceeds and the effects which it produces. By 'action' in this
                                                  definition is meant the human behavior when and to the extent that the
                                                  agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful ... the meaning to which
                                                  we refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an
                                                  individual agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of
                                                  agents on an approximate average in a given set of cases, or (b) the
                                                  meaning attributed to the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type
                                                  constructed in the abstract. In neither case is the 'meaning' to be thought of
                                                  as somehow objectively 'correct' or 'true' by some metaphysical criterion.
                 Max Weber
                                                  This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action, such as
                                                  sociology and history, and any kind of prior discipline, such as
                                                  jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to extract from their
            subject-matter 'correct' or 'valid' meaning.

                                                                        — Max Weber The Nature of Social Action 1922, [58]
    Both Weber and Georg Simmel pioneered the "Verstehen" (or 'interpretative') method in social science; a systematic
    process by which an outside observer attempts to relate to a particular cultural group, or indigenous people, on their
    own terms and from their own point-of-view.[59] Through the work of Simmel, in particular, sociology acquired a
    possible character beyond positivist data-collection or grand, deterministic systems of structural law. Relatively
    isolated from the sociological academy throughout his lifetime, Simmel presented idiosyncratic analyses of
    modernity more reminiscent of the phenomenological and existential writers than of Comte or Durkheim, paying
    particular concern to the forms of, and possibilities for, social individuality.[60] His sociology engaged in a
    neo-Kantian inquiry into the limits of perception, asking 'What is society?' in a direct allusion to Kant's question
    'What is nature?'[61]
            The deepest problems of modern life flow from the attempt of the
            individual to maintain the independence and individuality of his existence
            against the sovereign powers of society, against the weight of the historical
            heritage and the external culture and technique of life. The antagonism
            represents the most modern form of the conflict which primitive man must
            carry on with nature for his own bodily existence. The eighteenth century
            may have called for liberation from all the ties which grew up historically
            in politics, in religion, in morality and in economics in order to permit the
            original natural virtue of man, which is equal in everyone, to develop
            without inhibition; the nineteenth century may have sought to promote, in
            addition to man's freedom, his individuality (which is connected with the
            division of labor) and his achievements which make him unique and                           Georg Simmel
Sociology                                                                                                                         7


            indispensable but which at the same time make him so much the more dependent on the complementary
            activity of others; Nietzsche may have seen the relentless struggle of the individual as the prerequisite for his
            full development, while socialism found the same thing in the suppression of all competition – but in each of
            these the same fundamental motive was at work, namely the resistance of the individual to being leveled,
            swallowed up in the social-technological mechanism.
                                                               — Georg Simmel The Metropolis and Mental Life 1903, [62]


    Theoretical frameworks
    The contemporary discipline of sociology is theoretically multi-paradigmatic.[63] Modern sociological theory
    descends from the historical foundations of functionalist (Durkheim) and conflict-centered (Marx) accounts of social
    structure, as well as the micro-scale structural (Simmel) and pragmatist (Mead) theories of social interaction.
    Contemporary sociological theory retains traces of these approaches.
    Presently, sociological theories lack a single overarching foundation, and there is little consensus about what such a
    framework should consist of.[63] However, a number of broad paradigms cover much present sociological theorizing.
    In the humanistic parts of the discipline, these paradigms are referred to as social theory, and are often shared with
    the humanities. The discipline's dominant scientifically-oriented areas generally focus on a different set of theoretical
    perspectives, which by contrast are generally referred to as sociological theory. These include new institutionalism,
    social networks, social identity, social and cultural capital, toolkit and cognitive theories of culture, and resource
    mobilization. Analytical sociology is an ongoing effort to systematize many of these middle-range theories.


    Functionalism
    A broad historical paradigm in both sociology and anthropology, functionalism addresses the social structure as a
    whole and in terms of the necessary function of its constituent elements. A common analogy (popularized by Herbert
    Spencer) is to regard norms and institutions as 'organs' that work toward the proper-functioning of the entire 'body' of
    society.[64] The perspective was implicit in the original sociological positivism of Comte, but was theorized in full
    by Durkheim, again with respect to observable, structural laws. Functionalism also has an anthropological basis in
    the work of theorists such as Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-Brown's
    specific usage that the prefix 'structural' emerged.[65] Classical functionalist theory is generally united by its tendency
    towards biological analogy and notions of social evolutionism. As Giddens states: "Functionalist thought, from
    Comte onwards, has looked particularly towards biology as the science providing the closest and most compatible
    model for social science. Biology has been taken to provide a guide to conceptualizing the structure and the function
    of social systems and to analyzing processes of evolution via mechanisms of adaptation ... functionalism strongly
    emphasizes the pre-eminence of the social world over its individual parts (i.e. its constituent actors, human
    subjects)."[66]


    Conflict theory
    Functionalism aims only toward a general perspective from which to conduct social science. Methodologically, its
    principles generally contrast those approaches that emphasize the "micro", such as interpretivism or symbolic
    interactionism. Its emphasis on "cohesive systems", however, also holds political ramifications. Functionalist
    theories are often therefore contrasted with "conflict theories" which critique the overarching socio-political system
    or emphasize the inequality of particular groups. The works of Durkheim and Marx epitomize the political, as well
    as theoretical, disparities, between functionalist and conflict thought respectively:
            To aim for a civilization beyond that made possible by the nexus of the surrounding environment will result in
            unloosing sickness into the very society we live in. Collective activity cannot be encouraged beyond the point
            set by the condition of the social organism without undermining health.
Sociology                                                                                                                         8


                                                            — Émile Durkheim The Division of Labor in Society 1893, [67]
            The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and
            plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant
            opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time
            ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
            classes.
                                                     — Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels The Communist Manifesto 1848, [68]


    20th century social theory
                                    The functionalist movement reached its crescendo in the 1940s and 1950s, and by the
                                    1960s was in rapid decline.[69] By the 1980s, functionalism in Europe had broadly
                                    been replaced by conflict-oriented approaches.[70] While some of the critical
                                    approaches also gained popularity in the United States, the mainstream of the
                                    discipline instead shifted to a variety of empirically-oriented middle-range theories
                                    with no single overarching theoretical orientation. To many in the discipline,
                                    functionalism is now considered "as dead as a dodo."[71]

                                   As the influence of both functionalism and Marxism in the 1960s began to wane, the
                                   linguistic and cultural turns led to myriad new movements in the social sciences:
           Anthony Giddens
                                   "According to Giddens, the orthodox consensus terminated in the late 1960s and
                                   1970s as the middle ground shared by otherwise competing perspectives gave way
    and was replaced by a baffling variety of competing perspectives. This third 'generation' of social theory includes
    phenomenologically inspired approaches, critical theory, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism,
    post-structuralism, and theories written in the tradition of hermeneutics and ordinary language philosophy."[72]

    The structuralist movement originated from the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure and was later expanded to
    the social sciences by theorists such as Claude Lévi-Strauss. In this context, 'structure' refers not to 'social structure'
    but to the semiotic understanding of human culture as a system of signs. One may delineate four central tenets of
    structuralism: First, structure is what determines the structure of a whole. Second, structuralists believe that every
    system has a structure. Third, structuralists are interested in 'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than
    changes. Finally, structures are the 'real things' beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning.[73]
    Post-structuralist thought has tended to reject 'humanist' assumptions in the conduct of social theory.[74] Michel
    Foucault provides a potent critique in his archaeology of the human sciences, though Habermas and Rorty have both
    argued that Foucault merely replaces one such system of thought with another.[75][76] The dialogue between these
    intellectuals highlights a trend in recent years for certain schools of sociology and philosophy to intersect. The
    anti-humanist position has been associated with "postmodernism," a term used in specific contexts to describe an era
    or phenomena, but occasionally construed as a method.


    Structure and agency
    Structure and agency, form an enduring ontological debate in social theory: "Do social structures determine an
    individual's behaviour or does human agency?" In this context 'agency' refers to the capacity of individuals to act
    independently and make free choices, whereas 'structure' relates to factors which limit or affect the choices and
    actions of individuals (such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, and so on). Discussions over the primacy of
    either structure and agency relate to the core of sociological epistemology ("What is the social world made of?",
    "What is a cause in the social world, and what is an effect?").[77] A general outcome of incredulity toward structural
    or agential thought has been the development of multidimensional theories, most notably the action theory of Talcott
    Parsons and Anthony Giddens's theory of structuration.
Sociology                                                                                                                          9


    Research methodology
    Sociological research methods may be divided into two broad categories:
    • Quantitative designs approach social phenomena through quantifiable evidence, and often rely on statistical
      analysis of many cases (or across intentionally designed treatments in an experiment) to create valid and reliable
      general claims
    • Qualitative designs emphasize understanding of social phenomena through direct observation, communication
      with participants, or analysis of texts, and may stress contextual and subjective accuracy over generality
    Sociologists are divided into camps of support for particular research techniques. These disputes relate to the
    epistemological debates at the historical core of social theory. While very different in many aspects, both qualitative
    and quantitative approaches involve a systematic interaction between theory and data.[78] Quantitative methodologies
    hold the dominant position in sociology, especially in the United States.[26] In the discipline's two most cited
    journals, quantitative articles have historically outnumbered qualitative ones by a factor of two.[79] (Most articles
    published in the largest British journal, on the other hand, are qualitative.) Most textbooks on the methodology of
    social research are written from the quantitative perspective,[80] and the very term "methodology" is often used
    synonymously with "statistics." Practically all sociology PhD program in the United States require training in
    statistical methods. The work produced by quantitative researchers is also deemed more 'trustworthy' and 'unbiased'
    by the greater public,[81] though this judgment continues to be challenged by antipositivists.[81]
    The choice of method often depends largely on what the researcher intends to investigate. For example, a researcher
    concerned with drawing a statistical generalization across an entire population may administer a survey
    questionnaire to a representative sample population. By contrast, a researcher who seeks full contextual
    understanding of an individual's social actions may choose ethnographic participant observation or open-ended
    interviews. Studies will commonly combine, or 'triangulate', quantitative and qualitative methods as part of a
    'multi-strategy' design. For instance, a quantitative study may be performed to gain statistical patterns or a target
    sample, and then combined with a qualitative interview to determine the play of agency.[78]


    Sampling
    Quantitative methods are often used to ask questions about a
    population that is very large, making a census or a complete
    enumeration of all the members in that population infeasible. A
    'sample' then forms a manageable subset of a population. In
    quantitative research, statistics are used to draw inferences from
    this sample regarding the population as a whole. The process of
    selecting a sample is referred to as 'sampling'. While it is usually
    best to sample randomly, concern with differences between
    specific subpopulations sometimes calls for stratified sampling.
    Conversely, the impossibility of random sampling sometimes
    necessitates nonprobability sampling, such as convenience
                                                                             The bean machine, designed by early social research
    sampling or snowball sampling.[78]                                       methodologist Sir Francis Galton to demonstrate the
                                                                               normal distribution, which is important to much
                                                                                       quantitative hypothesis testing.
    Methods
    The following list of research methods is neither exclusive nor exhaustive:
    • Archival research or the Historical method: draws upon the secondary data located in historical archives and
      records, such as biographies, memoirs, journals, and so on.
    • Content analysis: The content of interviews and other texts is systematically analyzed. Often data is 'coded' as a
      part of the 'grounded theory' approach using qualitative data analysis (QDA) software, such as NVivo,[82] Atlas.ti,
Sociology                                                                                                                         10


      or QDA Miner.
    • Experimental research: The researcher isolates a single social process and reproduces it in a laboratory (for
      example, by creating a situation where unconscious sexist judgments are possible), seeking to determine whether
      or not certain social variables can cause, or depend upon, other variables (for instance, seeing if people's feelings
      about traditional gender roles can be manipulated by the activation of contrasting gender stereotypes).[83]
      Participants are randomly assigned to different groups which either serve as controls—acting as reference points
      because they are tested with regard to the dependent variable, albeit without having been exposed to any
      independent variables of interest—or receive one or more treatments. Randomization allows the researcher to be
      sure that any resulting differences between groups are the result of the treatment.
    • Longitudinal study: An extensive examination of a specific person or group over a long period of time.
    • Observation: Using data from the senses, the researcher records information about social phenomenon or
      behavior. Observation techniques may or may not feature participation. In participant observation, the researcher
      goes into the field (such as a community or a place of work), and participates in the activities of the field for a
      prolonged period of time in order to acquire a deep understanding of it.[84] Data acquired through these techniques
      may be analyzed either quantitatively or qualitatively.
    • Survey research: The researcher gathers data using interviews, questionnaires, or similar feedback from a set of
      people sampled from a particular population of interest. Survey items from an interview or questionnaire may be
      open-ended or closed-ended.[85] Data from surveys is usually analyzed statistically on a computer.


    Computational sociology
                                               Sociologists increasingly draw upon computationally intensive methods to
                                               analyze and model social phenomena.[87] Using computer simulations,
                                               artificial intelligence, text mining, complex statistical methods, and new
                                               analytic approaches like social network analysis, computational sociology
                                               develops and tests theories of complex social processes through bottom-up
                                               modeling of social interactions.[88]

                                                 Although the subject matter and methodologies in social science differ from
                                                 those in natural science or computer science, several of the approaches used
                                                 in contemporary social simulation originated from fields such as physics
                                                 and artificial intelligence.[89][90] By the same token, some of the
                                                 approaches that originated in computational sociology have been imported
                                                 into the natural sciences, such as measures of network centrality from the
       A social network diagram: individuals (or
          'nodes') connected by relationships.   fields of social network analysis and network science. In relevant literature,
                                                 computational sociology is often related to the study of social
                   [91]
    complexity.         Social complexity concepts such as complex systems, non-linear interconnection among macro and
    micro process, and emergence, have entered the vocabulary of computational sociology.[92] A practical and
    well-known example is the construction of a computational model in the form of an "artificial society", by which
    researchers can analyze the structure of a social system.[93][94]
Sociology                                                                                                                               11



    Practical applications of social research
    Social research informs politicians and policy makers,
    educators, planners, lawmakers, administrators, developers,
    business     magnates,      managers,        social      workers,
    non-governmental organizations, non-profit organizations,
    and people interested in resolving social issues in general.
    There is often a great deal of crossover between social
    research, market research, and other statistical fields.
                                                                                                                         [86]
                                                                        A sociological study of violence by text mining.      Arrow
                                                                        width proportional to number of violent acts. (Click on large
                                                                                  animated GIF image to see evolution)




    Areas of sociology
    • Social organization is the study of the various institutions, social groups, social stratification, social mobility,
      bureaucracy, ethnic groups and relations, and other similar subjects like family, education, politics, religion,
      economy, and so on and so forth.
    • Social psychology is the study of human nature as an outcome of group life, social attitudes, collective behavior,
      and personality formation. It deals with group life and the individual's traits, attitudes, beliefs as influenced by
      group life, and it views man with reference to group life.
    • Social change and disorganization is the study of the change in culture and social relations and the disruption
      that may occur in society, and it deals with the study of such current problems in society such as juvenile
      delinquency, criminality, drug addiction, family conflicts, divorce, population problems, and other similar
      subjects.
    • Human ecology deals with the nature and behavior of a given population and its relationships to the group's
      present social institutions. For instance, studies of this kind have shown the prevalence of mental illness,
      criminality, delinquencies, prostitution, and drug addiction in urban centers and other highly developed places.
    • Population or demography is the study of population number, composition, change, and quality as they
      influence the economic, political, and social system.
    • Sociological theory and method is concerned with the applicability and usefulness of the principles and theories
      of group life as bases for the regulation of man's environment, and includes theory building and testing as bases
      for the prediction and control of man's social environment.
    • Applied sociology utilizes the findings of pure sociological research in various fields such as criminology, social
      work, community development, education, industrial relations, marriage, ethnic relations, family counseling, and
      other aspects and problems of daily life.[95]
Sociology                                                                                                                              12


    Scope and topics

    Culture
    For Simmel, culture referred to "the cultivation of individuals through
    the agency of external forms which have been objectified in the course
    of history".[60] Whilst early theorists such as Durkheim and Mauss
    were influential in cultural anthropology, sociologists of culture are
    generally distinguished by their concern for modern (rather than
    primitive or ancient) society. Cultural sociology is seldom empirical,
    preferring instead the hermeneutic analysis of words, artifacts and
    symbols. The field is closely allied with critical theory in the vein of
    Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, and other members of the
    Frankfurt School. Loosely distinct to sociology is the field of cultural        Max Horkheimer (left, front), Theodor Adorno
                                                                                   (right, front), and Jürgen Habermas (right, back)
    studies. Birmingham School theorists such as Richard Hoggart and
                                                                                                          1965.
    Stuart Hall questioned the division between "producers" and
    "consumers" evident in earlier theory, emphasizing the reciprocity in
    the production of texts. Cultural Studies aims to examine its subject matter in terms of cultural practices and their
    relation to power. For example, a study of a subculture (such as white working class youth in London) would
    consider the social practices of the group as they relate to the dominant class. The "cultural turn" of the 1960s, which
    ushered in structuralist and so-called postmodern approaches to social science and placed culture much higher on the
    sociological agenda.


    Criminality, deviance, law and punishment
    Criminologists analyze the nature, causes, and control of criminal activity, drawing upon methods across sociology,
    psychology, and the behavioural sciences. The sociology of deviance focuses on actions or behaviors that violate
    norms, including both formally enacted rules (e.g., crime) and informal violations of cultural norms. It is the remit of
    sociologists to study why these norms exist; how they change over time; and how they are enforced. The concept of
    deviance is central in contemporary structural functionalism and systems theory. Robert K. Merton produced a
    typology of deviance, and also established the terms "role model", "unintended consequences", and "self-fulfilling
    prophecy".[96]
    The study of law played a significant role in the formation of classical sociology. Durkheim famously described law
    as the "visible symbol" of social solidarity.[97] The sociology of law refers to both a sub-discipline of sociology and
    an approach within the field of legal studies. Sociology of law is a diverse field of study which examines the
    interaction of law with other aspects of society, such as the development of legal institutions and the effect of laws
    on social change and vice versa. For example, an influential recent work in the field relies on statistical analyses to
    argue that the increase in incarceration in the US over the last 30 years is due to changes in law and policing and not
    to an increase in crime; and that this increase significantly contributes to maintaining racial stratification.[98]


    Economic sociology
    The term "economic sociology" was first used by William Stanley Jevons in 1879, later to be coined in the works of
    Durkheim, Weber and Simmel between 1890 and 1920.[99] Economic sociology arose as a new approach to the
    analysis of economic phenomena, emphasizing class relations and modernity as a philosophical concept. The
    relationship between capitalism and modernity is a salient issue, perhaps best demonstrated in Weber's The
    Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) and Simmel's The Philosophy of Money (1900). The
    contemporary period of economic sociology, also known as new economic sociology, was consolidated by the 1985
    work of Mark Granovetter titled "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness". This work
Sociology                                                                                                                         13


    elaborated the concept of embeddedness, which states that economic relations between individuals or firms take
    place within existing social relations (and are thus structured by these relations as well as the greater social structures
    of which those relations are a part). Social network analysis has been the primary methodology for studying this
    phenomenon. Granovetter's theory of the strength of weak ties and Ronald Burt's concept of structural holes are two
    best known theoretical contributions of this field.


    Environment
    Environmental sociology is the study of human interactions with the natural environment, typically emphasizing
    human dimensions of environmental problems, social impacts of those problems, and efforts to resolve them. As
    with other subfields of sociology, scholarship in environmental sociology may be at one or multiple levels of
    analysis, from global (e.g. world-systems) to local, societal to individual. Attention is paid also to the processes by
    which environmental problems become defined and known to humans.


    Education
    The sociology of education is the study of how educational institutions determine social structures, experiences, and
    other outcomes. It is particularly concerned with the schooling systems of modern industrial societies.[100] A classic
    1966 study in this field by James Coleman, known as the "Coleman Report", analyzed the performance of over
    150,000 students and found that student background and socioeconomic status are much more important in
    determining educational outcomes than are measured differences in school resources (i.e. per pupil spending).[101]
    The controversy over "school effects" ignited by that study has continued to this day. The study also found that
    socially disadvantaged black students profited from schooling in racially mixed classrooms, and thus served as a
    catalyst for desegregation busing in American public schools.


    Family, gender, and sexuality
                                                           Family, gender and sexuality form a broad area of inquiry studied
                                                           in many subfields of sociology. The sociology of the family
                                                           examines the family, as an institution and unit of socialization,
                                                           with special concern for the comparatively modern historical
                                                           emergence of the nuclear family and its distinct gender roles. The
                                                           notion of "childhood" is also significant. As one of the more basic
                                                           institutions to which one may apply sociological perspectives, the
                                                           sociology of the family is a common component on introductory
                                                           academic curricula. Feminist sociology, on the other hand, is a
                                                           normative subfield that observes and critiques the cultural
         "Rosie the Riveter" was an iconic symbol of the   categories of gender and sexuality, particularly with respect to
      American homefront and a departure from gender roles
                                                           power and inequality. The primary concern of feminist theory is
                    due to wartime necessity.
                                                           the patriarchy and the systematic oppression of women apparent in
                                                           many societies, both at the level of small-scale interaction and in
    terms of the broader social structure.Feminist sociology also analyses how gender interlocks with race and class to
    produce and perpetuate social inequalities.[102] Social psychology of gender, on the other hand, uses experimental
    methods to uncover the microprocesses of gender stratification. For example, one recent study has shown that
    resume evaluators penalize women for motherhood while giving a boost to men for fatherhood.[103] Another set of
    experiments showed that men whose sexuality is questioned compensate by expressing a greater desire for military
    intervention and sport utility vehicles as well as a greater opposition to gay marriage.[104]
Sociology                                                                                                                          14


    Health and illness
    The sociology of health and illness focuses on the social effects of, and public attitudes toward, illnesses, diseases,
    disabilities and the aging process. Medical sociology, by contrast, focuses on the inner-workings of medical
    organizations and clinical institutions. In Britain, sociology was introduced into the medical curriculum following
    the Goodenough Report (1944).[105]


    Internet
    The Internet is of interest to sociologists in various ways; most practically as a tool for research and as a discussion
    platform.[106] The sociology of the Internet in the broad sense regards the analysis of online communities (e.g.
    newsgroups, social networking sites) and virtual worlds. Online communities may be studied statistically through
    network analysis or interpreted qualitatively through virtual ethnography. Organizational change is catalyzed through
    new media, thereby influencing social change at-large, perhaps forming the framework for a transformation from an
    industrial to an informational society. One notable text is Manuel Castells' The Internet Galaxy—the title of which
    forms an inter-textual reference to Marshall McLuhan's The Gutenberg Galaxy.[107]


    Knowledge and science
    The sociology of knowledge is the study of the relationship between human thought and the social context within
    which it arises, and of the effects prevailing ideas have on societies. The term first came into widespread use in the
    1920s, when a number of German-speaking theorists, most notably Max Scheler, and Karl Mannheim, wrote
    extensively on it. With the dominance of functionalism through the middle years of the 20th century, the sociology
    of knowledge tended to remain on the periphery of mainstream sociological thought. It was largely reinvented and
    applied much more closely to everyday life in the 1960s, particularly by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann in
    The Social Construction of Reality (1966) and is still central for methods dealing with qualitative understanding of
    human society (compare socially constructed reality). The "archaeological" and "genealogical" studies of Michel
    Foucault are of considerable contemporary influence.
    The sociology of science involves the study of science as a social activity, especially dealing "with the social
    conditions and effects of science, and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity."[108] Important
    theorists in the sociology of science include Robert K. Merton and Bruno Latour. These branches of sociology have
    contributed to the formation of science and technology studies.


    Literature
    Sociology of literature is a subfield of sociology of culture. It studies the social production of literature and its social
    implications. A notable example is Pierre Bourdieu's 1992 Les Règles de L'Art: Genèse et Structure du Champ
    Littéraire, translated by Susan Emanuel as Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field (1996). None of
    the founding fathers of sociology produced a detailed study of literature, but they did develop ideas that were
    subsequently applied to literature by others. Marx's theory of ideology was directed at literature by Pierre Macherey,
    Terry Eagleton and Fredric Jameson. Weber's theory of modernity as cultural rationalisation, which he applied to
    music, was later applied to all the arts, literature included, by Frankfurt School writers such as Adorno and Jürgen
    Habermas. Durkheim's view of sociology as the study of externally-defined social facts was redirected towards
    literature by Robert Escarpit. Bourdieu's own work is clearly indebted to Marx, Weber and Durkheim.
Sociology                                                                                                                       15


    Media
    As with cultural studies, media studies is a distinct discipline which owes to the convergence of sociology and other
    social sciences and humanities, in particular, literary criticism and critical theory. Though the production process or
    the critique of aesthetic forms is not in the remit of sociologists, analyses of socialising factors, such as ideological
    effects and audience reception, stem from sociological theory and method. Thus the 'sociology of the media' is not a
    subdiscipline per se, but the media is a common and often-indispensable topic.


    Military
    Military sociology aims toward the systematic study of the military as a social group rather than as an organization.
    It is a highly specialized subfield which examines issues related to service personnel as a distinct group with coerced
    collective action based on shared interests linked to survival in vocation and combat, with purposes and values that
    are more defined and narrow than within civil society. Military sociology also concerns civilian-military relations
    and interactions between other groups or governmental agencies. Topics include the dominant assumptions held by
    those in the military, changes in military members' willingness to fight, military unionization, military
    professionalism, the increased utilization of women, the military industrial-academic complex, the military's
    dependence on research, and the institutional and organizational structure of military.[109]


    Political sociology
                                                   Historically political sociology concerned the relations between
                                                   political organization and society. A typical research question in this
                                                   area might be: "Why do so few American citizens choose to vote?"[110]
                                                   In this respect questions of political opinion formation brought about
                                                   some of the pioneering uses of statistical survey research by Paul
                                                   Lazarsfeld. A major subfield of political sociology developed in
                                                   relation to such questions, which draws on comparative history to
                                                   analyze socio-political trends. The field developed from the work of
                  Jürgen Habermas                  Max Weber and Moisey Ostrogorsky.[111]

    Contemporary political sociology includes these areas of research, but it has been opened up to wider questions of
    power and politics.[112] Today political sociologists are as likely to be concerned with how identities are formed that
    contribute to structural domination by one group over another; the politics of who knows how and with what
    authority; and questions of how power is contested in social interactions in such a way as to bring about widespread
    cultural and social change. Such questions are more likely to be studied qualitatively. The study of social movements
    and their effects has been especially important in relation to these wider definitions of politics and power.[113]


    Race and ethnic relations
    The sociology of race and of ethnic relations is the area of the discipline that studies the social, political, and
    economic relations between races and ethnicities at all levels of society. This area encompasses the study of racism,
    residential segregation, and other complex social processes between different racial and ethnic groups. This research
    frequently interacts with other areas of sociology such as stratification and social psychology, as well as with
    postcolonial theory. At the level of political policy, ethnic relations are discussed in terms of either assimilationism
    or multiculturalism.[114] Anti-racism forms another style of policy, particularly popular in the 1960s and 70s.
Sociology                                                                                                                         16


    Religion
    The sociology of religion concerns the practices, historical backgrounds, developments, universal themes and roles
    of religion in society.[115] There is particular emphasis on the recurring role of religion in all societies and throughout
    recorded history. The sociology of religion is distinguished from the philosophy of religion in that sociologists do
    not set out to assess the validity of religious truth-claims, instead assuming what Peter L. Berger has described as a
    position of "methodological atheism".[116] It may be said that the modern formal discipline of sociology began with
    the analysis of religion in Durkheim's 1897 study of suicide rates amongst Roman Catholic and Protestant
    populations. Max Weber published four major texts on religion in a context of economic sociology and his
    rationalization thesis: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), The Religion of China: Confucianism
    and Taoism (1915), The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism (1915), and Ancient Judaism
    (1920). Contemporary debates often center on topics such as secularization, civil religion, and the role of religion in
    a context of globalization and multiculturalism.


    Social networks
                                            A social network is a social structure composed of individuals (or
                                            organizations) called "nodes", which are tied (connected) by one or more
                                            specific types of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship, financial
                                            exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or relationships of beliefs, knowledge
                                            or prestige. Social networks operate on many levels, from families up to the
                                            level of nations, and play a critical role in determining the way problems are
                                            solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in
                                            achieving their goals. Social network analysis makes no assumption that
                                            groups are the building blocks of society: the approach is open to studying
                                            less-bounded social systems, from non-local communities to networks of
                                            exchange. Rather than treating individuals (persons, organizations, states) as
                                            discrete units of analysis, it focuses on how the structure of ties affects
                                            individuals and their relationships. In contrast to analyses that assume that
                Harrison White
                                            socialization into norms determines behavior, network analysis looks to see
                                            the extent to which the structure and composition of ties affect norms. Unlike
    most other areas of sociology, social network theory is usually defined in formal mathematics.


    Social psychology
    Sociological social psychology focuses on micro-scale social actions. This area may be described as adhering to
    "sociological miniaturism", examining whole societies through the study of individual thoughts and emotions as well
    as behavior of small groups.[117] Of special concern to psychological sociologists is how to explain a variety of
    demographic, social, and cultural facts in terms of human social interaction. Some of the major topics in this field are
    social inequality, group dynamics, prejudice, aggression, social perception, group behavior, social change, nonverbal
    behavior, socialization, conformity, leadership, and social identity. Social psychology may be taught with
    psychological emphasis.[118] In sociology, researchers in this field are the most prominent users of the experimental
    method (however, unlike their psychological counterparts, they also frequently employ other methodologies). Social
    psychology looks at social influences, as well as social perception and social interaction.[118]
Sociology                                                                                                                      17


    Stratification
    Social stratification is the hierarchical arrangement of individuals into social classes, castes, and divisions within a
    society. .[119] Modern Western societies stratification traditionally relates to cultural and economic classes arranged
    in three main layers: upper class, middle class, and lower class, but each class may be further subdivided into smaller
    classes (e.g. occupational).[120] Social stratification is interpreted in radically different ways within sociology.
    Proponents of structural functionalism suggest that, since the stratification of classes and castes is evident in all
    societies, hierarchy must be beneficial in stabilizing their existence. Conflict theorists, by contrast, critique the
    inaccessibility of resources and lack of social mobility in stratified societies.
    Karl Marx distinguished social classes by their connection to the means of production in the capitalist system: the
    bourgeoisie own the means, but this effectively includes the proletariat itself as the workers can only sell their own
    labour power (forming the material base of the cultural superstructure). Max Weber critiqued Marxist economic
    determinism, arguing that social stratification is not based purely on economic inequalities, but on other status and
    power differentials (e.g. patriarchy). According to Weber, stratification may occur amongst at least three complex
    variables: (1) Property (class): A person's economic position in a society, based on birth and individual
    achievement.[121] Weber differs from Marx in that he does not see this as the supreme factor in stratification. Weber
    noted how managers of corporations or industries control firms they do not own; Marx would have placed such a
    person in the proletariat. (2) Prestige (status): A person's prestige, or popularity in a society. This could be
    determined by the kind of job this person does or wealth. and (3) Power (political party): A person's ability to get
    their way despite the resistance of others. For example, individuals in state jobs, such as an employee of the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation, or a member of the United States Congress, may hold little property or status but they still
    hold immense power[122] Pierre Bourdieu provides a modern example in the concepts of cultural and symbolic
    capital. Theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf have noted the tendency toward an enlarged middle-class in modern
    Western societies, particularly in relation to the necessity of an educated work force in technological or
    service-based economies.[123] Perspectives concerning globalization, such as dependency theory, suggest this effect
    owes to the shift of workers to the Third World.[124]


    Urban and rural sociology
    Urban sociology involves the analysis of social life and human interaction in metropolitan areas. It is a normative
    discipline, seeking to provide advice for planning and policy making. After the industrial revolution, works such as
    Georg Simmel's The Metropolis and Mental Life (1903) focused on urbanization and the effect it had on alienation
    and anonymity. In the 1920s and 1930s The Chicago School produced a major body of theory on the nature of the
    city, important to both urban sociology and criminology, utilising symbolic interactionism as a method of field
    research. Contemporary research is commonly placed in a context of globalization, for instance, in Saskia Sassen's
    study of the "Global city".[125] Rural sociology, by contrast, is the analysis of non-metropolitan areas.


    Work and industry
    The sociology of work, or industrial sociology, examines "the direction and implications of trends in technological
    change, globalization, labour markets, work organization, managerial practices and employment relations to the
    extent to which these trends are intimately related to changing patterns of inequality in modern societies and to the
    changing experiences of individuals and families the ways in which workers challenge, resist and make their own
    contributions to the patterning of work and shaping of work institutions."[126]
Sociology                                                                                                                        18


    Sociology and the other academic disciplines
    Sociology overlaps with a variety of disciplines that study society, in particular anthropology, political science,
    economics, and social philosophy. Many comparatively new fields such as communication studies, cultural studies,
    demography and literary theory, draw upon methods that originated in sociology. The terms "social science" and
    "social research" have both gained a degree of autonomy since their origination in classical sociology. The distinct
    field of social psychology emerged from the many intersections of sociological and psychological interests, and is
    further distinguished in terms of sociological or psychological emphasis.[127]
    Sociology and applied sociology are connected to the professional and academic discipline of social work.[128] Both
    disciplines study social interactions, community and the effect of various systems (i.e. family, school, community,
    laws, political sphere) on the individual.[129] However, social work is generally more focused on practical strategies
    to alleviate social dysfunctions; sociology in general provides a thorough examination of the root causes of these
    problems.[130] For example, a sociologist might study why a community is plagued with poverty. The applied
    sociologist would be more focused on practical strategies on what needs to be done to alleviate this burden. The
    social worker would be focused on action; implementing theses strategies "directly" or "indirectly" by means of
    mental health therapy, counseling, advocacy, community organization or community mobilization.[129]
    Social anthropology is the branch of anthropology that studies how contemporary living human beings behave in
    social groups. Practitioners of social anthropology, like sociologists, investigate various facets of social organization.
    Traditionally, social anthropologists analysed non-industrial and non-Western societies, whereas sociologists
    focused on industrialized societies in the Western world. In recent years, however, social anthropology has expanded
    its focus to modern Western societies, meaning that the two disciplines increasingly converge.[131][132]
    Sociobiology is the study of how social behavior and organization have been influenced by evolution and other
    biological process. The field blends sociology with a number of other sciences, such as anthropology, biology, and
    zoology. Sociobiology has generated controversy within the sociological academy for allegedly giving too much
    attention to gene expression over socialization and environmental factors in general (see 'nature versus nurture').
    Entomologist E. O. Wilson is credited as having originally developed and described Sociobiology.[133]
    Irving Louis Horowitz, in his The Decomposition of Sociology (1994), has argued that the discipline, whilst arriving
    from a "distinguished lineage and tradition", is in decline due to deeply ideological theory and a lack of relevance to
    policy making: "The decomposition of sociology began when this great tradition became subject to ideological
    thinking, and an inferior tradition surfaced in the wake of totalitarian triumphs."[134] Furthermore: "A problem yet
    unmentioned is that sociology's malaise has left all the social sciences vulnerable to pure positivism—to an
    empiricism lacking any theoretical basis. Talented individuals who might, in an earlier time, have gone into
    sociology are seeking intellectual stimulation in business, law, the natural sciences, and even creative writing; this
    drains sociology of much needed potential."[134] Horowitz cites the lack of a 'core discipline' as exacerbating the
    problem. Randall Collins, the Dorothy Swaine Thomas Professor in Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and
    a member of the Advisory Editors Council of the Social Evolution & History journal, has voiced similar sentiments:
    "we have lost all coherence as a discipline, we are breaking up into a conglomerate of specialities, each going on its
    own way and with none too high regard for each other."[135]
    In 2007, The Times Higher Education Guide published a list of 'The most cited authors of books in the Humanities'
    (including philosophy and psychology). Seven of the top ten are listed as sociologists: Michel Foucault (1), Pierre
    Bourdieu (2), Anthony Giddens (5), Erving Goffman (6), Jürgen Habermas (7), Max Weber (8), and Bruno Latour
    (10).[136]
Sociology                                                                                                                                               19


    Journals
    The most highly ranked journals in the field of general sociology are Sociological Perspectives, the American
    Sociological Review, the American Journal of Sociology, the British Journal of Sociology, and Sociology.[137] Many
    more specialized journals also exist.


    References
    [1] Alan Barcan (1993). Sociological Theory and Educational Reality: Education and Society in Australia Since 1949 (http:/ / books. google.
        com/ books?id=Ezi2QYSjSS4C& pg=PA4). UNSW Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-86840-125-6. . Retrieved 31 December 2012.
    [2] sociology. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from Dictionary.com website: http:/ /
        dictionary. reference. com/ browse/ sociology "The scientific study of human social behavior and its origins, development, organizations, and
        institutions."
    [3] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Pearson Education.
        pp. 3–5, 32–36.
    [4] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Pearson Education.
        pp. 3–5, 38–40.
    [5] Giddens, Anthony, Duneier, Mitchell, Applebaum, Richard. 2007. Introduction to Sociology. Sixth Edition. New York: W.W. Norton and
        Company. Chapter 1.
    [6] Macy, Michael; Willer, Robb (2002). "From Factors to Actors: Computational Sociology and Agent-Based Modeling". Annual Review of
        Sociology 28: 143–66. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141117.
    [7] Lazer, David; Pentland, Alex; Adamic, L; Aral, S; Barabasi, AL; Brewer, D; Christakis, N; Contractor, N et al. (February 6, 2009).
        "Computational Social Science" (http:/ / www. sciencemag. org/ cgi/ content/ summary/ 323/ 5915/ 721). Science 323 (5915): 721–723.
        doi:10.1126/science.1167742. PMC 2745217. PMID 19197046. .
    [8] A. H. Halsey(2004),A history of sociology in Britain: science, literature, and society,p.34
    [9] Geoffrey Duncan Mitchell(1970),A new dictionary of sociology,p.201
    [10] Dr; Akhtar, S. W. (1997). "The Islamic Concept of Knowledge". Al-Tawhid: A Quarterly Journal of Islamic Thought & Culture 12: 3.
    [11] Haque Amber (2004). "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary
        Muslim Psychologists". Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357–377 [375]. doi:10.1007/s10943-004-4302-z.
    [12] Enan, Muhammed Abdullah (2007). Ibn Khaldun: His Life and Works. The Other Press. p. v. ISBN 983-9541-53-6
    [13] Alatas, S. H. (2006). "The Autonomous, the Universal and the Future of Sociology". Current Sociology 54: 7–23 [15].
        doi:10.1177/0011392106058831
    [14] Warren E. Gates (July–September 1967). "The Spread of Ibn Khaldun's Ideas on Climate and Culture". Journal of the History of Ideas
        (University of Pennsylvania Press) 28 (3): 415–422 [415]. doi:10.2307/2708627. JSTOR 2708627
    [15] H. Mowlana (2001). "Information in the Arab World", Cooperation South Journal 1.
    [16] Des Manuscrits de Sieyès. 1773–1799, Volumes I and II, published by Christine Fauré, Jacques Guilhaumou, Jacques Vallier et Françoise
        Weil, Paris, Champion, 1999 and 2007. See also Christine Fauré and Jacques Guilhaumou, Sieyès et le non-dit de la sociologie: du mot à la
        chose, in Revue d'histoire des sciences humaines, Numéro 15, novembre 2006: Naissances de la science sociale. See also the article
        'sociologie' in the French-language Wikipedia.
    [17] A Dictionary of Sociology, Article: Comte, Auguste
    [18] Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. pp. 10.
    [19] Dictionary of the Social Sciences, Article: Comte, Auguste
    [20] "Stanford Encyclopaedia: Auguste Comte" (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ comte/ ). Plato.Stanford.edu. . Retrieved 2011-11-04.
    [21] Copleson, Frederick S.J. [1974] A History of Philosophy: IX Modern Philosophy (1994). Image Books, New York. pp118
    [22] Berlin, Isaiah. 1967. Karl Marx: His Life and Environment. Time Inc Book Division, New York. pp130
    [23] Berlin, Isaiah. [1937] Karl Marx: His Life and Environment. 3rd edition (1967). Time Inc Book Division, New York. pp13-14
    [24] Perrin Robert G. (1995). "Émile Durkheim's Division of Labor and the Shadow of Herbert Spencer". Sociological Quarterly 36 (4):
        791–808. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00465.x.
    [25] Commager, Henry Steele (1959-09-10). The American mind: an interpretation of American thought and character since 1880s (http:/ /
        books. google. com/ books?id=De5sdTFRt5YC& pg=PA199& lpg=PP1& dq=commager+ the+ american+ mind). ISBN 978-0-300-00046-7. .
    [26] Wacquant, Loic. 1992. "Positivism." In Bottomore, Tom and William Outhwaite, ed., The Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social
        Thought
    [27] Gianfranco Poggi (2000). Durkheim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [28] Durkheim, Émile [1895] "The Rules of Sociological Method" 8th edition, trans. Sarah A. Solovay and John M. Mueller, ed. George E. G.
        Catlin (1938, 1964 edition), pp. 45
    [29] Habermas, Jürgen, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Modernity's Consciousness of Time, Polity Press (1990), paperback, ISBN
        0-7456-0830-2, p. 2.
Sociology                                                                                                                                            20

    [30] "Max Weber – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy" (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ weber/ ). Plato.stanford.edu. 2007-08-24. .
        Retrieved 2010-01-05.
    [31] Harriss, John. The Second Great Transformation? Capitalism at the End of the Twentieth Century in Allen, T. and Thomas, Alan (eds)
        Poverty and Development in the 21st Century', Oxford University Press, Oxford. p325.
    [32] "Sociology – History of Sociology | Encyclopedia.com: Oxford Companion to United States History" (http:/ / www. encyclopedia. com/
        doc/ 1O119-Sociology. html). Encyclopedia.com. . Retrieved 2010-01-05.
    [33] "University of Kansas Sociology Department Webpage" (http:/ / www. ku. edu/ ~socdept/ about/ ). Ku.edu. . Retrieved 2009-04-20.
    [34] "American Journal of Sociology Website" (http:/ / www. journals. uchicago. edu/ AJS/ home. html). Journals.uchicago.edu. 1970-01-01. .
        Retrieved 2009-04-20.
    [35] Miller, David (2009). George Herbert Mead: Self, Language, and the World. University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-72700-3.
    [36] 1930: The Development of Sociology at Michigan. pp.3–14 in Sociological Theory and Research, being Selected papers of Charles Horton
        Cooley, edited by Robert Cooley Angell, New York: Henry Holt
    [37] Camic, Charles. 1992. "Reputation and Predecessor Selection: Parsons and the Institutionalists", American Sociological Review, Vol. 57,
        No. 4 (Aug., 1992), pp. 421–445
    [38] Morrison, Ken. 2006 (2nd ed.) "Marx, Durkheim, Weber", Sage, pp. 1–7
    [39] "British Journal of Sociology Website" (http:/ / www. lse. ac. uk/ serials/ Bjs/ ). Lse.ac.uk. 2009-04-02. . Retrieved 2009-04-20.
    [40] "Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse" (http:/ / www. bookrags. com/ biography/ leonard-trelawny-hobhouse/ ). Bookrags. . Retrieved 2011-11-04.
    [41] "Pioneers of the social sciences" (http:/ / www2. lse. ac. uk/ researchAndExpertise/ PioneersOfTheSocialSciences/ sociology. aspx/ ). The
        London School of Economics and Political Science. 2011-09-2011. . Retrieved 2012-09-07.
    [42] Hill, Michael R. (2002) "Harriet Martineau: theoretical and methodological perspectives" Routledge. ISBN 0-415-94528-3
    [43] Bendix, Reinhard (July 1, 1977). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=63sC9uaYqQsC& pg=PA1&
        lpg=PA1). University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-03194-6. .
    [44] " Frankfurt School (http:/ / www. britannica. com/ EBchecked/ topic/ 217277/ Frankfurt-School)". (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
        Retrieved September 12, 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online . Retrieved September 12, 2009.
    [45] "International Sociological Association Website" (http:/ / www. isa-sociology. org/ ). Isa-sociology.org. . Retrieved 2011-11-04.
    [46] Durkheim, Émile. 1895. The Rules of the Sociological Method. Cited in Wacquant (1992).
    [47] Halfpenny, Peter. Positivism and Sociology: Explaining Social Science. London:Allen and Unwin, 1982.
    [48] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Pearson Education.
        pp. 94–98, 100–104.
    [49] Fish, Jonathan S. 2005. 'Defending the Durkheimian Tradition. Religion, Emotion and Morality' Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
    [50] Gartell, David; Gartell, John (1996). "Positivism in sociological practice: 1967–1990". Canadian Review of Sociology 33: 2.
    [51] Boudon, Raymond. 1991. "Review: What Middle-Range Theories are". Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 20 Num. 4 pp 519–522.
    [52] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Pearson Education.
        p. 169.
    [53] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Pearson Education.
        pp. 202–203.
    [54] Rickman, H. P. (1960) The Reaction against Positivism and Dilthey's Concept of Understanding, The London School of Economics and
        Political Science. p307
    [55] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Pearson Education.
        pp. 239–240.
    [56] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Pearson Education.
        p. 241.
    [57] *Ferdinand Tönnies (ed. Jose Harris), Community and Civil Society, Cambridge University Press (2001), hardcover, 266 pages, ISBN
        0-521-56119-1; trade paperback, Cambridge University Press (2001), 266 pages, ISBN 0-521-56782-3
    [58] Weber, Max The Nature of Social Action in Runciman, W.G. 'Weber: Selections in Translation' Cambridge University Press, 1991. p7.
    [59] Kaern, Phillips & Cohen. (1990) Georg Simmel and Contemporary Sociology. Springer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7923-0407-4. p15.
    [60] Levine, Donald (ed) 'Simmel: On individuality and social forms' Chicago University Press, 1971. pxix.
    [61] Levine, Donald (ed) 'Simmel: On individuality and social forms' Chicago University Press, 1971. p6.
    [62] Simmel, Georg The Metropolis and Mental Life in Levine, Donald (ed) 'Simmel: On individuality and social forms' Chicago University
        Press, 1971. p324.
    [63] Abend, Gabriel. 2008. "The meaning of 'Theory'." Sociological Theory, 26:2
    [64] Urry, John (2000). "Metaphors" (http:/ / books. google. co. uk/ books?id=ogyDBobOHVEC& pg=PA23). Sociology beyond societies:
        mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-415-19089-3. .
    [65] "Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences The University of Alabama: Anthropological theories" (http:/ / www. as. ua.
        edu/ ant/ Faculty/ murphy/ function. htm). As.ua.edu. . Retrieved 2011-11-04.
    [66] Giddens, Anthony "The Constitution of Society" in The Giddens Reader Philip Cassell (eds.) MacMillan Press pp.88
    [67] Durkheim, Émile The Division of Labor in Society [1893] LA Coser: New York: The Free Press, 1984
    [68] Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, introduction by Martin Malia (New York: Penguin group, 1998), pg. 35 ISBN 0-451-52710-0
    [69] Jay J. Coakley, Eric Dunning, Handbook of sports studies
Sociology                                                                                                                                                21

    [70] Slattery, Martin. 1993. Key Ideas in Sociology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes, Ltd.
    [71] Barnes, B. 1995. The Elements of Social Theory. London: UCL Press. Quoted in Jay J. Coakley, Eric Dunning, Handbook of sports studies
    [72] Cassell, Philip The Giddens Reader (1993) The Macmillan Press Ltd, pp. 6
    [73] Assiter, A 1984, 'Althusser and structuralism', The British journal of sociology, vol. 35, no. 2, Blackwell Publishing, pp.272–296.
    [74] Giddens, Anthony "The Constitution of Society" in The Giddens Reader Philip Cassell (eds.) MacMillan Press pp.89
    [75] Jürgen Habermas. Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present in Hoy, D (eds) 'Foucault: A critical reader' Basil Blackwell. Oxford, 1986.
    [76] Richard Rorty. Foucault and Epistemology in Hoy, D (eds) 'Foucault: A critical reader' Basil Blackwell. Oxford, 1986.
    [77] Giddens, A (1996). The Constitution of Society. California: University of California Press. pp. 14–19. ISBN 0-520-05728-7.
    [78] Haralambos & Holborn. Sociology: Themes and perspectives (2004) 6th ed, Collins Educational. ISBN 978-0-00-715447-0. Chapter 14:
        Methods
    [79] Hunter Laura, Leahey Erin (2008). "Collaborative Research in Sociology: Trends and Contributing Factors". American Sociologist 39 (4):
        290–306. doi:10.1007/s12108-008-9042-1.
    [80] Hanson, Barbara (2008). "Whither Qualitative/Quantitative?: Grounds for Methodological Convergence". Quality and Quantity 42: 97–111.
        doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9041-7.
    [81] Jstor.org (http:/ / www. jstor. org/ stable/ pdfplus/ 2095839. pdf)
    [82] Martin, Patricia Yancey, Turner, Barry A.. (1986). "Grounded Theory and Organizational Research". The Journal of Applied Behavioral
        Science, 22(2), 141. Retrieved June 21, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1155984).
    [83] Jost, JT; Kay, AC (2005). "Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse
        forms of system justification" (http:/ / www. willettsurvey. org/ TMSTN/ Gender/ ComplementaryGenderSterotypes. pdf) (PDF). Journal of
        Personality and Social Psychology 88 (3): 498–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498. PMID 15740442. .
    [84] Macionis, J., and Gerber, L. (2010). Sociology, 7th edition. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. pp. 42
    [85] Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. pp. 40
    [86] Quantitative Narrative Analysis (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences). Roberto Franzosi, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 2010.
    [87] Bainbridge, William Sims (2007). "Computational Sociology" (http:/ / www. sociologyencyclopedia. com/ subscriber/
        tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g97814051243319_ss1-85). In Ritzer, George. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Blackwell
        Reference Online. doi:10.1111/b.9781405124331.2007.x. ISBN 978-1-4051-2433-1. .
    [88] Macy, Michael W.; Willer, Robert (2002). "From Factors to Actors: Computational Sociology and Agent-Based Modeling". Annual Review
        of Sociology (Annual Reviews) 28: 143–166. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141117. JSTOR 3069238.
    [89] Epstein, JM; Axell, R (1996). Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute
        Press. ISBN 0-262-05053-6.
    [90] Axelrod, Robert (1997). The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton, New Jersey:
        Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01568-6.
    [91] Casti, J (1999). "The Computer as Laboratory: Toward a Theory of Complex Adaptive Systems". Complexity 4 (5): 12–14.
    [92] Goldspink, C (2002). Methodological Implications of Complex Systems Approaches to Sociality: Simulation as a Foundation for Knowledge
        (http:/ / jasss. soc. surrey. ac. uk/ 5/ 1/ 3. html). 5. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. .
    [93] Gilbert, Nigel; Troitzsch, Klaus (2005). "Simulation and social science" (http:/ / cress. soc. surrey. ac. uk/ s4ss/ ). Simulation for Social
        Scientists (2 ed.). Open University Press. .
    [94] Epstein, Joshua (2007). Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling. Princeto: Princeton University Press.
        ISBN 0-691-12547-3.
    [95] "What Is Applied Sociology?" Applied Sociology. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://www.appliedsoc.org/applied-sociology/>.
    [96] "Robert K. Merton Remembered" (http:/ / www. asanet. org/ footnotes/ mar03/ indextwo. html). . Retrieved 2009-12-02.
    [97] Banakar, Reza (2009) "Law Through Sociology's Looking Glass: Conflict and Competition in Sociological Studies of Law" in "The new
        ISA handbook in contemporary international sociology: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation", Ann Denis, Devorah Kalekin-Fishman, eds.,
        (London: Sage). An e-copy available at papers.ssrn.com (http:/ / papers. ssrn. com/ sol3/ papers. cfm?abstract_id=1327025)
    [98] Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russel Sage.
    [99] "Principles of Economic Sociology by Richard Swedberg – An extract" (http:/ / press. princeton. edu/ chapters/ s7525. html). . Retrieved
        2009-12-02.
    [100] Gordon Marshall (ed) A Dictionary of Sociology (Article: Sociology of Education), Oxford University Press, 1998
    [101] Hanushek, Eric A. (1998) "Conclusions and Controversies about the Effectiveness of School Resources" Economic Policy Review Federal
        Reserve Bank of New York, 4(1): pp. 11–27 (http:/ / newyorkfed. org/ research/ epr/ 98v04n1/ 9803hanu. pdf), accessed 30 December 2008
    [102] Bose,Christine. 2012. "Intersectionality and Global Gender Inequality" Gender & Society 26(1): 67-72
    [103] Correll, Shelley, Stephen Benard, In Paik. 2007. "Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?" American Journal of Sociology 112:
        1297–1338.
    [104] http:/ / willer. berkeley. edu/ WillerOverdoingGender. pdf
    [105] "British Sociological Association: Medical Sociology" (http:/ / www. britsoc. co. uk/ medsoc/ MedSoc+ History. htm). BSA. . Retrieved
        2009-10-23.
    [106] D. R. Wilson, Researching Sociology on the Internet, Thomson/Wadsworth, 2004, ISBN 0-534-62437-5
    [107] The Internet Galaxy, Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. Oxford, Oxford University Press (2001)
Sociology                                                                                                                                              22

    [108] Ben-David, Joseph; Teresa A. Sullivan (1975). "Sociology of Science" (http:/ / www. compilerpress. atfreeweb. com/ Anno Ben David &
       Sullivan Sociology of Science ARS 1975. htm). Annual Review of Sociology 1: 203–222. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.001223. .
       Retrieved 2006-11-29.
    [109] Siebold, Guy (2001). "Core Issues and Theory in Military Sociology" (http:/ / findarticles. com/ p/ articles/ mi_qa3719/ is_200107/
       ai_n8977420). Journal of Political and Military Sociology. . Retrieved 2008-07-14.
    [110] Piven, F. (1988) Why Americans Don't Vote: And Why Politicians Want it That Way Pantheon. ISBN 0-679-72318-8
    [111] Lipset, S.M. Introduction: Ostrogorski and the Analytical Approach to the Comparative Study of Political Parties in M. Ostrogorski,
       Democracy and the Organization of Political (2 vol, 1964; 1982 ed.)
    [112] Contemporary political sociology ... - Kate Nash (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=LWwBN3rUrO4C& printsec=frontcover&
       dq=contemporary+ political+ sociology& hl=en& ei=UaGETsjbOI6r8QPgr9w0& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=1&
       ved=0CDEQ6AE). Books.google.com. . Retrieved 2011-11-04.
    [113] Social movements: an introduction - Donatella Della Porta, Mario Diani (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=5mazSOSvqrEC&
       printsec=frontcover& dq=social+ movements& hl=en& ei=iKGETretNoia8QPL-b1i& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=1&
       ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage& q& f=false). Books.google.com. . Retrieved 2011-11-04.
    [114] "Milton Louw - Making A Better World." : Oldest Coloured Owned Business in Namibia. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.
       <http://milton-louw.blogspot.com/2011/03/oldest-coloured-owned-business-in.html>.
    [115] Kevin J. Christiano, et al., (2nd ed., 2008), Sociology of Religion: Contemporary Developments, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &
       Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7425-6111-3
    [116] Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (1967). Anchor Books 1990 paperback: ISBN
       0-385-07305-4
    [117] Stolte, John F; Fine, Gary Alan; Cook, Karen S. (2001). "Sociological miniaturism: seeing the big through the small in social psychology".
       Annual Review of Sociology 27: pp. 387–413. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.387.
    [118] "What Is Social Psychology – An Introduction to Social Psychology" (http:/ / psychology. about. com/ od/ socialpsychology/ f/
       socialpsych. htm). Psychology.about.com. . Retrieved 2010-06-01.
    [119] Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. pp. 225
    [120] Saunders, Peter (1990). Social Class and Stratification (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=FK-004p0J_EC). Routledge.
       ISBN 978-0-415-04125-6. .
    [121] Macionis, Gerber,, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed.. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc... pp. 243..
       ISBN 978-0-13-700161-3.
    [122] Stark, , Rodney (2006). Sociology. Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 978-0-495-09344-2.
    [123] Dahrendorf, Ralf. (1959) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [124] Bornschier V. (1996), 'Western society in transition' New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
    [125] Sassen, Saskia – The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. (1991) – Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-07063-6
    [126] Watson, Tony J. 2008 Sociology, Work, and Industry. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-43555-2. p392
    [127] Sherif, M., and CW Sherif. An Outline of Social Psychology (rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956
    [128] "Web page" (http:/ / nos. org/ 331courseE/ L-3 SOCIOLOGY ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER SOCIAL SCIEN. pdf). Sociology and
       Its Relationships to Other Social Sciences. National Organization of Sociology. . Retrieved 15 July 2011.
    [129] Kirst-Ashman, K.K. & Hull, G.H. (2009). Generalist Practice with Organizations and Communities (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole
       Cengage Learning. ISBN 0-495-50715-6.
    [130] Hepworth, D.H, Rooney, R.H., Rooney, G.D, Strom-Gottfried, K., Larsen, J.A. (2006). "1". Direct Social Work Practice. Belmont, CA:
       Thomson Brooks/Cole. ISBN 0-534-64458-9.
    [131] Janes, Craig Robert; Stall, Ron; Gifford, Sandra M (1986). James Trostle (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=ggn-VgZceYAC& pg=PA82&
       lpg=PA82& dq=Will+ Anthropology+ be+ absorbed+ by+ Sociology?& q=Will Anthropology be absorbed by Sociology?). Springer.
       ISBN 978-90-277-2248-5. . Retrieved 2009-09-08.
    [132] "Sociology-Basic Concepts" (http:/ / nos. org/ 331courseE/ L-3 SOCIOLOGY ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER SOCIAL SCIEN.
       pdf). nos.org. . Retrieved 2010-11-28.
    [133] Dugan, David. "NOVA: Lord of the Ants." NOVA: Lord of the Ants. Dir. David Dugan. Prod. David Dugan. PBS. WGBH, Boston,
       Massachusetts, 20 May 2008. Television.
    [134] Horowitz, Irving (1994) The Decomposition of Sociology Oxford University Press. p3-9
    [135] Randall Collins, Cited in Horowitz, Irving (1994) The Decomposition of Sociology Oxford University Press. p3-9
    [136] "The most cited authors of books in the humanities" (http:/ / www. timeshighereducation. co. uk/ story. asp?storyCode=405956&
       sectioncode=26). timeshighereducation.co.uk. 2009-03-26. . Retrieved 2009-11-16.
    [137] "Journals Ranked by Impact: Sociology". 2010 Journal Citation Reports (Social Sciences ed.). Thomson Reuters. 2011.
Sociology                                                                                                             23


    Further reading
    • Aby, Stephen H. Sociology: A Guide to Reference and Information Sources, 3rd edn. Littleton, Colorado,
      Libraries Unlimited Inc., 2005, ISBN 1-56308-947-5 . OCLC 57475961.
    • Babbie, Earl R.. 2003. The Practice of Social Research, 10th edition. Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., ISBN
      0-534-62029-9 . OCLC 51917727.
    • Collins, Randall. 1994. Four Sociological Traditions. Oxford, Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-508208-7 .
      OCLC 28411490.
    • Coser, Lewis A., Masters of Sociological Thought : Ideas in Historical and Social Context, New York, Harcourt
      Brace Jovanovich, 1971. ISBN 0-15-555128-0.
    • Giddens, Anthony. 2006. Sociology (5th edition), Polity, Cambridge. ISBN 0-7456-3378-1 . OCLC 63186308.
    • Landis, Judson R (1989). Sociology: Concepts and Characteristics (7th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
      ISBN 0-534-10158-5.
    • Macionis, John J (1991). Sociology (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
      ISBN 0-13-820358-X.
    • Merton, Robert K.. 1959. Social Theory and Social Structure. Toward the codification of theory and research,
      Glencoe: Ill. (Revised and enlarged edition) . OCLC 4536864.
    • Mills, C. Wright, The Sociological Imagination,1959 (http://www.camden.rutgers.edu/~wood/
      207socimagination.htm). OCLC 165883.
    • C. Wright Mills, Intellectual Craftsmanship Advices how to Work for young Sociologist (http://ddl.uwinnipeg.
      ca/res_des/files/readings/cwmills-intel_craft.pdf)
    • Mitchell, Geoffrey Duncan (2007, originally published in 1968). A Hundred Years of Sociology: A Concise
      History of the Major Figures, Ideas, and Schools of Sociological Thought. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
      Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-202-36168-0. OCLC 145146341.
    • Nisbet, Robert A. 1967. The Sociological Tradition, London, Heinemann Educational Books. ISBN
      1-56000-667-6 . OCLC 26934810.
    • Ritzer, George and Douglas J. Goodman. 2004. Sociological Theory, Sixth Edition. McGraw Hill. ISBN
      0-07-281718-6 . OCLC 52240022.
    • Scott, John & Marshall, Gordon (eds) A Dictionary of Sociology (3rd Ed). Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN
      0-19-860986-8, . OCLC 60370982.
    • Wallace, Ruth A. & Alison Wolf. 1995. Contemporary Sociological Theory: Continuing the Classical Tradition,
      4th ed., Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-13-036245-X . OCLC 31604842.
    • White, Harrison C.. 2008. Identity and Control. How Social Formations Emerge. (2nd ed., Completely rev. ed.)
      Princeton, Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13714-8 . OCLC 174138884.
    • Willis, Evan. 1996. The Sociological Quest: An introduction to the study of social life, New Brunswick, New
      Jersey, Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-2367-2 . OCLC 34633406.


    External links
    Professional Associations
    •   African Sociological Association (AfSA) (http://www.afsanet.org/)
    •   American Sociological Association (ASA) (http://www.asanet.org/)
    •   Association for Humanist Sociology (AHS) (http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/doane/ahsweb1.htm)
    •   Australian Sociological Association (TASA) (http://www.tasa.org.au/)
    •   Bangladesh Sociological Society (BSS) (http://www.bangladeshsociology.org/)
    •   British Sociological Association (BSA) (http://www.britsoc.co.uk/)
    • Canadian Sociological Association (CSA) (http://www.csaa.ca/)
    • Canadian Association of French-speaking Sociologists and Anthropologists (http://www.acsalf.ca/)
Sociology                                                                                                                       24


    •   European Sociological Association (ESA) (http://www.europeansociology.org/)
    •   French Sociological Association (http://www.afs-socio.fr)
    •   German Sociological Association (DGS) (http://www.soziologie.de)
    •   Indian Sociological Society (ISS) (http://www.insoso.org/)
    •   International Institute of Sociology (IIS) (http://www.iisoc.org/)
    •   International Sociological Association (ISA) (http://www.isa-sociology.org/)
    •   Latin American Sociological Association (ALAS) (http://www.alas.fsoc.uba.ar/index.html)
    •   Portuguese Sociological Association (APS) (http://www.aps.pt/)
    •   Sociological Association of Ireland (SAI) (http://www.sociology.ie/)
    •   South African Sociological Association (SASA) (http://www.sasaonline.org.za/)
    Other Platforms
    • Sociology Today e-forum (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sociology_today/)



    Positivism
    Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that in the social as well as natural sciences, information
    derived from sensory experience, logical and mathematical treatments and reports of such data, are together the
    exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge.[1] Positivism assumes that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in
    scientific knowledge.[2] Obtaining and verifying data that can be received from the senses is known as empirical
    evidence.[1] This view holds that society operates according to general laws like the physical world. Introspective
    and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are rejected. Though the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in
    the history of Western thought,[3] the concept was developed in the modern sense in the early 19th century by the
    philosopher and founding sociologist, Auguste Comte.[4] Comte argued that society operates according to its own
    quasi-absolute laws, much as the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws of nature.[5]


    Etymology
    The English noun positivism was re-imported in the 19th century from the French word positivisme, derived from
    positif in its philosophical sense of 'imposed on the mind by experience'. The corresponding adjective (lat. positīvus
    'arbitrarily imposed', from pono 'put in place') has been used in similar sense to discuss law (positive law compared
    to natural law) as early as Chaucer.[6] The classical Latin usage goes back to the Greek distinction between φύσις
    from φύω 'grow' and 'put in place' (cf. thesis, synthetic), very broadly speaking 'heredity' and 'environment'.


    Overview

    Antecedents
    Positivism is part of the more general and ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry, which was notably laid out
    by Plato, and which was later reformulated as the quarrel between the humanities and the sciences.[7] Plato
    elaborates a critique of poetry from the point of view of philosophy in his dialogues Phaedrus 245a, Symposium
    209a, Republic 398a, Laws 817 b-d and Ion.[8]
    The distinction popularized by Wilhelm Dilthey between Geisteswissenschaft (humanities) and Naturwissenschaften
    (natural science),[9] The consideration was that, if laws in physics are not quasi-absolute but relative or probabilistic
    instead of absolute, more so can be in social sciences.[10] was started, with different terminology, by G. B. Vico in
    1725.[11] Vico, in contrast to the positivist movement, asserted the superiority of the science of the human mind,
    because natural sciences tell us nothing about the inner aspects of natural things.[12]
Positivism                                                                                                                         25


    Auguste Comte
    Positivism states that the only authentic knowledge is that which allows positive verification. Positivism assumes
    that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge.[2]
    As an approach to the philosophy of science deriving from Enlightenment thinkers such as Henri de Saint-Simon and
    Pierre-Simon Laplace, Auguste Comte saw the scientific method as replacing metaphysics in the history of thought,
    observing the circular dependence of theory and observation in science.
    Sociological positivism was later reformulated by Émile Durkheim as a foundation to social research.[13] Wilhelm
    Dilthey, in contrast, fought strenuously against the positivist assumption that only natural sciences explanations are
    valid.[9] Dilthey was in part influenced by the historicism of Leopold von Ranke.[9] Dilthey reprised the argument,
    already found in Vico, that scientific explanations do not reach the inner nature of phenomena.[9] The humanist
    knowledge of the humanities instead, gives us insights into the sphere of thoughts, feelings and desires.[9]


    Antipositivism
    At the turn of the 20th century the first wave of German sociologists, including Max Weber and Georg Simmel,
    rejected the doctrine, thus founding the antipositivist tradition in sociology. Later antipositivists and critical theorists
    have associated positivism with "scientism"; science as ideology.[14] Later in his career (1969),[15] German
    theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg, Nobel laureate for the creation of quantum mechanics, distanced himself
    from positivism by saying:
             The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into that which we can say clearly and the
             rest, which we had better pass over in silence. But can any one conceive of a more pointless philosophy,
             seeing that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing. If we omitted all that is unclear, we would
             probably be left with completely uninteresting and trivial tautologies.


    Logical positivism and postpositivism
    In the early 20th century, logical positivism — a descendant of Comte's basic thesis but an independent movement
    — sprang up in Vienna and grew to become one of the dominant schools in Anglo-American philosophy and the
    analytic tradition. Logical positivists (or 'neopositivists') reject metaphysical speculation and attempted to reduce
    statements and propositions to pure logic. Critiques of this approach by philosophers such as Karl Popper, Willard
    Van Orman Quine and Thomas Kuhn have been highly influential, and led to the development of postpositivism.


    In historiography
    In historiography the debate on positivism has been characterized by the quarrel between positivism and
    historicism.[10] (Historicism is also sometimes termed historism in the German tradition .)[16]
    Arguments against positivist approaches in historiography include that history differs from sciences like physics and
    ethology in subject matter and method.[17] That much of what history studies is nonquantifiable, and therefore to
    quantify is to lose in precision. Experimental methods and mathematical models do not generally apply to history,
    and it is not possible to formulate general (quasi-absolute) laws in history.[17]
Positivism                                                                                                                     26


    In other fields
    In the social sciences, positivism is usually characterized by a pretension towards quantitative approaches and
    quasi-absolute laws. A significant exception to this trend is represented by cultural anthropology, which tends
    naturally toward qualitative approaches.[10]
    In psychology, the positivist movement was influential in the development of behavioralism and operationalism. The
    1927 philosophy of science book The Logic of Modern Physics in particular, which was originally intended for
    physicists, coined the term operational definition, which went on to dominate psychological method for the whole
    century.[18]
    In economics, practising researchers tend to emulate the methodological assumptions of classical positivism, but
    only in a de facto fashion: the majority of economists do not explicitly concern themselves with matters of
    epistemology.[19] In jurisprudence, "legal positivism" essentially refers to the rejection of natural law, thus its
    common meaning with philosophical positivism is somewhat attenuated and in recent generations generally
    emphasizes the authority of human political structures as opposed to a "scientific" view of law.
    In the early 1970s, urbanists of the positivist-quantitative school like David Harvey started to question the positivist
    approach itself, saying that the arsenal of scientific theories and methods developed so far in their camp was
    "incapable of saying anything of depth and profundity" on the real problems of contemporary cities.[20]


    In 1990s sociology
    In contemporary social science, strong accounts of positivism have long since fallen out of favour. Practitioners of
    positivism today acknowledge in far greater detail observer bias and structural limitations. Modern positivists
    generally eschew metaphysical concerns in favor of methodological debates concerning clarity, replicability,
    reliability and validity.[21] This positivism is generally equated with "quantitative research" and thus carries no
    explicit theoretical or philosophical commitments. The institutionalization of this kind of sociology is often credited
    to Paul Lazarsfeld,[22] who pioneered large-scale survey studies and developed statistical techniques for analyzing
    them. This approach lends itself to what Robert K. Merton called middle-range theory: abstract statements that
    generalize from segregated hypotheses and empirical regularities rather than starting with an abstract idea of a social
    whole.[23]
Positivism                                                                                                                        27


    In 2000s sociology
    Other new movements, such as critical realism, have emerged to reconcile the overarching aims of social science
    with various so-called 'postmodern' critiques.[24]/[25] There are now at least twelve distinct epistemologies that are
    referred to as positivism.[26]


    Sociological positivism

    Comte's positivism
    Auguste Comte (1798–1857) first described the epistemological perspective
    of positivism in The Course in Positive Philosophy, a series of texts published
    between 1830 and 1842. These texts were followed by the 1844 work, A
    General View of Positivism (published in French 1848, English in 1865). The
    first three volumes of the Course dealt chiefly with the physical sciences
    already in existence (mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology),
    whereas the latter two emphasized the inevitable coming of social science.
    Observing the circular dependence of theory and observation in science, and
    classifying the sciences in this way, Comte may be regarded as the first
    philosopher of science in the modern sense of the term.[27] For him, the
    physical sciences had necessarily to arrive first, before humanity could
    adequately channel its efforts into the most challenging and complex "Queen
    science" of human society itself. His View of Positivism therefore set-out to
                                                                                                     Auguste Comte
    define the empirical goals of sociological method.

             "The most important thing to determine was the natural order in which the sciences stand — not how they can
             be made to stand, but how they must stand, irrespective of the wishes of any one....This Comte accomplished
             by taking as the criterion of the position of each the degree of what he called "positivity," which is simply the
             degree to which the phenomena can be exactly determined. This, as may be readily seen, is also a measure of
             their relative complexity, since the exactness of a science is in inverse proportion to its complexity. The degree
             of exactness or positivity is, moreover, that to which it can be subjected to mathematical demonstration, and
             therefore mathematics, which is not itself a concrete science, is the general gauge by which the position of
             every science is to be determined. Generalizing thus, Comte found that there were five great groups of
             phenomena of equal classificatory value but of successively decreasing positivity. To these he gave the names
             astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology."

                                                                    — Lester F. Ward, The Outlines of Sociology (1898), [28]
    Comte offered an account of social evolution, proposing that society undergoes three phases in its quest for the truth
    according to a general 'law of three stages'. The idea bears some similarity to Marx's view that human society would
    progress toward a communist peak. This is perhaps unsurprising as both were profoundly influenced by the early
    Utopian socialist, Henri de Saint-Simon, who was at one time Comte's mentor. Both Comte and Marx intended to
    develop secular-scientific ideologies in the wake of European secularisation.
    Comte's stages were (1) the theological, (2) the metaphysical, and (3) the positive.[29] The theological phase of man
    was based on whole-hearted belief in all things with reference to God. God, Comte says, had reigned supreme over
    human existence pre-Enlightenment. Humanity's place in society was governed by its association with the divine
    presences and with the church. The theological phase deals with humankind's accepting the doctrines of the church
    (or place of worship) rather than relying on its rational powers to explore basic questions about existence. It dealt
    with the restrictions put in place by the religious organization at the time and the total acceptance of any "fact"
    adduced for society to believe.[30] Comte describes the metaphysical phase of humanity as the time since the
Positivism                                                                                                                      28


    Enlightenment, a time steeped in logical rationalism, to the time right after the French Revolution. This second phase
    states that the universal rights of humanity are most important. The central idea is that humanity is invested with
    certain rights that must be respected. In this phase, democracies and dictators rose and fell in attempts to maintain the
    innate rights of humanity.[31]
    The final stage of the trilogy of Comte's universal law is the scientific, or positive, stage. The central idea of this
    phase is that individual rights are more important than the rule of any one person. Comte stated that the idea of
    humanity's ability to govern itself makes this stage innately different from the rest. There is no higher power
    governing the masses and the intrigue of any one person can achieve anything based on that individual's free will and
    authority. The third principle is most important in the positive stage.[32] Comte calls these three phases the universal
    rule in relation to society and its development. Neither the second nor the third phase can be reached without the
    completion and understanding of the preceding stage. All stages must be completed in progress.[33]
    Comte believed that the appreciation of the past and the ability to build on it towards the future was key in
    transitioning from the theological and metaphysical phases. The idea of progress was central to Comte's new science,
    sociology. Sociology would "lead to the historical consideration of every science" because "the history of one
    science, including pure political history, would make no sense unless it was attached to the study of the general
    progress of all of humanity".[34] As Comte would say: "from science comes prediction; from prediction comes
    action."[35] It is a philosophy of human intellectual development that culminated in science. The irony of this series
    of phases is that though Comte attempted to prove that human development has to go through these three stages, it
    seems that the positivist stage is far from becoming a realization. This is due to two truths. The positivist phase
    requires having a complete understanding of the universe and world around us and requires that society should never
    know if it is in this positivist phase. Anthony Giddens argues that since humanity constantly uses science to discover
    and research new things, humanity never progresses beyond the second metaphysical phase. In this view, Comte's
    positivism appears circular.[33]
    Comte's fame today owes in part to Emile Littré, who founded The
    Positivist Review in 1867. As an approach to the philosophy of history,
    positivism was appropriated by historians such as Hippolyte Taine.
    Many of Comte's writings were translated into English by the Whig
    writer, Harriet Martineau, regarded by some as the first female
    sociologist. Debates continue to rage as to how much Comte
    appropriated from the work of his mentor, Saint-Simon.[36] He was
    nevertheless influential: Brazilian thinkers turned to Comte's ideas
    about training a scientific elite in order to flourish in the                   Positivist temple in Porto Alegre

    industrialization process. Brazil's national motto, Ordem e Progresso
    ("Order and Progress") was taken from the positivism motto, "Love as principle, order as the basis, progress as the
    goal", which was also influential in Poland.

    In later life, Comte developed a 'religion of humanity' for positivist societies in order to fulfil the cohesive function
    once held by traditional worship. In 1849, he proposed a calendar reform called the 'positivist calendar'. For close
    associate John Stuart Mill, it was possible to distinguish between a "good Comte" (the author of the Course in
    Positive Philosophy) and a "bad Comte" (the author of the secular-religious system).[27] The system was unsuccessful
    but met with the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species to influence the proliferation of various Secular
    Humanist organizations in the 19th century, especially through the work of secularists such as George Holyoake and
    Richard Congreve. Although Comte's English followers, including George Eliot and Harriet Martineau, for the most
    part rejected the full gloomy panoply of his system, they liked the idea of a religion of humanity and his injunction to
    "vivre pour autrui" ("live for others", from which comes the word "altruism").[37]
    The early sociology of Herbert Spencer came about broadly as a reaction to Comte; writing after various
    developments in evolutionary biology, Spencer attempted (in vain) to reformulate the discipline in what we might
Positivism                                                                                                                      29


    now describe as socially Darwinistic terms.


    Durkheim's positivism
    The modern academic discipline of sociology began with the work of Émile
    Durkheim (1858–1917). While Durkheim rejected much of the details of
    Comte's philosophy, he retained and refined its method, maintaining that the
    social sciences are a logical continuation of the natural ones into the realm of
    human activity, and insisting that they may retain the same objectivity,
    rationalism, and approach to causality.[22] Durkheim set up the first European
    department of sociology at the University of Bordeaux in 1895, publishing his
    Rules of the Sociological Method (1895).[38] In this text he argued: "[o]ur
    main goal is to extend scientific rationalism to human conduct... What has
    been called our positivism is but a consequence of this rationalism." [28]

    Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a case study of suicide rates
    amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, distinguished sociological
    analysis from psychology or philosophy. By carefully examining suicide
    statistics in different police districts, he attempted to demonstrate that                   Émile Durkheim

    Catholic communities have a lower suicide rate than Protestants, something
    he attributed to social (as opposed to individual or psychological) causes. He developed the notion of objective sui
    generis "social facts" to delineate a unique empirical object for the science of sociology to study.[22] Through such
    studies, he posited, sociology would be able to determine whether a given society is 'healthy' or 'pathological', and
    seek social reform to negate organic breakdown or "social anomie". Durkheim described sociology as the "science of
    institutions, their genesis and their functioning".[39]

    Accounts of Durkheim's positivism are vulnerable to exaggeration and oversimplification: Comte was the only major
    sociological thinker to postulate that the social realm may be subject to scientific analysis in exactly the same way as
    natural science, whereas Durkheim saw a far greater need for a distinctly sociological scientific methodology. His
    lifework was fundamental in the establishment of practical social research as we know it today - techniques which
    continue beyond sociology and form the methodological basis of other social sciences, such as political science, as
    well of market research and other fields.[40]


    Antipositivism and critical theory
    At the turn of the 20th century, the first wave of German sociologists formally introduced methodological
    antipositivism, proposing that research should concentrate on human cultural norms, values, symbols, and social
    processes viewed from a subjective perspective. Max Weber argued that sociology may be loosely described as a
    'science' as it is able to identify causal relationships—especially among ideal types, or hypothetical simplifications of
    complex social phenomena.[41] As a nonpositivist, however, one seeks relationships that are not as "ahistorical,
    invariant, or generalizable"[42] as those pursued by natural scientists. Weber regarded sociology as the study of social
    action, using critical analysis and verstehen techniques. The sociologists Georg Simmel, Ferdinand Tönnies, George
    Herbert Mead, and Charles Cooley were also influential in the development of sociological antipositivism, whilst
    neo-Kantian philosophy, hermeneutics and phenomenology facilitated the movement in general.
    Karl Marx's theory of historical materialism and critical analysis drew upon positivism.,[43] a tradition which would
    continue in the development of critical theory. However, following in the tradition of both Weber and Marx, the
    critical theorist Jürgen Habermas has critiqued pure instrumental rationality (in its relation to the cultural
    "rationalisation" of the modern West) as meaning that scientific thinking becomes something akin to ideology itself.
    Positivism may be espoused by 'technocrats' who believe in the inevitability of social progress through science and
Positivism                                                                                                                         30


    technology.[44][45] New movements, such as critical realism, have emerged in order to reconcile postpositivist aims
    with various so-called 'postmodern' perspectives on the social acquisition of knowledge.


    Contemporary positivism
    In the original Comtean usage, the term "positivism" roughly meant the use of scientific methods to uncover the laws
    according to which both physical and human events occur, while "sociology" was the overarching science that would
    synthesize all such knowledge for the betterment of society. "Positivism is a way of understanding based on
    science"; people don't rely on the faith of god but instead of the science behind humanity. "Antipositivism" formally
    dates back to the start of the twentieth century, and is based on the belief that natural and human sciences are
    ontologically and epistemologically distinct. Neither of these terms is any longer used in this meaning.[22] There are
    no fewer than twelve distinct epistemologies that are referred to as positivism.[26] Many of these approaches do not
    self-identify as "positivist", some because they themselves arose in opposition to older forms of positivism, and some
    because the label has over time become a term of abuse[22] by being mistakenly linked with a theoretical empiricism.
    The extent of antipositivist criticism has also become broad, with many philosophies broadly rejecting the
    scientifically based social epistemology and other ones only seeking to amend it to reflect 20th century
    developments in the philosophy of science. However, positivism (understood as the use of scientific methods for
    studying society) remains the dominant approach to both the research and the theory construction in contemporary
    sociology, especially in the United States.[22]
    The majority of articles published in leading American sociology and political science journals today are positivist
    (at least to the extent of being quantitative rather than qualitative).[46][47] This popularity may be because research
    utilizing positivist quantitative methodologies holds a greater prestige in the social sciences than qualitative work.[48]
    Such research is generally perceived as being more scientific and more trustworthy, and thus has a greater impact on
    policy and public opinion (though such judgments are frequently contested by scholars doing non-positivist
    work).[48]


    Logical positivism
    Logical positivism (later and more accurately called logical empiricism) is a
    school of philosophy that combines empiricism, the idea that observational
    evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world, with a version of
    rationalism, the idea that our knowledge includes a component that is not
    derived from observation.
    Logical positivism grew from the discussions of a group called the "First
    Vienna Circle" which gathered at the Café Central before World War I. After
    the war Hans Hahn, a member of that early group, helped bring Moritz
    Schlick to Vienna. Schlick's Vienna Circle, along with Hans Reichenbach's
    Berlin Circle, propagated the new doctrines more widely in the 1920s and
    early 1930s. It was Otto Neurath's advocacy that made the movement
    self-conscious and more widely known. A 1929 pamphlet written by Neurath,
    Hahn, and Rudolf Carnap summarized the doctrines of the Vienna Circle at             Moritz Schlick, the founding father of
    that time. These included: the opposition to all metaphysics, especially           logical positivism and the Vienna Circle.
    ontology and synthetic a priori propositions; the rejection of metaphysics not
    as wrong but as having no meaning (by meaning positivists meant not empirically verifiable); a criterion of meaning
    based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's early work (which he later refuted); the idea that all knowledge should be codifiable
    in a single standard language of science; and above all the project of "rational reconstruction," in which
Positivism                                                                                                                     31


    ordinary-language concepts were gradually to be replaced by more precise equivalents in that standard language.
    However, the project is widely considered to have failed:[49][50]
             The secondary and historical literature on logical positivism affords substantial grounds for concluding that
             logical positivism failed to solve many of the central problems it generated for itself. Prominent among the
             unsolved problems was the failure to find an acceptable statement of the verifiability (later confirmability)
             criterion of meaningfulness. Until a competing tradition emerged (about the late 1950's), the problems of
             logical positivism continued to be attacked from within that tradition. But as the new tradition in the
             philosophy of science began to demonstrate its effectiveness — by dissolving and rephrasing old problems as
             well as by generating new ones — philosophers began to shift allegiances to the new tradition, even though
             that tradition has yet to receive a canonical formulation.[51]
             —L.D. Smith, Behaviorism and Logical Positivism: A Reassessment of the Alliance
    In the early 1930s, the Vienna Circle dispersed, mainly because of fascist persecution and the untimely deaths of
    Hans Hahn and Schlick. The most prominent proponents of logical positivism emigrated to the United Kingdom and
    to the United States, where they considerably influenced American philosophy. Until the 1950s, logical positivism
    was the leading school in the philosophy of science. After moving to the United States, Carnap proposed a
    replacement for the earlier doctrines in his Logical Syntax of Language. This change of direction and the somewhat
    differing views of Reichenbach and others led to a consensus that the English name for the shared doctrinal platform,
    in its American exile from the late 1930s, should be "logical empiricism."


    Further thinkers
    Within years of the publication of Comte's book A General View of Positivism (1848), other scientific and
    philosophical thinkers began creating their own definitions for positivism. They included Émile Zola, Emile
    Hennequin, Wilhelm Scherer, and Dimitri Pisarev. Émile Zola was an influential French novelist, the most important
    example of the literary school of naturalism, and a major figure in the political liberalization of France.
    Emile Hennequin was a Parisian publisher and writer who wrote theoretical and critical pieces. He "exemplified the
    tension between the positivist drive to systematize literary criticism and the unfettered imagination inherent in
    literature." He was one of the few thinkers who disagreed with the notion that subjectivity invalidates observation,
    judgment and prediction. Unlike many positivist thinkers before him, he believed that subjectivity does play a role in
    science and society. His contribution to positivism pertains not to science and its objectivity, but rather to the
    subjectivity of art and the way artists, their work, and audiences interrelate. Hennequin tried to analyze positivism
    strictly on the predictions, and the mechanical processes, but was perplexed due to the contradictions of the reactions
    of patrons to artwork that showed no scientific inclinations.
    Wilhelm Scherer was a German philologist, a university professor, and a popular literary historian. He was known as
    a positivist because he based much of his work on "hypotheses on detailed historical research, and rooted every
    literary phenomenon in 'objective' historical or philological facts". His positivism is different due to his involvement
    with his nationalist goals. His major contribution to the movement was his speculation that culture cycled in a
    six-hundred-year period.
    Dimitri Pisarev was a Russian critic who showed the greatest contradictions with his belief in positivism. His ideas
    focused around an imagination and style though he did not believe in romantic ideas because they reminded him of
    the oppressive tsarist government under which he lived. His basic beliefs were "an extreme anti-aesthetic scientistic
    position." He focused his efforts on defining the relation between literature and the environment.
Positivism                                                                                                                        32


    Stephen Hawking is a recent high profile advocate of positivism, at least in
    the physical sciences. In The Universe in a Nutshell (p. 31) he writes:
             Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other
             concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable
             philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by
             Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a
             scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and
             codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a
             large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates
             and will make definite predictions that can be tested… If one
             takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time
             actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be
             a very good mathematical model for time and say what
             predictions it makes.                                                                  Stephen Hawking

    However, the claim that Popper was a positivist is a common
    misunderstanding that Popper himself termed the "Popper legend." In fact, he developed his views in stark
    opposition to and as a criticism of positivism and held that scientific theories talk about how the world really is, not,
    as positivists claim, about phenomena or observations experienced by scientists.[52] In the same vein, continental
    philosophers like Theodore Adorno and Jürgen Habermas regarded Popper as a positivist because of his alleged
    devotion to a unified science. However, this was also part of the "Popper legend"; Popper had in fact been the
    foremost critic of this doctrine of the Vienna Circle, critiquing it, for instance, in his "Conjectures and
    Refutations".[53]


    Positivism in science today
    The key features of positivism as of the 1950s, as defined in the "received view",[54] are:
    1. A focus on science as a product, a linguistic or numerical set of statements;
    2. A concern with axiomatization, that is, with demonstrating the logical structure and coherence of these
       statements;
    3. An insistence on at least some of these statements being testable, that is amenable to being verified, confirmed, or
       falsified by the empirical observation of reality; statements that would, by their nature, be regarded as untestable
       included the teleological; thus positivism rejects much of classical metaphysics.
    4. The belief that science is markedly cumulative;
    5. The belief that science is predominantly transcultural;
    6. The belief that science rests on specific results that are dissociated from the personality and social position of the
       investigator;
    7. The belief that science contains theories or research traditions that are largely commensurable;
    8. The belief that science sometimes incorporates new ideas that are discontinuous from old ones;
    9. The belief that science involves the idea of the unity of science, that there is, underlying the various scientific
       disciplines, basically one science about one real world.
    Positivism is elsewhere defined as "the view that all true knowledge is scientific,"[55] and that all things are
    ultimately measurable. Positivism is closely related to reductionism, in that both involve the view that "entities of
    one kind... are reducible to entities of another,"[55] such as societies to configurations of individuals, or mental events
    to neural phenomena. It also involves the contention that "processes are reducible to physiological, physical or
    chemical events,"[55] and even that "social processes are reducible to relationships between and actions of
    individuals,"[55] or that "biological organisms are reducible to physical systems."[55]
Positivism                                                                                                                        33


    While most social scientists today are not explicit about their epistemological commitments, articles in top American
    sociology and political science journals generally follow a positivist logic of argument.[46][47] It can be thus argued
    that "natural science and social science [research articles] can therefore be regarded with a good deal of confidence
    as members of the same genre".[46]


    Criticisms
    Historically, positivism has been criticized for its reductionism, i.e. for contending that all "processes are reducible to
    physiological, physical or chemical events," "social processes are reducible to relationships between and actions of
    individuals," and that "biological organisms are reducible to physical systems."[55]
    Max Horkheimer criticized the classic formulation of positivism on two grounds. First, he claimed that it falsely
    represented human social action.[56] The first criticism argued that positivism systematically failed to appreciate the
    extent to which the so-called social facts it yielded did not exist 'out there', in the objective world, but were
    themselves a product of socially and historically mediated human consciousness.[56] Positivism ignored the role of
    the 'observer' in the constitution of social reality and thereby failed to consider the historical and social conditions
    affecting the representation of social ideas.[56] Positivism falsely represented the object of study by reifying social
    reality as existing objectively and independently and labor actually produced those conditions.[56] Secondly, he
    argued, representation of social reality produced by positivism was inherently and artificially conservative, helping
    to support the status quo, rather than challenging it.[56] This character may also explain the popularity of positivism
    in certain political circles. Horkheimer argued, in contrast, that critical theory possessed a reflexive element lacking
    in the positivistic traditional theory.[56]
    Some scholars today hold the views critiqued in Horkheimer's work, but since the time of his writing critiques of
    positivism, especially from philosophy of science, have led to the development of postpositivism. This philosophy
    greatly relaxes the epistemological commitments of logical positivism and no longer claims a separation between the
    knower and the known. Rather than dismissing the scientific project outright, postpositivists seek to transform and
    amend it, though the exact extent of their affinity for science varies vastly. For example, some postpositivists accept
    the critique that observation is always value-laden, but argue that the best values to adopt for sociological
    observation are those of science: skepticism, rigor and modesty. Just as some critical theorists see their position as a
    moral commitment to egalitarian values; these postpositivists see their methods as driven by a moral commitment to
    these scientific values. Such scholars may see themselves as either positivists or antipositivists.[57]
    Positivism has also come under fire on religious and philosophical grounds, whose proponents state that truth begins
    in sense experience, but does not end there. Positivism fails to prove that there are not abstract ideas, laws, and
    principles, beyond particular observable facts and relationships and necessary principles, or that we cannot know
    them. Nor does it prove that material and corporeal things constitute the whole order of existing beings, and that our
    knowledge is limited to them. According to positivism, our abstract concepts or general ideas are mere collective
    representations of the experimental order — for example; the idea of "man" is a kind of blended image of all the men
    observed in our experience. This runs contrary to a Platonic or Christian ideal, where an idea can be abstracted from
    any concrete determination, and may be applied identically to an indefinite number of objects of the same class.
    From the idea's perspective, the latter is more precise as collective images are more or less confused, become more
    so as the collection represented increases; an idea by definition remains always clear.
    Echoes of the "positivist" and "antipositivist" debate persist today, though this conflict is hard to define. Authors
    writing in different epistemological perspectives do not phrase their disagreements in the same terms and rarely
    actually speak directly to each other.[58] To complicate the issues further, few practicing scholars explicitly state
    their epistemological commitments, and their epistemological position thus has to be guessed from other sources
    such as choice of methodology or theory. However, no perfect correspondence between these categories exists, and
    many scholars critiqued as "positivists" actually hold postpositivist views.[59] One scholar has described this debate
    in terms of the social construction of the "other", with each side defining the other by what it is not rather than what
Positivism                                                                                                                                         34


    it is, and then proceeding to attribute far greater homogeneity to their opponents than actually exists.[58] Thus, it is
    better to understand this not as a debate but as two different arguments: the "antipositivist" articulation of a social
    meta-theory which includes a philosophical critique of scientism, and "positivist" development of a scientific
    research methodology for sociology with accompanying critiques of the reliability and validity of work that they see
    as violating such standards.


    Notes
    [1] John J. Macionis, Linda M. Gerber, "Sociology", Seventh Canadian Edition, Pearson Canada
    [2] Jorge Larrain (1979) The Concept of Ideology p.197 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=9ocOAAAAQAAJ& pg=PA197), quotation:

             one of the features of positivism is precisely its postulate that scientific knowledge is the paradigm of valid
             knowledge, a postulate that indeed is never proved nor intended to be proved.
    [3] Cohen, Louis; Maldonado, Antonio (2007). "Research Methods In Education". British Journal of Educational Studies (Routledge) 55 (4): 9.
        doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00388_4.x.
    [4] Sociology Guide. "Auguste Comte" (http:/ / www. sociologyguide. com/ thinkers/ Auguste-Comte. php). Sociology Guide. .
    [5] Macionis, John J. (2012). Sociology 14th Edition. Boston: Pearson. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-205-11671-3.
    [6] Le petit Robert s. vv.; OED s. v. positive
    [7] Egan, Kieran (1997) The Educated Mind (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=FvpFsAtffQYC& pg=PA115), pp.115-6 quotation:

             Positivism is marked by the final recognition that science provides the only valid form of knowledge and that
             facts are the only possible objects of knowledge; philosophy is thus recognized as essentially no different from
             science [...] Ethics, politics, social interactions, and all other forms of human life about which knowledge was
             possible would eventually be drawn into the orbit of science [...] The positivists' program for mapping the
             inexorable and immutable laws of matter and society seemed to allow no greater role for the contribution of
             poets than had Plato. [...] What Plato represented as the quarrel between philosophy and poetry is resuscitated
             in the "two cultures" quarrel of more recent times between the humanities and the sciences.
    [8] Saunders, T. J. Introduction to Ion. London: Penguin Books, 1987, p.46
    [9] Wallace and Gach (2008) p.27 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=64Y6wtqzs7IC& pg=PA27)
    [10] Wallace, Edwin R. and Gach, John (2008) History of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology: With an Epilogue on Psychiatry and the
        Mind-Body Relation. p.14 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=64Y6wtqzs7IC& pg=PA14)
    [11] Giambattista Vico, Principi di scienza nuova, Opere, ed. Fausto Nicolini (Milan: R. Ricciardi, 1953), p. 365–905.
    [12] Morera, Esteve (1990) Gramsci's Historicism: A Realist Interpretation p.13 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=I44OAAAAQAAJ&
        pg=PA13)
    [13] Craig J. Calhoun (2002). Classical sociological theory (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=6mq-H3EcUx8C& pg=PA103).
        Wiley-Blackwell. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-631-21348-2. .
    [14] Jürgen Habermas, Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1968, chap. 1.
    [15] Heisenberg (1969) The Part and The Whole
    [16] Raymond Boudon and François Bourricaud, A Critical Dictionary of Sociology (http:/ / books. google. gr/ books?id=O9ae9kWCtHkC&
        pg=PA198), Routledge, 1989: "Historicism", p. 198.
    [17] Wallace and Gach (2008) p.28 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=64Y6wtqzs7IC& pg=PA28)
    [18] Koch, Sigmund (1992) Psychology's Bridgman vs. Bridgman's Bridgman: An Essay in Reconstruction., in Theory and Psychology vol. 2 no.
        3 (1992) p. 275
    [19] Lawrence A. Boland, Economic Positivism 2012. (http:/ / www. positivists. org/ 44. html)
    [20] Portugali, Juval and Han Meyer, Egbert Stolk (2012) Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age p.51 (http:/ / books. google. com/
        books?id=2VZCQhvfBpIC& pg=PA51)
    [21] Gartell, David, and Gartell, John. 1996. "Positivism in sociological practice: 1967-1990". Canadian Review of Sociology, Vol. 33 No. 2.
    [22] Wacquant, Loic. 1992. "Positivism." In Bottomore, Tom and William Outhwaite, ed., The Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social
        Thought
    [23] Boudon, Raymond. 1991. "Review: What Middle-Range Theories are". Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 20 Num. 4 pp 519-522.
    [24] Macionis, John (2011). Sociology. Pearson Education Canada. pp. 688. ISBN 0-13-800270-3.
    [25] Straker, David. "Positivism" (http:/ / changingminds. org/ explanations/ research/ philosophies/ positivism. htm). changingminds.org. .
        Retrieved 21 February 2012.
    [26] Halfpenny, Peter. Positivism and Sociology: Explaining Social Life. London:Allen and Unwin, 1982.
    [27] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ comte/ Stanford Encyclopaedia: Auguste Comte
    [28] Durkheim, Emile. 1895. The Rules of the Sociological Method. Cited in Wacquant (1992).
    [29] Giddens, Positivism and Sociology, 1
Positivism                                                                                                                                               35

    [30] Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism 3
    [31] Mises, Positivism: A Study In Human Understanding,5
    [32] Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism, 4
    [33] Giddens, Positivism and Sociology, 9
    [34] Mary Pickering, Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography, Volume I, 622
    [35] Mary Pickering, Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography, Volume I, 566
    [36] Pickering, Mary (1993) Auguste Comte: an intellectual biography Cambridge University Press, pp. 192
    [37] "Comte's secular religion is no vague effusion of humanistic piety, but a complete system of belief and ritual, with liturgy and sacraments,
        priesthood and pontiff, all organized around the public veneration of Humanity, the Nouveau Grand-Être Suprême (New Supreme Great
        Being), later to be supplemented in a positivist trinity by the Grand Fétish (the Earth) and the Grand Milieu (Destiny)" According to Davies
        (p. 28-29), Comte's austere and "slightly dispiriting" philosophy of humanity viewed as alone in an indifferent universe (which can only be
        explained by "positive" science) and with nowhere to turn but to each other, was even more influential in Victorian England than the theories
        of Charles Darwin or Karl Marx.
    [38] Gianfranco Poggi (2000). Durkheim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [39] Durkheim, Émile [1895] "The Rules of Sociological Method" 8th edition, trans. Sarah A. Solovay and John M. Mueller, ed. George E. G.
        Catlin (1938, 1964 edition), pp. 45
    [40] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 94–98,
        100–104.
    [41] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 239–240.
    [42] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. p. 241.
    [43] "Main Currents of Marxism" by Leszek Kolakowski page 331, 327,
    [44] Schunk, Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 5th, 315
    [45] Outhwaite, William, 1988 Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers, Polity Press (Second Edition 2009), ISBN 978-0-7456-4328-1 p.68
    [46] Holmes, Richard. 1997. "Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in
        three disciplines" English For Specific Purposes, vol. 16, num. 4:321-337.
    [47] Brett, Paul. 1994. "A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles". English For Specific Purposes. Vol 13, Num 1:47-59.
    [48] Linda Grant, Kathryn B. Ward and Xue Lan Rong Is There An Association between Gender and Methods in Sociological Research? in
        American Sociological Review Vol. 52, No. 6 (Dec., 1987), pp. 856-862 . JSTOR 2095839.
    [49] Bunge, M.A. (1996). Finding Philosophy in Social Science (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=8YAV43gVMsIC& pg=PA317). Yale
        University Press. p. 317. ISBN 9780300066067. LCCN lc96004399. . "To conclude, logical positivism was progressive compared with the
        classical positivism of Ptolemy, Hume, d'Alembert, Compte, Mill, and Mach. It was even more so by comparison with its contemporary rivals
        — neo-Thomisism, neo-Kantianism, intuitionism, dialectical materialism, phenomenology, and existentialism. However, neo-positivism failed
        dismally to give a faithful account of science, whether natural or social. It failed because it remained anchored to sense-data and to a
        phenomenalist metaphysics, overrated the power of induction and underrated that of hypothesis, and denounced realism and materialism as
        metaphysical nonsense. Although it has never been practiced consistently in the advanced natural sciences and has been criticized by many
        philosophers, notably Popper (1959 [1935], 1963), logical positivism remains the tacit philosophy of many scientists. Regrettably, the
        anti-positivism fashionable in the metatheory of social science is often nothing but an excuse for sloppiness and wild speculation."
    [50] "Popper, Falsifiability, and the Failure of Positivism" (http:/ / www. drury. edu/ ess/ philsci/ popper. html). 7 August 2000. . Retrieved 30
        June 2012. "The upshot is that the positivists seem caught between insisting on the V.C. [Verifiability Criterion] — but for no defensible
        reason — or admitting that the V.C. requires a background language, etc., which opens the door to relativism, etc. In light of this dilemma,
        many folk — especially following Popper's "last-ditch" effort to "save" empiricism/positivism/realism with the falsifiability criterion — have
        agreed that positivism is a dead-end."
    [51] Smith, L.D. (1986). Behaviorism and Logical Positivism: A Reassessment of the Alliance (http:/ / books. google. com/
        books?id=IZ6aAAAAIAAJ& pg=PA314). Stanford University Press. p. 314. ISBN 9780804713016. LCCN 85030366. .
    [52] Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934, 1959 (1st English ed.)
    [53] Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, p256 Routledge, London, 1963
    [54] Hacking, I. (ed.) 1981. Scientific revolutions. - Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
    [55] Alan Bullock and Stephen Trombley, [Eds] The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, London: Harper-Collins, 1999, pp.669-737
    [56] Fagan, Andrew. "Theodor Adorno (1903-1969)" (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ adorno/ ). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. . Retrieved 24
        February 2012.
    [57] Tittle, Charles. 2004. "The Arrogance of Public Sociology". Social Forces, June 2004, 82(4)
    [58] Hanson, Barbara. 2008. "Wither Qualitative/Quantitative?: Grounds for Methodological Convergence." Quality and Quantity 42:97-111.
    [59] Bryman, Alan. 1984. "The Debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A Question of Method or Epistemology?." The British
        Journal of Sociology 35:75-92.
Positivism                                                                                                               36


    References
    • Amory, Frederic."Euclides da Cunha and Brazilian Positivism", Luso-Brazilian Review. Vol. 36, No. 1 (Summer,
      1999), pp. 87–94.
    • Giddens, Anthony. Positivism and Sociology. Heinemann. London. 1974.
    • Gilson, Gregory D. and Irving W. Levinson, eds. Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophic
      Essays (Lexington Books; 2012) 197 pages; Essays on positivism in the intellectual and political life of Brazil,
      Colombia, and Mexico,
    • Kremer-Marietti, Angèle. L'Anthropologie positiviste d'Auguste Comte, Librairie Honoré Champion, Paris, 1980.
    • Kremer-Marietti, Angèle. Le positivisme, Collection "Que sais-je?",Paris, PUF, 1982.
    • LeGouis, Catherine. Positivism and Imagination: Scientism and Its Limits in Emile Hennequin, Wilhelm Scherer
      and Dmitril Pisarev. Bucknell University Press. London: 1997.
    • Mill, John Stuart. August Comte and Positivism (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16833).
    • Mises, Richard von. Positivism: A Study In Human Understanding. Harvard University Press. Cambridge;
      Massachusetts: 1951.
    • Pickering, Mary. Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England;
      1993.
    • Richard Rorty (1982) Consequences of Pragmatism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/
      works/us/rorty.htm)
    • Schunk, Dale H. Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 5th. Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall. 1991, 1996,
      2000, 2004, 2008.
    • "Positivism." Marxists Internet Archive. Web. 23 Feb. 2012. < http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/
      philosophy/help/mach1.htm>.


    External links
    •   Société Positiviste Internationale, Paris (http://membres.lycos.fr/clotilde/)
    •   Parana, Brazil (http://www.palm.com.br/cpp/frameset.htm)
    •   Porto Alegre, Brazil (http://www.positivismors.blogspot.com/)
    •   Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (http://www.igrejapositivistabrasil.org.br/)
    •   Posnan, Poland (http://www.pozytywista.pl/)
    •   Positivists Worldwide (http://positivists.org/)
    •   Maison d'Auguste Comte, France (http://www.augustecomte.org/)
Antipositivism                                                                                                                37



    Antipositivism
    Antipositivism (also known as interpretivism or interpretive sociology) is the view in social science that the social
    realm may not be subject to the same methods of investigation as the natural world; that academics must reject
    empiricism and the scientific method in the conduct of social research. Antipositivists hold that researchers should
    focus on understanding the interpretations that social actions have for the people being studied.[1]
    Antipositivism relates to various historical debates in the philosophy and sociology of science. In modern practice,
    however, interpretivism may be equated with qualitative research methods, while positivist research is more
    quantitative.[2] Positivists typically use research methods such as experiments and statistical surveys, while
    antipositivists use research methods which rely more on ethnographic fieldwork, conversation/discourse analysis or
    open-ended interviews. Positivist and antipositivist methods are sometimes combined.[3]


    The concept
    In the early 19th century various intellectuals, perhaps most notably the Hegelians, began to question the prospect of
    empirical social analysis. Karl Marx died before the establishment of formal social science but nonetheless fiercely
    rejected Comtean sociological positivism (despite himself attempting to establish a historical materialist 'science of
    society').[4] The enhanced positivism presented by Durkheim would serve to found modern academic sociology and
    social research, yet retained many of the mechanical elements of its predecessor. Hermeneuticians such as Wilhelm
    Dilthey theorized in detail on the distinction between natural and social science ('Geisteswissenschaft'), whilst
    neo-Kantian philosophers such as Heinrich Rickert maintained that the social realm, with its abstract meanings and
    symbolisms, is inconsistent with scientific methods of analysis. Edmund Husserl, meanwhile, negated positivism
    through the rubric of phenomenology.[5]
    At the turn of the 20th century, the first wave of German sociologists formally introduced verstehende sociological
    antipositivism, proposing research should concentrate on human cultural norms, values, symbols, and social
    processes viewed from a resolutely subjective perspective. Max Weber argued sociology may be loosely described
    as a 'science' as it is able to methodologically identify causal relationships of human "social action"—especially
    among ideal types, or hypothetical simplifications of complex social phenomena.[6] As an antipositivist, however,
    one seeks relationships that are not as "ahistorical, invariant, or generalizable"[7] as those pursued by natural
    scientists.
    Ferdinand Tönnies discussed Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (lit. community and society) as the two normal types of
    human association. For the antipositivists, reality cannot be explained without concepts. Tönnies drew a sharp line
    between the realm of conceptuality and the reality of social action: the first must be treated axiomatically and in a
    deductive way ('pure' sociology), whereas the second empirically and in an inductive way ('applied' sociology). The
    interaction between theory (or constructed concepts) and data is always fundamental in social science and this
    subjection distinguishes it from physical science. Durkheim himself noted the importance of constructing concepts in
    the abstract (e.g. "collective consciousness" and "social anomie") in order to form workable categories for
    experimentation. Both Weber and Georg Simmel pioneered the verstehen (or 'interpretative') approach toward social
    science; a systematic process in which an outside observer attempts to relate to a particular cultural group, or
    indigenous people, on their own terms and from their own point of view.
          [Sociology is ] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a
          causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it produces. By 'action' in
          this definition is meant the human behaviour when and to the extent the agent or agents see it as subjectively
          meaningful ... the meaning to which we refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an
          individual agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of agents on an approximate average in a
          given set of cases, or (b) the meaning attributed to the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in
Antipositivism                                                                                                                                          38


           the abstract. In neither case is the 'meaning' thought of as somehow objectively 'correct' or 'true' by some
           metaphysical criterion. This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action, such as sociology and
           history, and any kind of a priori discipline, such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to
           extract from their subject-matter 'correct' or 'valid' meaning.
           —Max Weber, The Nature of Social Action 1922 [8]
    Through the work of Simmel, in particular, sociology acquired a possible character beyond positivist data-collection
    or grand, deterministic systems of structural law. Relatively isolated from the sociological academy throughout his
    lifetime, Simmel presented idiosyncratic analyses of modernity more reminiscent of the phenomenological and
    existential writers than of Comte or Durkheim, paying particular concern to the forms of, and possibilities for, social
    individuality.[9] His sociology engaged in a neo-Kantian critique of the limits of human perception.[10] One may say
    Michel Foucault's critiques of the human sciences take Kantian scepticism to its extreme over half a century later.
    Antipositivism thus holds there is no methodological unity of the sciences: the three goals of positivism -
    description, control, and prediction - are incomplete, since they lack any understanding. Some argue, even if
    positivism were correct, it would be dangerous. Science aims at understanding causality so control can be exerted. If
    this succeeded in sociology, those with knowledge would be able to control the ignorant and this could lead to social
    engineering.[11] The perspective, however, has led to controversy over how one can draw the line between subjective
    and objective research, much less draw an artificial line between environment and human organization (see
    environmental sociology), and influenced the study of hermeneutics. The base concepts of antipositivism have
    expanded beyond the scope of social science, in fact, phenomenology has the same basic principles at its core.
    Simply put, positivists see sociology as a science, while anti-positivists don't.
    The antipositivist tradition continued in the establishment of critical theory, particularly the work associated with the
    'Frankfurt School' of social research. Antipositivism would be further facilitated by rejections of 'scientism'; or
    science as ideology. Jürgen Habermas argues, in his On the Logic of the Social Sciences (1967), that "the positivist
    thesis of unified science, which assimilates all the sciences to a natural-scientific model, fails because of the intimate
    relationship between the social sciences and history, and the fact that they are based on a situation-specific
    understanding of meaning that can be explicated only hermeneutically ... access to a symbolically prestructured
    reality cannot be gained by observation alone."[12]


    References
    [1]  Gerber, John J. Macionis, Linda M.. Sociology (7th Canadian ed. ed.). Toronto: Pearson Canada. pp. 32. ISBN 978-0-13-700161-3.
    [2]  . ISBN 978-0-13-700161-3.
    [3]  Antipositivism (http:/ / www. museumstuff. com/ learn/ topics/ antipositivism) on Museum of Learning
    [4]  Zbigniew A. Jordan (1967). The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism: A Philosophical and Sociological Analysis. New York, NY, USA:
        Macmillan. pp. 131, 321. (http:/ / www. marxists. org/ reference/ subject/ philosophy/ works/ en/ jordan2. htm) (http:/ / books. google. com/
        books?id=l2MHAQAAIAAJ& q="science+ of+ society"#search_anchor)
    [5] Outhwaite, William, 1988 Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers, Polity Press (Second Edition 2009), ISBN 978-0-7456-4328-1 p.20-25
    [6] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 239–240.
    [7] Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. p. 241.
    [8] Weber, Max The Nature of Social Action in Runciman, W.G. 'Weber: Selections in Translation' Cambridge University Press, 1991. p7.
    [9] Levine, Donald (ed) 'Simmel: On individuality and social forms' Chicago University Press, 1971. pxix.
    [10] Levine, Donald (ed) 'Simmel: On individuality and social forms' Chicago University Press, 1971. p6.
    [11] Antipositivism (http:/ / psychology. wikia. com/ wiki/ Antipositivism) on Wikia
    [12] Outhwaite, William, 1988 Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers, Polity Press (Second Edition 2009), ISBN 978-0-7456-4328-1 p.22
Structural functionalism                                                                                                     39



    Structural functionalism
    Structural functionalism, or simply functionalism, is a framework for building theory that sees society as a
    complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability.[1] This approach looks at society
    through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as a whole.[2]
    This approach looks at both social structure and social functions. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in
    terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. A common
    analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper
    functioning of the "body" as a whole.[3] In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute, as
    rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable,
    cohesive system". For Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism" came to describe a particular stage in the
    methodological development of social science, rather than a specific school of thought.[4][5] The structural
    functionalism approach is a macrosociological analysis, with a broad focus on social structures that shape society as
    a whole.[6]


    Theory
    Classical theories are defined by a tendency towards biological analogy and notions of social evolutionism:
           Functionalist thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly towards biology as the science providing
           the closest and most compatible model for social science. Biology has been taken to provide a guide to
           conceptualizing the structure and the function of social systems and to analyzing processes of evolution via
           mechanisms of adaptation ... functionalism strongly emphasises the pre-eminence of the social world over its
           individual parts (i.e. its constituent actors, human subjects).
           —Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society 1984 [7]
    Whilst one may regard functionalism as a logical extension of the organic analogies for society presented by political
    philosophers such as Rousseau, sociology draws firmer attention to those institutions unique to industrialised
    capitalist society (or modernity). Functionalism also has an anthropological basis in the work of theorists such as
    Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-Brown's specific usage that the prefix
    'structural' emerged.[8]
Structural functionalism                                                                                                     40


    Radcliffe-Brown proposed that most stateless, "primitive"
    societies, lacking strong centralised institutions, are based on an
    association     of    corporate-descent      groups.[9]   Structural
    functionalism also took on Malinowski's argument that the basic
    building block of society is the nuclear family [10], and that the
    clan is an outgrowth, not vice versa. Durkheim was concerned
    with the question of how certain societies maintain internal
    stability and survive over time. He proposed that such societies
    tend to be segmented, with equivalent parts held together by
    shared values, common symbols or, as his nephew Marcel Mauss
    held, systems of exchanges. Durkheim used the term "mechanical
    solidarity" to refer to these types of "social bonds, based on
    common sentiments & shared moral values, that are strong among
    members of pre-industrial societies".[11] In modern, complicated
    societies, members perform very different tasks, resulting in a
    strong interdependence. Based on the metaphor above of an
    organism in which many parts function together to sustain the
    whole, Durkheim argued that complicated societies are held
                                                                                          Émile Durkheim
    together by organic solidarity. This second concept is also called
    "organic solidarity" and refers to "social bonds, based on
    specialization and interdependence, that are strong among members of industrial societies".[11]

    These views were upheld by Durkheim, who, following Comte, believed that society constitutes a separate "level" of
    reality, distinct from both biological and inorganic matter. Explanations of social phenomena had therefore to be
    constructed within this level, individuals being merely transient occupants of comparatively stable social roles. The
    central concern of structural functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian task of explaining the apparent
    stability and internal cohesion needed by societies to endure over time. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and
    fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their various (or social institutions) working
    together in an unconscious, quasi-automatic fashion toward achieving an overall social equilibrium. All social and
    cultural phenomena are therefore seen as functional in the sense of working together, and are effectively deemed to
    have "lives" of their own. They are primarily analyzed in terms of this function. The individual is significant not in
    and of himself, but rather in terms of his status, his position in patterns of social relations, and the behaviours
    associated with his status. Therefore, the social structure is the network of statuses connected by associated roles.
    It is simplistic to equate the perspective directly with political conservatism.[12] The tendency to emphasise
    "cohesive systems", however, leads functionalist theories to be contrasted with "conflict theories" which instead
    emphasize social problems and inequalities.
Structural functionalism                                                                                                      41


    Prominent theorists

    Auguste Comte
    Auguste Comte, the "Father of Positivism", pointed out the need to keep society unified as many traditions were
    diminishing. He was the first person to coin the term sociology. Auguste Comte suggests that sociology is the
    product of a three-stage development.[13]
    1. Theological Stage: From the beginning of human history until the end of the European Middle Ages, people took
    a religious view that society expressed God's will.[14] In the theological state, the human mind, seeking the essential
    nature of beings, the first and final causes (the origin and purpose) of all effects—in short, absolute
    knowledge—supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings.[15]
    2. Metaphysical Stage: People began seeing society as a natural system as opposed to the supernatural. Began with
    the Enlightenment and the ideas of Hobbes, Locke,and Rousseau. Reflected the failings of a selfish human nature
    rather than the perfection of God.[16]
    3. Scientific Stage: Describing society through the application of the scientific approach, which draws on the work
    of scientists.[16]


    Herbert Spencer
    Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), a British philosopher famous for
    applying the theory of natural selection to society. He was in many
    ways the first true sociological functionalist.[17] In fact, while
    Durkheim is widely considered the most important functionalist
    among positivist theorists, it is well known that much of his
    analysis was culled from reading Spencer's work, especially his
    Principles of Sociology (1874–96). Spencer allude society to the
    analogy of human body. Just as the structural parts of the human
    body - the skeleton, muscles, and various internal organs -
    function independently to help the entire organism survive, social
    structures work together to preserve society.[18]

    While most avoid the tedious tasks of reading Spencer's massive
    volumes (filled as they are with long passages explicating the
    organic analogy, with reference to cells, simple organisms,
    animals, humans and society), there are some important insights
    that have quietly influenced many contemporary theorists,
    including Talcott Parsons, in his early work "The Structure of
    Social Action" (1937). Cultural anthropology also consistently
    uses functionalism.
                                                                                            Herbert Spencer
    This evolutionary model, unlike most 19th century evolutionary
    theories, is cyclical, beginning with the differentiation and increasing complication of an organic or "super-organic"
    (Spencer's term for a social system) body, followed by a fluctuating state of equilibrium and disequilibrium (or a
    state of adjustment and adaptation), and, finally, the stage of disintegration or dissolution. Following Thomas
    Malthus' population principles, Spencer concluded that society is constantly facing selection pressures (internal and
    external) that force it to adapt its internal structure through differentiation.

    Every solution, however, causes a new set of selection pressures that threaten society's viability. It should be noted
    that Spencer was not a determinist in the sense that he never said that
Structural functionalism                                                                                                           42


    1. Selection pressures will be felt in time to change them;
    2. They will be felt and reacted to; or
    3. The solutions will always work.
    In fact, he was in many ways a political sociologist,[19] and recognized that the degree of centralized and
    consolidated authority in a given polity could make or break its ability to adapt. In other words, he saw a general
    trend towards the centralization of power as leading to stagnation and ultimately, pressures to decentralize.
    More specifically, Spencer recognized three functional needs or prerequisites that produce selection pressures: they
    are regulatory, operative (production) and distributive. He argued that all societies need to solve problems of control
    and coordination, production of goods, services and ideas, and, finally, to find ways of distributing these resources.
    Initially, in tribal societies, these three needs are inseparable, and the kinship system is the dominant structure that
    satisfies them. As many scholars have noted, all institutions are subsumed under kinship organization,[20] but, with
    increasing population (both in terms of sheer numbers and density), problems emerge with regard to feeding
    individuals, creating new forms of organization — consider the emergent division of labour —, coordinating and
    controlling various differentiated social units, and developing systems of resource distribution.
    The solution, as Spencer sees it, is to differentiate structures to fulfill more specialized functions; thus a chief or "big
    man" emerges, soon followed by a group of lieutenants, and later kings and administrators. The structural parts of
    society (ex. families, work) function interdependently to help society function. Therefore, social structures work
    together to preserve society.[18]
    Perhaps Spencer's greatest obstacle that is being widely discussed in modern sociology is the fact that much of his
    social philosophy is rooted in the social and historical context of Ancient Egypt. He coined the term "survival of the
    fittest" in discussing the simple fact that small tribes or societies tend to be defeated or conquered by larger ones. Of
    course, many sociologists still use him (knowingly or otherwise) in their analyses, especially due to the recent
    re-emergence of evolutionary theory.


    Talcott Parsons
    Talcott Parsons was heavily influenced by Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, synthesizing much of their work into
    his action theory, which he based on the system-theoretical concept and the methodological principle of voluntary
    action. He held that "the social system is made up of the actions of individuals."[21] His starting point, accordingly, is
    the interaction between two individuals faced with a variety of choices about how they might act,[22] choices that are
    influenced and constrained by a number of physical and social factors.[23]
    Parsons determined that each individual has expectations of the other's action and reaction to his own behaviour, and
    that these expectations would (if successful) be "derived" from the accepted norms and values of the society they
    inhabit.[22] As Parsons himself emphasized, in a general context there would never exist any perfect "fit" between
    behaviours and norms, so such a relation is never complete or "perfect."
    Social norms were always problematic for Parsons, who never claimed (as has often been alleged) that social norms
    were generally accepted and agreed upon, should this prevent some kind of universal law. Whether social norms
    were accepted or not was for Parsons simply a historical question.
    As behaviours are repeated in more interactions, and these expectations are entrenched or institutionalized, a role is
    created. Parsons defines a "role" as the normatively-regulated participation "of a person in a concrete process of
    social interaction with specific, concrete role-partners."[24] Although any individual, theoretically, can fulfill any
    role, the individual is expected to conform to the norms governing the nature of the role they fulfill.[25]
    Furthermore, one person can and does fulfill many different roles at the same time. In one sense, an individual can be
    seen to be a "composition"[21] of the roles he inhabits. Certainly, today, when asked to describe themselves, most
    people would answer with reference to their societal roles.
Structural functionalism                                                                                                        43


    Parsons later developed the idea of roles into collectivities of roles that complement each other in fulfilling functions
    for society.[22] Some roles are bound up in institutions and social structures (economic, educational, legal and even
    gender-based). These are functional in the sense that they assist society in operating[26] and fulfilling its functional
    needs so that society runs smoothly.
    Contrary to prevailing myth, Parsons never spoke about a society where there was no conflict or some kind of
    "perfect" equilibrium. A society's cultural value-system was in the typical case never completely integrated, never
    static and most of the time, like in the case of the American society in a complex state of transformation relative to
    its historical point of departure. To reach a "perfect" equilibrium was not any serious theoretical question in Parsons
    analysis of social systems, indeed, the most dynamic societies had generally cultural systems with important inner
    tensions like the US and India. These tensions were (quite often) a source of their strength according to Parsons
    rather than the opposite. Parsons never thought about system-institutionalization and the level of strains (tensions,
    conflict) in the system as opposite forces per se.
    The key processes for Parsons for system reproduction are socialization and social control. Socialization is important
    because it is the mechanism for transferring the accepted norms and values of society to the individuals within the
    system. Parsons never spoke about "perfect socialization"—in any society socialization was only partial and
    "incomplete" from an integral point of view.
    Parson states that "this point [...] is independent of the sense in which [the] individual is concretely autonomous or
    creative rather than 'passive' or 'conforming', for individuality and creativity, are to a considerable extent, phenomena
    of the institutionalization of expectations";[27] they are culturally constructed.
    Socialization is supported by the positive and negative sanctioning of role behaviours that do or do not meet these
    expectations.[28] A punishment could be informal, like a snigger or gossip, or more formalized, through institutions
    such as prisons and mental homes. If these two processes were perfect, society would become static and unchanging,
    but in reality this is unlikely to occur for long.
    Parsons recognizes this, stating that he treats "the structure of the system as problematic and subject to change,"[29]
    and that his concept of the tendency towards equilibrium "does not imply the empirical dominance of stability over
    change."[30] He does, however, believe that these changes occur in a relatively smooth way.
    Individuals in interaction with changing situations adapt through a process of "role bargaining."[31] Once the roles
    are established, they create norms that guide further action and are thus institutionalised, creating stability across
    social interactions. Where the adaptation process cannot adjust, due to sharp shocks or immediate radical change,
    structural dissolution occurs and either new structures (or therefore a new system) are formed, or society dies. This
    model of social change has been described as a "moving equilibrium,"[32] and emphasises a desire for social order.


    Davis and Moore
    Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945) gave an argument for social stratification based on the idea of
    "functional necessity" (also known as the Davis-Moore hypothesis). They argue that the most difficult jobs in any
    society have the highest incomes in order to motivate individuals to fill the roles needed by the division of labour.
    Thus inequality serves social stability.[33]
    This argument has been criticized as fallacious from a number of different angles:[34] the argument is both that the
    individuals who are the most deserving are the highest rewarded, and that a system of unequal rewards is necessary,
    otherwise no individuals would perform as needed for the society to function. The problem is that these rewards are
    supposed to be based upon objective merit, rather than subjective "motivations." The argument also does not clearly
    establish why some positions are worth more than others, even when they benefit more people in society, e.g.,
    teachers compared to athletes and movie stars. Critics have suggested that structural inequality (inherited wealth,
    family power, etc.) is itself a cause of individual success or failure, not a consequence of it.[35]
Structural functionalism                                                                                                      44


    Robert Merton
    Robert K. Merton was a functionalist.[36] He fundamentally agreed with Parsons’ theory. However, he acknowledged
    that it was problematic, believing that it was over generalized [Holmwood, 2005:100]. Merton tended to emphasize
    middle range theory rather than a grand theory, meaning that he was able to deal specifically with some of the
    limitations in Parsons’ theory. Merton believed that any social structure probably has many functions, some more
    obvious than others.[37] He identified 3 main limitations: functional unity, universal functionalism and
    indispensability [Ritzer in Gingrich, 1999]. He also developed the concept of deviance and made the distinction
    between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions referred to the recognized and intended consequences of
    any social pattern. Latent functions referred to unrecognized and unintended consequences of any social pattern.[18]
    Merton criticized functional unity, saying that not all parts of a modern complex society work for the functional
    unity of society. Consequently, there is a social dysfunction referred to as any social pattern that may disrupt the
    operation of society.[18] Some institutions and structures may have other functions, and some may even be generally
    dysfunctional, or be functional for some while being dysfunctional for others.[38] This is because not all structures
    are functional for society as a whole. Some practices are only functional for a dominant individual or a group
    [Holmwood, 2005:91]. There are two types of functions that Merton discusses the "manifest functions" in that a
    social pattern can trigger a recognized and intended consequence. The manifest function of education includes
    preparing for a career by getting good grades, graduation and finding good job. The second type of function is "latent
    functions", where a social pattern results in an unrecognized or unintended consequence. The latent functions of
    education include meeting new people, extra-curricular activities, school trips.[39] Another type of social function is
    "social dysfunction" which is any undesirable consequences that disrupts the operation of society.[39] The social
    dysfunction of education includes not getting good grades, a job. Merton states that by recognizing and examining
    the dysfunctional aspects of society we can explain the development and persistence of alternatives. Thus, as
    Holmwood states, “Merton explicitly made power and conflict central issues for research within a functionalist
    paradigm” [2005:91].
    Merton also noted that there may be functional alternatives to the institutions and structures currently fulfilling the
    functions of society. This means that the institutions that currently exist are not indispensable to society. Merton
    states “just as the same item may have multiple functions, so may the same function be diversely fulfilled by
    alternative items” [cited in Holmwood, 2005:91]. This notion of functional alternatives is important because it
    reduces the tendency of functionalism to imply approval of the status quo.
    Merton’s theory of deviance is derived from Durkheim’s idea of anomie. It is central in explaining how internal
    changes can occur in a system. For Merton, anomie means a discontinuity between cultural goals and the accepted
    methods available for reaching them.
    Merton believes that there are 5 situations facing an actor.
    • Conformity occurs when an individual has the means and desire to achieve the cultural goals socialised into him.
    • Innovation occurs when an individual strives to attain the accepted cultural goals but chooses to do so in novel or
      unaccepted method.
    • Ritualism occurs when an individual continues to do things as proscribed by society but forfeits the achievement
      of the goals.
    • Retreatism is the rejection of both the means and the goals of society.
    • Rebellion is a combination of the rejection of societal goals and means and a substitution of other goals and
      means.
    Thus it can be seen that change can occur internally in society through either innovation or rebellion. It is true that
    society will attempt to control these individuals and negate the changes, but as the innovation or rebellion builds
    momentum, society will eventually adapt or face dissolution.
Structural functionalism                                                                                                      45


    Almond and Powell
    In the 1970s, political scientists Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell introduced a structural-functionalist approach
    to comparing political systems. They argued that, in order to understand a political system, it is necessary to
    understand not only its institutions (or structures) but also their respective functions. They also insisted that these
    institutions, to be properly understood, must be placed in a meaningful and dynamic historical context.
    This idea stood in marked contrast to prevalent approaches in the field of comparative politics — the state-society
    theory and the dependency theory. These were the descendants of David Easton's system theory in international
    relations, a mechanistic view that saw all political systems as essentially the same, subject to the same laws of
    "stimulus and response" — or inputs and outputs — while paying little attention to unique characteristics. The
    structural-functional approach is based on the view that a political system is made up of several key components,
    including interest groups, political parties and branches of government.
    In addition to structures, Almond and Powell showed that a political system consists of various functions, chief
    among them political socialization, recruitment and communication: socialization refers to the way in which
    societies pass along their values and beliefs to succeeding generations, and in political terms describe the process by
    which a society inculcates civic virtues, or the habits of effective citizenship; recruitment denotes the process by
    which a political system generates interest, engagement and participation from citizens; and communication refers to
    the way that a system promulgates its values and information.


    Structural functionalism and unilineal descent
    In their attempt to explain the social stability of African "primitive" stateless societies where they undertook their
    fieldwork, Evans-Pritchard (1940) and Meyer Fortes (1945) argued that the Tallensi and the Nuer were primarily
    organized around unilineal descent groups. Such groups are characterized by common purposes, such as
    administering property or defending against attacks; they form a permanent social structure that persists well beyond
    the lifespan of their members. In the case of the Tallensi and the Nuer, these corporate groups were based on kinship
    which in turn fitted into the larger structures of unilineal descent; consequently Evans-Pritchard's and Fortes' model
    is called "descent theory". Moreover, in this African context territorial divisions were aligned with lineages; descent
    theory therefore synthesized both blood and soil as two sides of one coin (cf. Kuper, 1988:195). Affinal ties with the
    parent through whom descent is not reckoned, however, are considered to be merely complementary or secondary
    (Fortes created the concept of "complementary filiation"), with the reckoning of kinship through descent being
    considered the primary organizing force of social systems. Because of its strong emphasis on unilineal descent, this
    new kinship theory came to be called "descent theory".
    With no delay, descent theory had found its critics. Many African tribal societies seemed to fit this neat model rather
    well, although Africanists, such as Richards, also argued that Fortes and Evans-Pritchard had deliberately
    downplayed internal contradictions and overemphasized the stability of the local lineage systems and their
    significance for the organization of society.[40] However, in many Asian settings the problems were even more
    obvious. In Papua New Guinea, the local patrilineal descent groups were fragmented and contained large amounts of
    non-agnates. Status distinctions did not depend on descent, and genealogies were too short to account for social
    solidarity through identification with a common ancestor. In particular, the phenomenon of cognatic (or bilateral)
    kinship posed a serious problem to the proposition that descent groups are the primary element behind the social
    structures of "primitive" societies.
    Leach's (1966) critique came in the form of the classical Malinowskian argument, pointing out that "in
    Evans-Pritchard's studies of the Nuer and also in Fortes's studies of the Tallensi unilineal descent turns out to be
    largely an ideal concept to which the empirical facts are only adapted by means of fictions." (1966:8). People's
    self-interest, manoeuvring, manipulation and competition had been ignored. Moreover, descent theory neglected the
    significance of marriage and affinal ties, which were emphasised by Levi-Strauss' structural anthropology, at the
    expense of overemphasising the role of descent. To quote Leach: "The evident importance attached to matrilateral
Structural functionalism                                                                                                       46


    and affinal kinship connections is not so much explained as explained away."[41]


    Decline of functionalism
    Structural functionalism reached the peak of its influence in the 1940s and 1950s, and by the 1960s was in rapid
    decline.[42] By the 1980s, its place was taken in Europe by more conflict-oriented approaches,[43] and more recently
    by 'structuralism'.[44] While some of the critical approaches also gained popularity in the United States, the
    mainstream of the discipline has instead shifted to a myriad of empirically-oriented middle-range theories with no
    overarching theoretical orientation. To most sociologists, functionalism is now "as dead as a dodo".[45]
    As the influence of both functionalism and Marxism in the 1960s began to wane, the linguistic and cultural turns led
    to a myriad of new movements in the social sciences: "According to Giddens, the orthodox consensus terminated in
    the late 1960s and 1970s as the middle ground shared by otherwise competing perspectives gave way and was
    replaced by a baffling variety of competing perspectives. This third 'generation' of social theory includes
    phenomenologically inspired approaches, critical theory, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism,
    post-structuralism, and theories written in the tradition of hermeneutics and ordinary language philosophy."[46]
    While absent from empirical sociology, functionalist themes remained detectable in sociological theory, most
    notably in the works of Luhmann and Giddens. There are, however, signs of an incipient revival, as functionalist
    claims have recently been bolstered by developments in multilevel selection theory and in empirical research on how
    groups solve social dilemmas. Recent developments in evolutionary theory — especially by biologist David Sloan
    Wilson and anthropologists Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson — have provided strong support for structural
    functionalism in the form of multilevel selection theory. In this theory, culture and social structure are seen as a
    Darwinian (biological or cultural) adaptation at the group level.


    Criticisms
    In the 1960s, functionalism was criticized for being unable to account for social change, or for structural
    contradictions and conflict (and thus was often called "consensus theory").[47] Also, it ignores inequalities including
    race, gender, class, which causes tension and conflict. The refutation of the second criticism of functionalism, that it
    is static and has no concept of change, has already been articulated above, concluding that while Parsons’ theory
    allows for change, it is an orderly process of change [Parsons, 1961:38], a moving equilibrium. Therefore referring
    to Parsons’ theory of society as static is inaccurate. It is true that it does place emphasis on equilibrium and the
    maintenance or quick return to social order, but this is a product of the time in which Parsons was writing
    (post-World War II, and the start of the cold war). Society was in upheaval and fear abounded. At the time social
    order was crucial, and this is reflected in Parsons' tendency to promote equilibrium and social order rather than social
    change.
    Furthermore, Durkheim favored a radical form of guild socialism along with functionalist explanations. Also,
    Marxism, while acknowledging social contradictions, still uses functionalist explanations. Parsons' evolutionary
    theory describes the differentiation and reintegration systems and subsystems and thus at least temporary conflict
    before reintegration (ibid). "The fact that functional analysis can be seen by some as inherently conservative and by
    others as inherently radical suggests that it may be inherently neither one nor the other." (Merton 1957: 39)
    Stronger criticisms include the epistemological argument that functionalism is tautologous, that is it attempts to
    account for the development of social institutions solely through recourse to the effects that are attributed to them
    and thereby explains the two circularly. However, Parsons drew directly on many of Durkheim’s concepts in creating
    his theory. Certainly Durkheim was one of the first theorists to explain a phenomenon with reference to the function
    it served for society. He said, “the determination of function is…necessary for the complete explanation of the
    phenomena” [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. However Durkheim made a clear distinction between historical and
    functional analysis, saying, “When…the explanation of a social phenomenon is undertaken, we must seek separately
Structural functionalism                                                                                                          47


    the efficient cause which produces it and the function it fulfills” [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. If Durkheim made this
    distinction, then it is unlikely that Parsons did not. However Merton does explicitly state that functional analysis
    does not seek to explain why the action happened in the first instance, but why it continues or is reproduced. He says
    that “latent functions …go far towards explaining the continuance of the pattern” [cited in Elster, 1990:130, emphasis
    added]. Therefore it can be argued that functionalism does not explain the original cause of a phenomenon with
    reference to its effect, and is therefore, not teleological.
    Another criticism describes the ontological argument that society cannot have "needs" as a human being does, and
    even if society does have needs they need not be met. Anthony Giddens argues that functionalist explanations may
    all be rewritten as historical accounts of individual human actions and consequences (see Structuration).
    A further criticism directed at functionalism is that it contains no sense of agency, that individuals are seen as
    puppets, acting as their role requires. Yet Holmwood states that the most sophisticated forms of functionalism are
    based on “a highly developed concept of action” [2005:107], and as was explained above, Parsons took as his starting
    point the individual and their actions. His theory did not however articulate how these actors exercise their agency in
    opposition to the socialization and inculcation of accepted norms. As has been shown above, Merton addressed this
    limitation through his concept of deviance, and so it can be seen that functionalism allows for agency. It cannot,
    however, explain why individuals choose to accept or reject the accepted norms, why and in what circumstances they
    choose to exercise their agency, and this does remain a considerable limitation of the theory.
    Further criticisms have been leveled at functionalism by proponents of other social theories, particularly conflict
    theorists, Marxists, feminists and postmodernists. Conflict theorists criticised functionalism’s concept of systems as
    giving far too much weight to integration and consensus, and neglecting independence and conflict [Holmwood,
    2005:100]. Lockwood [in Holmwood, 2005:101], in line with conflict theory, suggested that Parsons’ theory missed
    the concept of system contradiction. He did not account for those parts of the system that might have tendencies to
    Mal-integration. According to Lockwood, it was these tendencies that come to the surface as opposition and conflict
    among actors. However Parsons thought that the issues of conflict and cooperation were very much intertwined and
    sought to account for both in his model [Holmwood, 2005:103]. In this however he was limited by his analysis of an
    ‘ideal type’ of society which was characterized by consensus. Merton, through his critique of functional unity,
    introduced into functionalism an explicit analysis of tension and conflict.
    Marxism which was revived soon after the emergence of conflict theory, criticized professional sociology
    (functionalism and conflict theory alike) for being partisan to advanced welfare capitalism [Holmwood, 2005:103].
    Gouldner [in Holmwood, 2005:103] thought that Parsons’ theory specifically was an expression of the dominant
    interests of welfare capitalism, that it justified institutions with reference to the function they fulfill for society. It
    may be that Parsons' work implied or articulated that certain institutions were necessary to fulfill the functional
    prerequisites of society, but whether or not this is the case, Merton explicitly states that institutions are not
    indispensable and that there are functional alternatives. That he does not identify any alternatives to the current
    institutions does reflect a conservative bias, which as has been stated before is a product of the specific time that he
    was writing in.
    As functionalism’s prominence was ending, feminism was on the rise, and it attempted a radical criticism of
    functionalism. It believed that functionalism neglected the suppression of women within the family structure.
    Holmwood [2005:103] shows, however, that Parsons did in fact describe the situations where tensions and conflict
    existed or were about to take place, even if he did not articulate those conflicts. Some feminists agree, suggesting
    that Parsons’ provided accurate descriptions of these situations. [Johnson in Holmwood, 2005:103]. On the other
    hand, Parsons recognized that he had oversimplified his functional analysis of women in relation to work and the
    family, and focused on the positive functions of the family for society and not on its dysfunctions for women.
    Merton, too, although addressing situations where function and dysfunction occurred simultaneously, lacked a
    “feminist sensibility” [Holmwood, 2005:103].
Structural functionalism                                                                                                       48


    Postmodernism, as a theory, is critical of claims of objectivity. Therefore the idea of grand theory that can explain
    society in all its forms is treated with skepticism at the very least. This critique is important because it exposes the
    danger that grand theory can pose, when not seen as a limited perspective, as one way of understanding society.
    Jeffrey Alexander (1985) sees functionalism as a broad school rather than a specific method or system, such as
    Parsons, who is capable of taking equilibrium (stability) as a reference-point rather than assumption and treats
    structural differentiation as a major form of social change. "The name 'functionalism' implies a difference of method
    or interpretation that does not exist." (Davis 1967: 401) This removes the determinism criticized above. Cohen
    argues that rather than needs a society has dispositional facts: features of the social environment that support the
    existence of particular social institutions but do not cause them.


    Influential theorists
    •   Kingsley Davis
    •   Michael Denton
    •   Émile Durkheim
    •   David Keen
    •   Niklas Luhmann
    •   Bronisław Malinowski
    •   Robert K. Merton
    •   Wilbert E. Moore
    •   George Murdock
    •   Talcott Parsons
    •   Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown
    •   Herbert Spencer
    •   Fei Xiaotong


    Bibliography
    •   Barnard, A. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP.
    •   Barnard, A., and Good, A. 1984. Research Practices in the Study of Kinship. London: Academic Press.
    •   Barnes, J. 1971. Three Styles in the Study of Kinship. London: Butler & Tanner.
    •   Holy, L. 1996. Anthropological Perspectives on Kinship. London: Pluto Press.
    •   Kuper, A. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion. London: Routledge.
    •   Kuper, A. 1996. Anthropology and Anthropologists. London: Routledge.
    •   Layton, R. 1997. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP.
    •   Leach, E. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma. London: Bell.
    •   Leach, E. 1966. Rethinking Anthropology. Northampton: Dickens.
    •   Levi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. London: Eyre and Spottis-woode.
    •   Coser, L., (1977) Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. 2nd Ed., Fort Worth:
        Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., pp. 140–143.
    •   Craib, I., (1992) Modern Social Theory: From Parsons to Habermas, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London
    •   Cuff, E. & Payne, G.,(eds) (1984) Perspectives in Sociology, Allen & Unwin, London
    •   Davis, K (1959). "The Myth of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology",
        American Sociological Review, 24(6), 757-772.
    •   Elster, J., (1990), “Merton's Functionalism and the Unintended Consequences of Action”, in Clark, J., Modgil, C.
        & Modgil, S., (eds) Robert Merton: Consensus and Controversy, Falmer Press, London, pp. 129–35
    • Gingrich, P., (1999) “Functionalism and Parsons” in Sociology 250 Subject Notes, University of Regina,
      accessed, 24/5/06, uregina.ca [48]
Structural functionalism                                                                                                                                 49


    • Holmwood, J., (2005) “Functionalism and its Critics” in Harrington, A., (ed) Modern Social Theory: an
      introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 87–109
    • Homans, George Casper (1962). Sentiments and Activities. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
    • Hoult, Thomas Ford (1969). Dictionary of Modern Sociology.
    • Lenski, Gerhard (1966). "Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification." New York: McGraw-Hill.
    • Lenski, Gerhard (2005). "Evolutionary-Ecological Theory." Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
    • Maryanski, Alexandra (1998). "Evolutionary Sociology." Advances in Human Ecology. 7:1-56.
    • Maryanski, Alexandra and Jonathan Turner (1992). "The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of
      Society." Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    • Marshall, Gordon (1994). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. ISBN 0-19-285237-X
    • Merton, Robert (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged. London: The Free Press of
      Glencoe.
    • Nolan, Patrick and Gerhard Lenski (2004). Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology." Boulder, CO:
      Paradigm.
    • Parsons, Talcott (1951) The Social System, Routledge, London
    • Parsons, T., & Shils, A., (eds) (1976) Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge
    • Parsons, T., (1961) Theories of Society: foundations of modern sociological theory, Free Press, New York
    • Perey, Arnold (2005) "Malinowski, His Diary, and Men Today [49] (with a note on the nature of Malinowskian
      functionalism)
    • Ritzer, G., (1983) Sociological Theory, Knopf Inc, New York
    • Sanderson, Stephen K. (1999). "Social Transformations: A General Theory of Historical Development." Lanham,
      MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
    • Turner, Jonathan (1985). "Herbert Spencer: A Renewed Appreciation." Beverly Hills: Sage.
    • Turner, Jonathan (1995). "Macrodynamics: Toward a Theory on the Organization of Human Populations." New
      Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
    • Turner, Jonathan and Jan Stets (2005). "The Sociology of Emotions." Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.


    Notes
    [1] ^ Macionis, Gerber, Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. (Pearson Canada Inc., 2010)pg.14
    [2] ^DeRosso,Deb The Structural Functional Theoretical Approach, (http:/ / www. wisc-online. com/ Objects/ ViewObject. aspx?ID=I2S3404)
        2003.(Accessed February 24, 2012)
    [3] Urry, John (2000). "Metaphors" (http:/ / books. google. co. uk/ books?id=ogyDBobOHVEC& pg=PA23). Sociology beyond societies:
        mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-415-19089-3. .
    [4] Talcott Parsons, "The Present Status of "Structural-Functional" Theory in Sociology." In Talcott Parsons, Social Systems and The Evolution
        of Action Theory New York: The Free Press, 1975.
    [5] Bourricaud, F. 'The Sociology of Talcott Parsons' Chicago University Press. ISBN 0-226-06756-4. p. 94
    [6] Macionis, Gerber, Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. (Pearson Canada Inc., 2010)pg.19
    [7] Giddens, Anthony "The Constitution of Society" in The Giddens Reader Philip Cassell (eds.) MacMillan Press pp.88
    [8] Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences The University of Alabama: Anthropological theories (http:/ / www. as. ua. edu/
        ant/ Faculty/ murphy/ function. htm)
    [9] Rice, Keith. "Structural Functionlism" (http:/ / www. integratedsociopsychology. net/ structural-functionalism. html). . Retrieved 23 February
        2012.
    [10] Rice, Keith. "Structural Functionlism" (http:/ / www. integratedsociopsychology. net/ structural-functionalism. html). . Retrieved 23
        February 2012.
    [11] Macionis, John J. "Sociology". (Toronto: Pearson, 2011), 97
    [12] Fish, Jonathan S. 2005. Defending the Durkheimian Tradition. Religion, Emotion and Morality Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
    [13] Gerber, L., Macionis, J. (2011). Sociology: Seventh Canadian Edition. pp. 13-14.
    [14] Gerber, L., Macionis, J. (2011). Sociology: Seventh Canadian Edition. pp. 10.
    [15]   Gertrud Lenzer, ed., Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings (New York: Harper, 1975). pp. 71-86.
    [16]   Macionis, John J. (2012). Sociology 14th Edition. Boston: Pearson. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-205-11671-3.
    [17]   Turner, 1985
    [18]   Macionis, Gerber, Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. (Pearson Canada Inc., 2010)pg.14
Structural functionalism                                                                                                                           50

    [19]   See Turner 1985
    [20]   Nolan and Lenski, 2004; Maryanski and Turner 1992
    [21]   Parsons & Shills, 1976:190
    [22]   Parsons, 1961:41
    [23]   Craib, 1992:40
    [24]   1961:43-44
    [25]   Cuff & Payne, 1984:44
    [26]   Gingrich, 1999
    [27]   1961:38
    [28]   Cuff & Payne, 1984:46.
    [29]   1961:37.
    [30]   1961:39.
    [31]   Gingrich, 1991
    [32]   Gingrich, 1991.
    [33]   Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. (1970 [1945]) "Some Principles of Stratification." American Sociological Review, 10 (2), 242-9.
    [34]   de Maio, F. (2010) Health & Social Theory. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 29-30.
    [35]   Tumin, M. M. (1953). "Some principles of stratification: a critical analysis." American Sociological Review, 18, 387-97.
    [36]   Macionis, John (2011). Sociology. Toronto: Pearson Canada. ISBN 978-0-13-700161-3.
    [37]   ^ ^ Macionis, Gerber, Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. (Pearson Canada Inc., 2010)pg.14
    [38]   In sociology, another term for describing a positive function, in opposition to a dysfunction, is eufunction.
    [39]   Macionis, J., and Gerber, L. (2010). Sociology, 7th edition
    [40]   cf. Kuper, 1988:196, 205-6
    [41]   ibid
    [42]   Jay J. Coakley, Eric Dunning, Handbook of sports studies
    [43]   Slattery, Martin. 1993. Key Ideas in Sociology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes, Ltd.
    [44]   Giddens, Anthony "The Constitution of Society" in The Giddens Reader Philip Cassell (eds.) MacMillan Press pp.89
    [45]   Barnes, B. 1995. The Elements of Social Theory. London: UCL Press. Quoted in Jay J. Coakley, Eric Dunning, Handbook of sports studies
    [46]   Cassell, Philip The Giddens Reader (1993) The Macmillan Press Ltd, pp. 6
    [47]   http:/ / subedi. orgfree. com/ docs/ Structural_Functionalism. pdf
    [48]   http:/ / uregina. ca/ ~gingrich/ n2f99. htm
    [49]   http:/ / www. perey-anthropology. net/ Aesthetic-Realism-Malinowski. html
Conflict theory                                                                                                                    51



    Conflict theory
    Conflict theories are perspectives in social science that emphasize the social, political, or material inequality of a
    social group, that critique the broad socio-political system, or that otherwise detract from structural functionalism
    and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and
    generally contrast historically dominant ideologies. It is therefore a macro level analysis of society. Karl Marx is the
    father of the social conflict theory, which is a component of the 4 paradigms of sociology. Certain conflict theories
    set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold
    parallels, conflict theory does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance,
    peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict.


    In classical sociology
    Of the classical founders of social science, conflict theory is most commonly associated with Karl Marx
    (1818–1883). Based on a dialectical materialist account of history, Marxism posited that capitalism, like previous
    socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions leading to its own destruction.[1] Marx ushered
    in radical change, advocating proletarian revolution and freedom from the ruling classes. At the same time, Karl
    Marx was aware that most of the people living in capitalist societies did not see how the system shaped the entire
    operation of society. Just like how we see private property, or the right to pass that property on to our children as
    natural, many of members in capitalistic societies see the rich as having earned their wealth through hard work and
    education, while seeing the poor as lacking in skill and initiative. Marx rejected this type of thinking and termed it
    false consciousness, explanations of social problems as the shortcomings of individuals rather than the flaws of
    society. Marx wanted to replace this kind of thinking with something Engels termed class consciousness, workers'
    recognition of themselves as a class unified in opposition to capitalist and ultimately to the capitalist system itself. In
    general, Marx wanted the proletarians to rise up against the capitalist and overthrow the capitalist system.[2]
           The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and
           plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant
           opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time
           ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
           classes.
                                                      — Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels The Communist Manifesto 1848, [3]
           In the social productions of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent
           of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material
           forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society,
           the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms
           of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social,
           political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social
           existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive
           forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the
           same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated
           hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then an
           era of social revolution begins. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the
           transformation of the whole immense superstructure.
           In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of
           the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the
           legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious
Conflict theory                                                                                                                  52


           of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so
           one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness
           must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces
           of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces
           for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older
           ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.
           Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always
           show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at
           least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, [A] feudal and modern bourgeois modes
           of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The
           bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic
           not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social
           conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the
           material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with
           this social formation.
                                               — Karl Marx A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy 1859, [4]
    Two early conflict theorists were the Polish-Austrian sociologist and political theorist Ludwig Gumplowicz
    (1838–1909) and the American sociologist and paleontologist Lester F. Ward (1841–1913). Although Ward and
    Gumplowicz developed their theories independently they had much in common and approached conflict from a
    comprehensive anthropological and evolutionary point-of-view as opposed to Marx's rather exclusive focus on
    economic factors.
    Gumplowicz, in Grundriss der Soziologie (Outlines of Sociology, 1884), describes how civilization has been shaped
    by conflict between cultures and ethnic groups. Gumplowicz theorized that large complex human societies evolved
    from the war and conquest. Another organizes states around the domination of one group: masters and slaves.
    Eventually a complex caste system develops.[5] Horowitz says that Gumplowicz understood conflict in all its forms:
    "class conflict, race conflict and ethnic conflict", and calls him one of the fathers of Conflict Theory.[6]
           What happened in India, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome may sometime happen in modern Europe.
           European civilization may perish, over flooded by barbaric tribes. But if any one believes that we are safe
           from such catastrophes he is perhaps yielding to an all too optimistic delusion. There are no barbaric tribes in
           our neighbourhood to be sure — but let no one be deceived, their instincts lie latent in the populace of
           European states.
                                                                                                  — Gumplowicz (1884), [7]
    Ward directly attacked and attempted to systematically refute the elite business class's laissez-faire philosophy as
    espoused by the hugely popular social philosopher Herbert Spencer. Ward's Dynamic Sociology (1883) was an
    extended thesis on how to reduce conflict and competition in society and thus optimize human progress. At the most
    basic level Ward saw human nature itself to be deeply conflicted between self-aggrandizement and altruism, between
    emotion and intellect, and between male and female. These conflicts would be then reflected in society and Ward
    assumed there had been a "perpetual and vigorous struggle" among various "social forces" that shaped
    civilization.[8][9] Ward was more optimistic than Marx and Gumption and believed that it was possible to build on
    and reform present social structures with the help of sociological analysis.
    Durkheim (1858–1917) saw society as a functioning organism. Functionalism concerns "the effort to impute, as
    rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable,
    cohesive system,"[10] The chief form of social conflict that Durkheim addressed was crime. Durkheim saw crime as
    "a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies."[11] The collective conscience defines certain acts
    as "criminal." Crime thus plays a role in the evolution of morality and law: "[it] implies not only that the way
    remains open to necessary changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes."[12]
Conflict theory                                                                                                                 53


    Weber's (1864–1920) approach to conflict is contrasted with that of Marx. While Marx focused on the way
    individual behavior is conditioned by social structure, Weber emphasized the importance of "social action," i.e., the
    ability of individuals to affect their social relationships.[13]


    Modern approaches
    C. Wright Mills has been called the founder of modern conflict theory.[14] In Mills's view, social structures are
    created through conflict between people with differing interests and resources. Individuals and resources, in turn, are
    influenced by these structures and by the "unequal distribution of power and resources in the society."[14] The power
    elite of American society, (i.e., the military–industrial complex) had "emerged from the fusion of the corporate elite,
    the Pentagon, and the executive branch of government." Mills argued that the interests of this elite were opposed to
    those of the people. He theorized that the policies of the power elite would result in "increased escalation of conflict,
    production of weapons of mass destruction, and possibly the annihilation of the human race."[14]
    Gene Sharp (born 21 January 1928) is a Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts
    Dartmouth.[15] He is known for his extensive writings on nonviolent struggle, which have influenced numerous
    anti-government resistance movements around the world. In 1983 he founded the Albert Einstein Institution, a
    non-profit organization devoted to studies and promotion of the use of nonviolent action in conflicts worldwide.[16]
    Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who
    are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state—regardless of its particular structural
    organization—ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure
    relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power. Sharp
    has been called both the "Machiavelli of nonviolence" and the "Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare."[17] Sharp's
    scholarship has influenced resistance organizations around the world. Most recently the protest movement that
    toppled President Mubarak of Egypt drew extensively on his ideas, as well as the youth movement in Tunisia and the
    earlier ones in the Eastern European color revolutions that had previously been inspired by Sharp's work.[18]
    A recent articulation of conflict theory is found in Alan Sears' (Canadian sociologist) book A Good Book, in Theory:
    A Guide to Theoretical Thinking (2008):[19]
    • Societies are defined by inequality that produces conflict, rather than which produces order and consensus. This
      conflict based on inequality can only be overcome through a fundamental transformation of the existing relations
      in the society, and is productive of new social relations.
    • The disadvantaged have structural interests that run counter to the status quo, which, once they are assumed, will
      lead to social change. Thus, they are viewed as agents of change rather than objects one should feel sympathy for.
    • Human potential (e.g., capacity for creativity) is suppressed by conditions of exploitation and oppression, which
      are necessary in any society with an unequal division of labour. These and other qualities do not necessarily have
      to be stunted due to the requirements of the so-called "civilizing process," or "functional necessity": creativity is
      actually an engine for economic development and change.
    • The role of theory is in realizing human potential and transforming society, rather than maintaining the power
      structure. The opposite aim of theory would be the objectivity and detachment associated with positivism, where
      theory is a neutral, explanatory tool.
    • Consensus is a euphemism for ideology. Genuine consensus is not achieved, rather the more powerful in societies
      are able to impose their conceptions on others and have them accept their discourses. Consensus does not preserve
      social order, it entrenches stratification, e.g., the American dream.
    • The State serves the particular interests of the most powerful while claiming to represent the interests of all.
      Representation of disadvantaged groups in State processes may cultivate the notion of full participation, but this is
      an illusion/ideology.
    • Inequality on a global level is characterized by the purposeful underdevelopment of Third World countries, both
      during colonization and after national independence. The global system (i.e., development agencies such as World
Conflict theory                                                                                                                                    54


       Bank and International Monetary Fund) benefits the most powerful countries and multi-national corporations,
       rather than the subjects of development, through economic, political, and military actions.
    Although Sears associates the conflict theory approach with Marxism, he argues that it is the foundation for much
    "feminist, post-modernist, anti-racist, and lesbian-gay liberationist theories."[20]


    Types of conflict theory
    Conflict theory is most commonly associated with Marxism, but as a reaction to functionalism and the positivist
    method may also be associated with number of other perspectives, including:
    • Critical theory
    • Feminist theory: The advocacy of social equality for women and men, in opposition to patriarchy and sexism.[21]
    • Postmodern theory: An approach that is critical of modernism, with a mistrust of grand theories and
      ideologies.[21]
    • Post-structural theory
    • Postcolonial theory
    • Queer theory: A growing body of research findings that challenges the heterosexual bias in Western society.[21]
    • World systems theory
    • Race-Conflict Approach: A point of view that focuses on inequality and conflict between people of different
      racial and ethnic categories.[21]


    References
    [1] Baird, Forrest E.; Walter Kaufmann (2008). From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
        ISBN 0-13-158591-6.
    [2] Macionis, J. J. (2011). Society. Sociology (7th ed., pp. 88-89). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
    [3] Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, introduction by Martin Malia (New York: Penguin group, 1998), pg. 35 ISBN 0-451-52710-0
    [4] Marx A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, http:/ / www. marxists. org/ archive/ marx/ works/ 1859/ critique-pol-economy/
        preface. htm
    [5] Fifty Key Sociologists: the Formative Theorists, John Scott Irving, 2007, pg 59
    [6] "Communicating Ideas: The Politics of Scholarly Publishing", Irving Louis Horowitz, 1986, pg 281
    [7] "Outlines of Sociology", pg 196
    [8] "Transforming Leadership", James MacGregor Burns, 2004, pg 189
    [9] "German Realpolitik and American Sociology: an Inquiry Into the Sources and Political Significance of the Sociology of Conflict", James
        Alfred Aho, 1975, ch. 6 'Lester F. Ward's Sociology of Conflict'
    [10] Bourricaud, F. 'The Sociology of Talcott Parsons' Chicago University Press. ISBN 0-226-06756-4. p. 94
    [11] Durkheim, E. (1938). The Rules of Sociological Method. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 67.
    [12] Durkheim, (1938), pp. 70–81.
    [13] Livesay, C. Social Inequality: Theories: Weber (http:/ / www. sociology. org. uk/ siweber. pdf). Sociology Central. A-Level Sociology
        Teaching Notes. Retrieved on: 2010-06-20.
    [14] Knapp, P. (1994). One World – Many Worlds: Contemporary Sociological Theory (2nd Ed.). Harpercollins College Div, pp. 228–246.
        Online summary (http:/ / www94. homepage. villanova. edu/ peter. knapp/ THgreats. htm) ISBN 978-0-06-501218-7
    [15] "Gene Sharp: Author of the nonviolent revolution rulebook" (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ world-middle-east-12522848). BBC News. 21
        February 2011. .
    [16] Gene Sharp biography at Albert Einstein Institution web site. (http:/ / www. aeinstein. org/ organizations9173. html)
    [17] Weber, Thomas. Gandhi as Disciple and Mentor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004
    [18] "Shy U.S. Intellectual Created Playbook Used in a Revolution" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2011/ 02/ 17/ world/ middleeast/ 17sharp.
        html?_r=1& hp). The New York Times. 16 February 2011. .
    [19] Sears, Alan. (2008) A Good Book, In Theory: A Guide to Theoretical Thinking. North York: Higher Education University of Toronto Press,
        pg. 34-6.
    [20] Sears, pg. 36.
    [21] Macionis, J., and Gerber, L. (2010). Sociology, 7th edition

    • Stark, Rodney (2007). Sociology (10th ed.). thomas wadsworth. ISBN 0-495-09344-0.
Conflict theory                                                                                                                   55


    • Lenski, Gerhard E. (1966). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratificaion. McGraw-Hill.
      ISBN 0-07-037165-2.
    • Collins, Randall (1994). Four Sociological Traditions: Selected Readings. Oxford University Press..
      ISBN 0-19-508702-X.
    • Thio, Alex (2008). Sociology: A Brief Introduction (7th ed.). Pearson. ISBN 0-205-40785-4.



    Middle range theory (sociology)
    Middle range theory, developed by Robert K. Merton, is an approach to sociological theorizing aimed at integrating
    theory and empirical research. It is currently the de facto dominant approach to sociological theory construction,[1]
    especially in the United States. Middle-range theory starts with an empirical phenomenon (as opposed to a broad
    abstract entity like the social system) and abstracts from it to create general statements that can be verified by data.[2]
    This approach stands in contrast to the earlier "grand" theorizing of social theory, such as functionalism and many
    conflict theories. Raymond Boudon has argued that "middle-range theory" is the same concept that most other
    sciences simply call 'theory'.[3] The analytical sociology movement has as its aim the unification of such theories into
    a coherent paradigm at a greater level of abstraction.


    Definition
           Sociological theory, if it is to advance significantly, must proceed on these interconnected planes: 1. by
           developing special theories from which to derive hypotheses that can be empirically investigated and 2. by
           evolving a progressively more general conceptual scheme that is adequate to consolidate groups of special
           theories.
                                                               — Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, [2]
    The term "middle-range theory" does not refer to a specific theory, but is rather an approach on theory construction.
    Raymond Boudon defines middle-range theory as a commitment to two ideas. The one is positive, and describes
    what such theories should do: sociological theories, like all scientific theories, should aim to consolidate otherwise
    segregated hypotheses and empirical regularities; "if a 'theory' is valid, it 'explains' and in other words 'consolidates'
    and federates empirical regularities which on their side would appear otherwise segregated." The other is negative,
    and it relates to what theory cannot do: "it is hopeless and quixotic to try to determine the overarching independent
    variable that would operate in all social processes, or to determine the essential feature of social structure, or to find
    out the two, three, or four couples of concepts ... that would be sufficient to analyze all social phenomena".[3]


    History
    The middle-range approach was developed by Robert Merton as a departure from the general social theorizing of
    Talcott Parsons. Merton agreed with Parsons that a narrow empiricism consisting entirely of simple statistical or
    observational regularities cannot arrive at successful theory. However, he found that Parsons' "formulations were
    remote from providing a problematics and a direction for theory-oriented empirical inquiry into the observable
    worlds of culture and society".[4] He was thus directly opposed to the abstract theorizing of scholars who are engaged
    in the attempt to construct a total theoretical system covering all aspects of social life. With the introduction of the
    middle range theory program, he advocated that sociologists should concentrate on measurable aspects of social
    reality that can be studied as separate social phenomena, rather than attempting to explain the entire social world. He
    saw both the middle-range theory approach and middle-range theories themselves as temporary: when they matured,
    as natural sciences already had, the body of middle range theories would become a system of universal laws; but,
    until that time, social sciences should avoid trying to create a universal theory.[5]
Middle range theory (sociology)                                                                                                                   56


    Merton's original foil in the construction was Talcott Parsons, whose action theory Merton classified as a "grand
    theory". (Parsons vehemently rejected this categorization.) Middle range theories are normally constructed through
    the integration of empirical research with theory building techniques from which can be derived generic propositions
    about the social world and which can be empirically tested. Examples of middle range theories are theories of
    reference groups, social mobility, normalization processes, role conflict and the formation of social norms.[3] The
    middle-range approach has played a key role in turning sociology into an increasingly empirically-oriented
    discipline.[6] This was also important in post-war thought.
    In the post-war period, middle-range theory became the dominant approach to theory construction in all
    variable-based social sciences.[5] Middle range theory has also been applied to the archaeological realm by Lewis R.
    Binford, and to financial theory by Harvard Business School Professor Robert C. Merton,[7][8] Robert K. Merton's
    son.
    In the recent decades, the analytical sociology program has emerged as an attempt synthesizing middle-range
    theories into a more coherent abstract framework (as Merton had hoped would eventually happen). Peter Hedstrom
    at Oxford is the scholar most associated with this approach,[9] while Peter Bearman is its most prominent American
    advocate, according to Noam Chomsky.


    Quotes
    • ...what might be called theories of the middle range: theories intermediate to the minor working hypotheses
      evolved in abundance during the day-by-day routine of research, and the all-inclusive speculations comprising a
      master conceptual scheme. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure [10]
    • Our major task today is to develop special theories applicable to limited conceptual ranges -- theories, for
      example, of deviant behavior, the unanticipated consequences of purposive action, social perception, reference
      groups, social control, the interdependence of social institutions -- rather than to seek the total conceptual
      structure that is adequate to derive these and other theories of the middle range. Robert K. Merton[2]


    References
    Merton, Robert K. (1968-08-01). Social Theory and Social Structure (1968 Enlarged Ed ed.). Free Press.
    ISBN 0-02-921130-1.
    [1] Bailey, Kenneth. 1991. "Alternative Procedures for Macrosociological Theorizing." Quality & Quantity, vol 25:1, pp. 37-55.
    [2] Merton, Robert. "Social Theory and Social Structure."
    [3] Boudon, Raymond (1991). "What middle-range theories are", Contemporary Sociology (American Sociological Association) 20 (4): pp.
        519-522.
    [4] (http:/ / www. csudh. edu/ dearhabermas/ merton01. htm)
    [5] Mjøset, Lars. 1999. "Understanding of Theory in the Social Sciences." ARENA working papers. http:/ / www. arena. uio. no/ publications/
        wp99_33. htm
    [6] Coockson and Sadovnik in David Levinson, Peter W. Cookson, Alan R. Sadovnik, ed., "Education and sociology: an encyclopedia."
    [7] Merton, Robert C. and Zvi Bodie. Design of Financial Systems: Toward A Synthesis of Function and Structure (http:/ / www. people. hbs.
        edu/ rmerton/ Designpaperfinal. pdf)
    [8] Scholarly Approach Brings Sweeping Change (http:/ / www. people. hbs. edu/ rmerton/ quantitativefinance. pdf)
    [9] P. Hedström and L. Udehn “Analytical sociology and theories of the middle range". Pp. 25- 47 in P. Hedström and P. Bearman (Eds.) The
        Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
    [10] http:/ / studymore. org. uk/ xmer. htm#middlerange
Mathematical sociology                                                                                                          57



    Mathematical sociology
    Mathematical sociology is the usage of mathematics to construct social theories. Mathematical sociology aims to
    take sociological theory, which is strong in intuitive content but weak from a formal point of view, and to express it
    in formal terms. The benefits of this approach include increased clarity and the ability to use mathematics to derive
    implications of a theory that cannot be arrived at intuitively. In mathematical sociology, the preferred style is
    encapsulated in the phrase "constructing a mathematical model." This means making specified assumptions about
    some social phenomenon, expressing them in formal mathematics, and providing an empirical interpretation for the
    ideas. It also means deducing properties of the model and comparing these with relevant empirical data. Social
    network analysis is the best-known contribution of this subfield to sociology as a whole and to the scientific
    community at large. The models typically used in mathematical sociology allow sociologists to understand how
    predictable local interactions are often able to elicit global patterns of social structure.[1]


    History
    Starting in the early 1940s, Nicolas Rashevsky,[2][3] and subsequently in the late 1940s, Anatol Rapoport and others,
    developed a relational and probabilistic approach to the characterization of large social networks in which the nodes
    are persons and the links are acquaintanceship. During late 1940s, formulas were derived that connected local
    parameters such as closure of contacts – if A is linked to both B and C, then there is a greater than chance probability
    that B and C are linked to each other – to the global network property of connectivity.[4]
    Moreover, acquaintanceship is a positive tie, but what about negative ties such as animosity among persons? To
    tackle this problem, graph theory, which is the mathematical study of abstract representations of networks of points
    and lines, can be extended to include these two types of links and thereby to create models that represent both
    positive and negative sentiment relations, which are represented as signed graphs. A signed graph is called balanced
    if the product of the signs of all relations in every cycle (links in every graph cycle) is positive. This effort led to
    Harary's Structure Theorem (1953), which says that if a network of interrelated positive and negative ties is
    balanced, e.g. as illustrated by the psychological principle that "my friend's enemy is my enemy", then it consists of
    two subnetworks such that each has positive ties among its nodes and there are only negative ties between nodes in
    distinct subnetworks.[5] The imagery here is of a social system that splits into two cliques. There is, however, a
    special case where one of the two subnetworks is empty, which might occur in very small networks.
    In another model, ties have relative strengths. 'Acquaintanceship' can be viewed as a 'weak' tie and 'friendship' is
    represented as a strong tie. Like its uniform cousin discussed above, there is a concept of closure, called strong
    triadic closure. A graph satisfies strong triadic closure If A is strongly connected to B, and B is strongly connected to
    C, then A and C must have a tie (either weak or strong).
    In these two developments we have mathematical models bearing upon the analysis of structure. Other early
    influential developments in mathematical sociology pertained to process. For instance, in 1952 Herbert A. Simon
    produced a mathematical formalization of a published theory of social groups by constructing a model consisting of
    a deterministic system of differential equations. A formal study of the system led to theorems about the dynamics
    and the implied equilibrium states of any group.
Mathematical sociology                                                                                                       58


    Further developments
    The model constructed by Simon raises a question: how can one connect such theoretical models to the data of
    sociology, which often take the form of surveys in which the results are expressed in the form of proportions of
    people believing or doing something. This suggests deriving the equations from assumptions about the chances of an
    individual changing state in a small interval of time, a procedure well known in the mathematics of stochastic
    processes.
    Sociologist, James S. Coleman embodied this idea in his 1964 book Introduction to Mathematical Sociology, which
    showed how stochastic processes in social networks could be analyzed in such a way as to enable testing of the
    constructed model by comparison with the relevant data. In addition, Coleman employed mathematical ideas drawn
    from economics, such as general equilibrium theory, to argue that general social theory should begin with a concept
    of purposive action and, for analytical reasons, approximate such action by the use of rational choice models
    (Coleman, 1990). This argument provided impetus for the emergence of a good deal of effort to link rational choice
    thinking to more traditional sociological concerns involving social structures.
    Meanwhile, structural analysis of the type indicated earlier received a further extension to social networks based on
    institutionalized social relations, notably those of kinship. The linkage of mathematics and sociology here involved
    abstract algebra, in particular, group theory.[6] This, in turn, led to a focus on a data-analytical version of
    homomorphic reduction of a complex social network (which along with many other techniques is presented in
    Wasserman and Faust 1994[7]).
    Some programs of research in sociology employ experimental methods to study social interaction processes. Joseph
    Berger and his colleagues initiated such a program in which the central idea is the use of the theoretical concept
    "expectation state" to construct theoretical models to explain interpersonal processes, e.g., those linking external
    status in society to differential influence in local group decision-making. Much of this theoretical work is linked to
    mathematical model building (Berger 2000).
    The generations of mathematical sociologists that followed Rapoport, Simon, Harary, Coleman, White and Berger,
    including those entering the field in the 1960s such as Thomas Fararo, Philip Bonacich, and Tom Mayer, among
    others, drew upon their work in a variety of ways.


    Present research
    Mathematical sociology remains a small subfield within the discipline, but it has succeeded in spawning a number of
    other subfields which share its goals of formally modeling social life. The foremost of these fields is Social Network
    Analysis, which has become amongst the fastest growing areas of sociology in the 21st century. The other major
    development in the field is the rise of Computational sociology, which expands the mathematical toolkit with the use
    of computer simulations, artificial intelligence and advanced statistical methods. The latter subfield also makes use
    of the vast new data sets on social activity generated by social interaction on the internet.


    Texts and journals
    Mathematical sociology textbooks cover a variety of models, usually explaining the required mathematical
    background before discussing important work in the literature (Fararo 1973, Leik and Meeker 1975). The Journal of
    Mathematical Sociology (started in 1971) has been open to papers covering a broad spectrum of topics employing a
    variety of types of mathematics, especially through frequent special issues. Articles in Social Networks, a journal
    devoted to social structural analysis, very often employ mathematical models and related structural data analyses. In
    addition, and this is important as an indicator of the penetration of mathematical model building into sociological
    research, the major comprehensive journals in sociology, especially The American Journal of Sociology and The
    American Sociological Review, regularly publish articles featuring mathematical formulations.
Mathematical sociology                                                                                                                            59


    References
    [1] http:/ / www. soc. cornell. edu/ research/ mathematical_sociology. html
    [2] * Nicolas Rashevsky.: 1947/1949 (2nd ed.). Mathematical Theory of Human Relations: An Approach to Mathematical Biology of Social
        Phenomena. Bloomington, ID: Principia Press.
    [3] * Nicolas Rashevsky. 1938/1948 (2nd ed.). Mathematical Biophysics:Physico-Mathematical Foundations of Biology., University of Chicago
        Press : Chicago Press.
    [4] Rapoport, Anatol. (1957). "Contributions to the Theory of Random and Biased Nets." Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 19: 257-277.
    [5] Cartwright, Dorwin & Harary, Frank. (1956). "Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider's Theory." Psychological Review 63:277-293.
    [6] White, Harrison C. 1963. An Anatomy of Kinship. Prentice-Hall
    [7] Wasserman, S., & Faust, K.. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York and Cambridge, ENG: Cambridge University
        Press.



    Further reading
    • Berger, Joseph. 2000. "Theory and Formalization: Some Reflections on Experience." Sociological Theory
      18(3):482-489.
    • Berger, Joseph, Bernard P. Cohen, J. Laurie Snell, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1962. Types of Formalization in Small
      Group Research. Houghton-Mifflin.
    • Coleman, James S. 1964. An Introduction to Mathematical Sociology. Free Press.
    •   _____. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press.
    •   Edling, Christofer R. 2002. "Mathematics in Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology.
    •   Fararo, Thomas J. 1973. Mathematical Sociology. Wiley. Reprinted by Krieger, 1978.
    •   _____. 1984. Editor. Mathematical Ideas and Sociological Theory. Gordon and Breach.
    •   Helbing, Dirk. 1995. Quantitative Sociodynamics. Kluwer Academics.
    •   Lave, Charles and James March. 1975. An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. Harper and Row.
    •   Nicolas Rashevsky.: 1965, The Representation of Organisms in Terms of Predicates, Bulletin of Mathematical
        Biophysics 27: 477-491.
    •   Nicolas Rashevsky.: 1969, Outline of a Unified Approach to Physics, Biology and Sociology., Bulletin of
        Mathematical Biophysics 31: 159-198.
    •   Rosen, Robert. 1972. Tribute to Nicolas Rashevsky 1899-1972. Progress in Theoretical Biology 2.
    •   Leik, Robert K. and Barbara F. Meeker. 1975. Mathematical Sociology. Prentice-Hall.
    •   Simon, Herbert A. 1952. "A Formal Theory of Interaction in Social Groups." American Sociological Review
        17:202-212.
    •   Wasserman, Stanley and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge
        University Press.
    •   White, Harrison C. 1963. An Anatomy of Kinship. Prentice-Hall.


    External links
    •   Mathematical Sociology Section Home Page (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/groups/mathsoc/index.php)
    •   The Society for Mathematical Biology (http://www.smb.org)
    •   Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x513p402w52w1128/)
    •   European Society for Mathematical and Theoretical Biology (ESMTB) (http://www.esmtb.org/news/news.
        htm)
Critical theory                                                                                                                  60



     Critical theory
     Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture, by
     applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. As a term, critical theory has two meanings with
     different origins and histories: the first originated in sociology and the second originated in literary criticism,
     whereby it is used and applied as an umbrella term that can describe a theory founded upon critique; thus, the
     theorist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical in so far as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the
     circumstances that enslave them." [1]
     In philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was
     developed in Germany in the 1930s. Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund
     Freud and has at its heart a criticism of ideology and the principal obstacle to human liberation.[2] Critical theory was
     established as a school of thought primarily by five Frankfurt School theoreticians: Herbert Marcuse, Theodor
     Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. Modern critical theory has been inluenced by
     second generation Frankfurt School scholar Jürgen Habermas as well by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci. In
     Habermas's work, critical theory transcended its theoretic roots in German idealism, and progressed closer to
     American pragmatism. The concern for a social "base and superstructure" is one of the remaining Marxist
     philosophic concepts in much contemporary critical theory.[3]
     Whilst critical theorists usually are broadly defined as Marxist intellectuals[4] their tendency to denounce some
     Marxist concepts, and to synthesise Marxian analysis with other sociologic and philosophic traditions has been
     attacked as revisionism, by Classical, Orthodox, and Analytical Marxists, and by Marxist-Leninist philosophers.
     Martin Jay said that the first generation of critical theory is best understood as not promoting a specific philosophical
     agenda or a specific ideology, but as "a gadfly of other systems".[5]


     Definitions
     The two meanings of critical theory — from different intellectual traditions associated with the meaning of criticism
     and critique—derive ultimately from the Greek word kritikos meaning judgment or discernment, and in their present
     forms go back to the 18th century. While they can be considered completely independent intellectual pursuits,
     increasingly scholars are interested in the areas of critique where the two overlap.
     To use an epistemological distinction introduced by Jürgen Habermas in Erkenntnis und Interesse [1968]
     (Knowledge and Human Interests), critical theory in literary studies is ultimately a form of hermeneutics, i.e.
     knowledge via interpretation to understand the meaning of human texts and symbolic expressions—including the
     interpretation of texts which are themselves implicitly or explicitly the interpretation of other texts. Critical social
     theory is, in contrast, a form of self-reflective knowledge involving both understanding and theoretical explanation to
     reduce entrapment in systems of domination or dependence, obeying the emancipatory interest in expanding the
     scope of autonomy and reducing the scope of domination.
     From this perspective, much literary critical theory, since it is focused on interpretation and explanation rather than
     on social transformation, would be regarded as positivistic or traditional rather than critical theory in the Kantian or
     Marxian sense. Critical theory in literature and the humanities in general does not necessarily involve a normative
     dimension, whereas critical social theory does, either through criticizing society from some general theory of values,
     norms, or "oughts," or through criticizing it in terms of its own espoused values.
Critical theory                                                                                                                 61


     In social theory
     Critical theory was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology in his 1937 essay
     Traditional and Critical Theory: Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as
     a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Horkheimer wanted to
     distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxian theory, critiquing both the model of science
     put forward by logical positivism and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism
     of orthodox Marxism and Communism.
     Core concepts are: (1) That critical social theory should be directed at the totality of society in its historical
     specificity (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in time), and (2) That critical theory should improve
     understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology,
     history, political science, anthropology, and psychology.
     This version of "critical" theory derives from Kant's (18th-century) and Marx's (19th Century) use of the term
     "critique", as in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Marx's concept that his work Das Kapital (Capital) forms a
     "critique of political economy." For Kant's transcendental idealism, "critique" means examining and establishing the
     limits of the validity of a faculty, type, or body of knowledge, especially through accounting for the limitations
     imposed by the fundamental, irreducible concepts in use in that knowledge system.
     Kant's notion of critique has been associated with the disestablishment of false, unprovable, or dogmatic
     philosophical, social, and political beliefs, because Kant's critique of reason involved the critique of dogmatic
     theological and metaphysical ideas and was intertwined with the enhancement of ethical autonomy and the
     Enlightenment critique of superstition and irrational authority. Ignored by many in "critical realist" circles, however,
     is that Kant's immediate impetus for writing his "Critique of Pure Reason" was to address problems raised by David
     Hume's skeptical empiricism which, in attacking metaphysics, employed reason and logic to argue against the
     knowability of the world and common notions of causation. Kant, by contrast, pushed the employment of a priori
     metaphysical claims as requisite, for if anything is to be said to be knowable, it would have to be established upon
     abstractions distinct from perceivable phenomena.
     Marx explicitly developed the notion of critique into the critique of ideology and linked it with the practice of social
     revolution, as in the famous 11th of his Theses on Feuerbach, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in
     certain ways; the point is to change it."[6]
     One of the distinguishing characteristics of critical theory, as Adorno and Horkheimer elaborated in their Dialectic of
     Enlightenment (1947), is a certain ambivalence concerning the ultimate source or foundation of social domination,
     an ambivalence which gave rise to the “pessimism” of the new critical theory over the possibility of human
     emancipation and freedom.[7] This ambivalence was rooted, of course, in the historical circumstances in which the
     work was originally produced, in particular, the rise of National Socialism, state capitalism, and mass culture as
     entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional
     Marxist sociology.[8]
     For Adorno and Horkheimer state intervention in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism
     between the "relations of production" and "material productive forces of society," a tension which, according to
     traditional critical theory, constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism. The market (as an "unconscious"
     mechanism for the distribution of goods) and private property had been replaced by centralized planning and
     socialized ownership of the means of production.[9]
     Yet, contrary to Marx’s famous prediction in the Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, this
     shift did not lead to "an era of social revolution," but rather to fascism and totalitarianism. As such, critical theory
     was left, in Jürgen Habermas’ words, without "anything in reserve to which it might appeal; and when the forces of
     production enter into a baneful symbiosis with the relations of production that they were supposed to blow wide
     open, there is no longer any dynamism upon which critique could base its hope."[10] For Adorno and Horkheimer,
Critical theory                                                                                                                  62


     this posed the problem of how to account for the apparent persistence of domination in the absence of the very
     contradiction that, according to traditional critical theory, was the source of domination itself.
     In the 1960s, Jürgen Habermas raised the epistemological discussion to a new level in his Knowledge and Human
     Interests, by identifying critical knowledge as based on principles that differentiated it either from the natural
     sciences or the humanities, through its orientation to self-reflection and emancipation. Though unsatisfied with
     Adorno and Horkeimer's thought presented in Dialectic of Enlightenment, Habermas shares the view that, in the
     form of instrumental rationality, the era of modernity marks a move away from the liberation of enlightenment and
     toward a new form of enslavement.[11]
     His ideas regarding the relationship between modernity and rationalization are in this sense strongly influenced by
     Max Weber. Habermas dissolved further the elements of critical theory derived from Hegelian German Idealism,
     though his thought remains broadly Marxist in its epistemological approach. Perhaps his two most influential ideas
     are the concepts of the public sphere and communicative action; the latter arriving partly as a reaction to new
     post-structural or so-called "post-modern" challenges to the discourse of modernity. Habermas engaged in regular
     correspondence with Richard Rorty and a strong sense of philosophical pragmatism may be felt in his theory;
     thought which frequently traverses the boundaries between sociology and philosophy.


     Postmodern critical theory
     While modernist critical theory (as described above) concerns itself with “forms of authority and injustice that
     accompanied the evolution of industrial and corporate capitalism as a political-economic system,” postmodern
     critical theory politicizes social problems “by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate
     themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002,
     p. 52). Meaning itself is seen as unstable due to the rapid transformation in social structures and as a result the focus
     of research is centered on local manifestations rather than broad generalizations.
     Postmodern critical research is also characterized by what is called, the crisis of representation, which rejects the
     idea that a researcher’s work is considered an “objective depiction of a stable other” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 53).
     Instead, in their research and writing, many postmodern scholars have adopted “alternatives that encourage reflection
     about the ‘politics and poetics’ of their work. In these accounts, the embodied, collaborative, dialogic, and
     improvisational aspects of qualitative research are clarified” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 53).
     Often, the term "critical theory" is appropriated when an author (perhaps most notably Michel Foucault) works
     within sociological terms yet attacks the social or human sciences (thus attempting to remain "outside" those frames
     of enquiry). Jean Baudrillard has also been described as a critical theorist to the extent that he was an unconventional
     and critical sociologist; this appropriation is similarly casual, holding little or no relation to the Frankfurt School.


     Language and construction
     The two points at which there is the greatest overlap or mutual impingement of the two versions of critical theory are
     in their interrelated foci on language, symbolism, and communication and in their focus on social construction.


     Language and communication
     From the 1960s and 1970s onward, language, symbolism, text, and meaning came to be seen as the theoretical
     foundation for the humanities, through the influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ferdinand de Saussure, George
     Herbert Mead, Noam Chomsky, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida and other thinkers in
     linguistic and analytic philosophy, structural linguistics, symbolic interactionism, hermeneutics, semiology,
     linguistically oriented psychoanalysis (Jacques Lacan, Alfred Lorenzer), and deconstruction.
     When, in the 1970s and 1980s, Jürgen Habermas redefined critical social theory as a theory of communication, i.e.
     communicative competence and communicative rationality on the one hand, distorted communication on the other,
Critical theory                                                                                                                                           63


     the two versions of critical theory began to overlap or intertwine to a much greater degree than before.


     Construction
     Both versions of critical theory have focused on the processes by which human communication, culture, and political
     consciousness are created. This includes:
     • Whether it is through universal pragmatic principles through which mutual understanding is achieved
       (Habermas).
     • The semiotic rules by which objects obtain symbolic meanings (Barthes).
     • The psychological processes by which the phenomena of everyday consciousness are generated (psychoanalytic
       thinkers).
     • The episteme that underlies our cognitive formations (Foucault),
     There is a common interest in the processes (often of a linguistic or symbolic kind) that give rise to observable
     phenomena and here there is some mutual influence among the different versions of critical theory. Ultimately this
     emphasis on production and construction goes back to the revolution wrought by Kant in philosophy, namely his
     focus in the Critique of Pure Reason on synthesis according to rules as the fundamental activity of the mind that
     creates the order of our experience.


     Footnotes
     [1]  (Horkheimer 1982, 244)
     [2]  [Geuss, R. The Idea of a Critical Theory,Cambridge,Cambridge University Press]
     [3]  Outhwaite, William. 1988. Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers 2nd Edition (2009), p.5-8 (ISBN 978-0-7456-4328-1)
     [4]  See, e.g., Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism (1979), vol. 3 chapter X; W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393329437
     [5]  Jay, Martin (1996) The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950.
         University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-20423-2, p. 41 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=nwkzVdaaB2sC& lpg=PA41&
         ots=38WIpH7P8O& dq="gadfly of other systems"& pg=PA41#v=onepage& q="gadfly of other systems"& f=false)
     [6] "Theses on Feuerbach" (http:/ / www. marxists. org/ archive/ marx/ works/ 1845/ theses/ theses. htm). Marxists Internet Archive. . Retrieved
         22 August 2008.
     [7] Adorno, T. W., with Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2002. 242.
     [8] "Critical Theory was initially developed in Horkheimer’s circle to think through political disappointments at the absence of revolution in the
         West, the development of Stalinism in Soviet Russia, and the victory of fascism in Germany. It was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist
         prognoses, but without breaking Marxist intentions." "The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment: Horkheimer and Adorno." in Habermas,
         Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987. 116. Also,
         see Helmut Dubiel, Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory, trans. Benjamin Gregg (Cambridge, Mass. and
         London, 1985).
     [9] "[G]one are the objective laws of the market which ruled in the actions of the entrepreneurs and tended toward catastrophe. Instead the
         conscious decision of the managing directors executes as results (which are more obligatory than the blindest price-mechanisms) the old law
         of value and hence the destiny of capitalism." Dialectic of Enlightenment. p. 38.
     [10] "The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment," p. 118.
     [11] Outhwaite, William. 1988. Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers 2nd Edition (2009). p6. ISBN 978-0-7456-4328-1



     References
     • Barry, W.J. (2012). Challenging the Status Quo Meaning of Educational Quality: Introducing Transformational
       Quality (TQ) Theory©. Educational Journal of Living Theories. 4, 1-29. http://ejolts.net/node/191
     • An accessible primer for the literary aspect of critical theory is Jonathan Culler's Literary Theory: A Very Short
       Introduction ISBN 0-19-285383-X
     • Another short introductory volume with illustrations: "Introducing Critical Theory" Stuart Sim & Borin Van
       Loon, 2001. ISBN 1-84046-264-7
     • A survey of and introduction to the current state of critical social theory is Craig Calhoun's Critical Social
       Theory: Culture, History, and the Challenge of Difference (Blackwell, 1995) ISBN 1-55786-288-5
     • Problematizing Global Knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 23 (2–3). (Sage, 2006) ISSN 0263-2764
Critical theory                                                                                                             64


     • Raymond GeussThe Idea of a Critical Theory. Habermas and the Frankfurt School. (Cambridge University
       Press,1981) ISBN 0-521-28422-8
     • Charles Arthur Willard Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy.
       University of Chicago Press. 1996.
     • Charles Arthur Willard, A Theory of Argumentation. University of Alabama Press. 1989.
     • Charles Arthur Willard, Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge. University of Alabama Press.
       1982.
     • Harry Dahms (ed.) No Social Science Without Critical Theory. Volume 25 of Current Perspectives in Social
       Theory (Emerald/JAI, 2008).
     • Charmaz, K. (1995). Between positivism and postmodernism: Implications for methods. Studies in Symbolic
       Interaction, 17, 43–72.
     • Conquergood, D. (1991). "Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics". Communication
       Monographs 58 (2): 179–194. doi:10.1080/03637759109376222.
     • Gandler, Stefan (2009) (in German), Fragmentos de Frankfurt. Ensayos sobre la Teoría crítica, México: Siglo
       XXI Editores/Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, ISBN 978-607-03-0070-7
     • Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods, 2nd Edition. Thousand
       Oaks, CA: Sage.
     • An example of critical postmodern work is Rolling, Jr., J. H. (2008). Secular blasphemy: Utter(ed) transgressions
       against names and fathers in the postmodern era. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 926–948.
     • Thomas, Jim (1993). Doing Critical Ethnography. London, New York (NY): Sage 1993, pp. 1–5 & 17–25
     • An example of critical qualitative research is Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion
       labor, self subordination and discursive construction of identity in a total institution. Management Communication
       Quarterly, 14, 90–128.
     • Luca Corchia, La logica dei processi culturali. Jürgen Habermas tra filosofia e sociologia (http://books.google.
       it/books?id=U56Sag72eSoC&pg=PP1&dq=habermas+corchia#v=onepage&q=&f=false), Genova, Edizioni
       ECIG, 2010, ISBN 978-88-7544-195-1.


     External links
     • Using Critical Theory to Understand the Meaning of Educational Quality (http://www.youtube.com/
       watch?v=S7HVfxq4l-8)
     • Critical Theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
     • "Death is Not the End" (http://www.nplusonemag.com/theory.html) N+1 magazine's short history of academic
       critical theory.
     • Critical Legal Thinking (http://www.criticallegalthinking.com/) A Critical Legal Studies website which uses
       critical theory in an analysis of law and politics.
     • L. Corchia, Jürgen Habermas. A Bibliography: works and studies (1952-2010) (http://books.google.it/
       books?id=jw3klIgEVZoC&pg=PA238&dq=Jürgen+Habermas.+A+Bibliography:+works+and+studies+
       (1952-2010),&hl=it&ei=kZZBTO-5NuWJ4gasv4ypDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&
       ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false), Pisa, Edizioni Il Campano – Arnus University Books, 2010,
       344 pp.
Socialization                                                                                                                     65



     Socialization
     Socialization (or socialisation) is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political
     scientists and educationalists to refer to the lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and
     ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within his or her own
     society. Socialization is thus ‘the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained’.[1][2]
     Socialization describes a process which may lead to desirable, or 'moral', outcomes. Individual views on certain
     issues, such as race or economics, may be socialized (and to that extent normalized) within a society. Many
     socio-political theories postulate that socialization provides only a partial explanation for human beliefs and
     behaviors, maintaining that agents are not 'blank slates' predetermined by their environment.[3] Scientific research
     provides some evidence that people might be shaped by both social influences and genes.[4][5][6][7] Genetic studies
     have shown that a person's environment interacts with his or her genotype to influence behavioral outcomes.[8]


     Theories
     Socialization is the process by which human infants begin to acquire the skills necessary to perform as a functioning
     member of their society, and is the most influential learning process one can experience.[9] Unlike other living
     species, whose behavior is biologically set, humans need social experiences to learn their culture and to survive.[10]
     Although cultural variability manifests in the actions, customs, and behaviors of whole social groups (societies), the
     most fundamental expression of culture is found at the individual level. This expression can only occur after an
     individual has been socialized by his or her parents, family, extended family, and extended social networks. This
     reflexive process of both learning and teaching is how cultural and social characteristics attain continuity. Many
     scientists say socialization essentially represents the whole process of learning throughout the life course and is a
     central influence on the behaviour, beliefs, and actions of adults as well as of children.[11]


     Klaus Hurrelmann
     From the late 1980s, sociological and psychological theories have been connected with the term socialization. One
     example for this connection is the theory of Klaus Hurrelmann. In his book "Social Structure and Personality
     Development" (Hurrelmann 1989/2009), he develops the "Model of Productive Processing of Reality (PPR)." The
     core idea is that socialization refers to an individual's personality development. It is the result of the productive
     processing of interior and exterior realities. Bodily and mental qualities and traits constitute a person's inner reality;
     the circumstances of the social and physical environment embody the external reality. Reality processing is
     productive because human beings actively grapple with their lives and attempt to cope with the attendant
     developmental tasks. The success of such a process depends on the personal and social resources available.
     Incorporated within all developmental tasks is the necessity to reconcile personal individuation and social integration
     and so secure the "I-dentity." (Hurrelmann1989/2009: 42)


     Lawrence Kohlberg
     Lawrence Kohlberg's (1981) theory of moral development studied moral reasoning(how individuals judge situations
     as right from wrong) within three stages of young adulthood. The first is the pre-conventional stage, where children
     experience the world in terms of pain and pleasure. Second, the conventional stage appears in the teen years of
     maturation. Teenagers learn to define right and wrong according to the desires of their parents and begin to conform
     to cultural norms resulting in a decrease of selfishness. The last stage of moral development is the post-conventional
     level where people move beyond society's norms and consider abstract ethical principles.[12]
Socialization                                                                                                                     66


     Carol Gilligan
     Carol Gilligan compared the moral development of girls and boys in her theory of gender and moral development.
     She claimed (1982, 1990) that boys have a justice perspective meaning that they rely on formal rules to define right
     and wrong. Girls, on the other hand, have a care and responsibility perspective where personal relationships are
     considered when judging a situation. Gilligan also studied the effect of gender on self-esteem. She claimed that
     society's socialization of females is the reason why girls' self-esteem diminishes as they grow older. Girls struggle to
     regain their personal strength when moving through adolescence as they have fewer female teachers and most
     authority figures are men.[13]


     Erik H. Erikson
     Erik H. Erikson (1902–1994) explained the challenges throughout the life course. The first stage in the life course is
     infancy, where babies learn trust and mistrust. The second stage is toddlerhood where children around the age of two
     struggle with the challenge of autonomy versus doubt. In stage three, preschool, children struggle to understand the
     difference between initiative and guilt. Stage four, pre-adolescence, children learn about industriousness and
     inferiority. In the fifth stage called adolescence, teenagers experience the challenge of gaining identity versus
     confusion. The sixth stage, young adulthood, is when young people gain insight to life when dealing with the
     challenge of intimacy and isolation. In stage seven, or middle adulthood, people experience the challenge of trying to
     make a difference (versus self-absorption). In the final stage, stage eight or old age, people are still learning about
     the challenge of integrity and despair.[14]


     George Herbert Mead
     George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) developed a theory of social behaviorism to explain how social experience
     develops an individual's self concept. Mead's central concept is the self: It is composed of self-awareness and
     self-image. Mead claimed that the self is not there at birth, rather, it is developed with social experience. Since social
     experience is the exchange of symbols, people tend to find meaning in every action. Seeking meaning leads us to
     imagine the intention of others. Understanding intention requires imagining the situation from the others' point of
     view. In effect, others are a mirror in which we can see ourselves. Charles Horton Cooley (1902-1983) coined the
     term looking glass self, which means self-image based on how we think others see us. According to Mead the key to
     developing the self is learning to take the role of the other. With limited social experience, infants can only develop a
     sense of identity through imitation. Gradually children learn to take the roles of several others. The final stage is the
     generalized other, which refers to widespread cultural norms and values we use as a reference for evaluating
     others.[15]


     Judith R. Harris
     Judith R. Harris (b. 1938) graduated magna cum laude with her masters
     degree in psychology from Harvard University. She received the
     George A. Miller Award for her proposed theory of group socialization
     (GS theory). This theory states that a child’s adult personality is
     determined by childhood and adolescent peer groups outside of the
     home environment and that “parental behaviors have no effect on the
     psychological characteristics their children will have as adults.” Harris
     proposes this theory based on behavioral genetics, sociological views
     of group processes, context-specific learning, and evolutionary                            Group Socialization.

     theory.[16] While Harris proposed this theory, she attributes the original
Socialization                                                                                                                   67


     idea to Eleanor E. Maccoby and John A. Martin both of whom are doctors at Standford University and wrote the
     chapter on family socialization found in the fourth edition of the Handbook of Child Psychology. After extensively
     reviewing the research conducted on parent-child interactions, Maccoby and Martin (1983) state that their findings
     suggest that parental behavior and the home environment has either no effect on the social development of children,
     or the effect varies significantly between children.[17]
     Behavioral genetics suggest that up to fifty percent of the variance in adult personality is due to genetic
     differences.[18] The environment in which a child is raised accounts for only approximately ten percent in the
     variance of an adult’s personality.[19] As much as twenty percent of the variance is due measurement error.[20] This
     suggests that only a very small part of an adult’s personality is influenced by factors parents control (i.e. the home
     environment). Harris claims that while it’s true that siblings don’t have identical experiences in the home
     environment (making it difficult to associate a definite figure to the variance of personality due to home
     environments), the variance found by current methods is so low that researchers should look elsewhere to try to
     account for the remaining variance.[16]
     Harris also states that developing long-term personality characteristics away from the home environment would be
     evolutionarily beneficial because future success is more likely to depend on interactions with peers than interactions
     with parents and siblings. Also, because of already existing genetic similarities with parents, developing personalities
     outside of childhood home environments would further diversify individuals, increasing their evolutionary
     success.[16]


     Stages of Socialization
     Richard Moreland and John Levine (1982) created a model of group socialization based upon the assumption that
     individuals and groups change their evaluations and commitments to each other over time. Since these changes
     happen in all groups, Moreland and Levine speculate that there is a predictable sequence of stages that occur in order
     for an individual to transition through a group.
     Moreland and Levine identify five stages of socialization which mark this transition; investigation, socialization,
     maintenance, resocialization, and remembrance. During each stage, the individual and the group evaluate each other
     which leads to an increase or decrease in commitment to socialization. This socialization pushes the individual from
     prospective, new, full, marginal, and ex member.
     Stage 1: Investigation This stage is marked by a cautious search for information. The individual compares groups in
     order to determine which one will fulfill their needs (reconnaissance), while the group estimates the value of the
     potential member (recruitment). The end of this stage is marked by entry to the group, whereby the group asks the
     individual to join and they accept the offer.
     Stage 2: Socialization Now that the individual has moved from prospective member to new member, they must
     accept the group’s culture. At this stage, the individual accepts the group’s norms, values, and perspectives
     (assimilation), and the group adapts to fit the new member’s needs (accommodation). The acceptance transition point
     is then reached and the individual becomes a full member. However, this transition can be delayed if the individual
     or the group reacts negatively. For example, the individual may react cautiously or misinterpret other members’
     reactions if they believe that they will be treated differently as a new comer.
     Stage 3: Maintenance During this stage, the individual and the group negotiate what contribution is expected of
     members (role negotiation). While many members remain in this stage until the end of their membership, some
     individuals are not satisfied with their role in the group or fail to meet the group’s expectations (divergence).
     Stage 4: Resocialization -If the divergence point is reached, the former full member takes on the role of a marginal
     member and must be resocialized. There are two possible outcomes of resocialization: differences are resolved and
     the individual becomes a full member again (convergence), or the group expels the individual or the individual
     decides to leave (exit).
Socialization                                                                                                                      68


     Stage 5: Remembrance In this stage, former members reminisce about their memories of the group, and make sense
     of their recent departure. If the group reaches a consensus on their reasons for departure, conclusions about the
     overall experience of the group become part of the group’s tradition.


     Types
     Primary socialization for a child is very important because it sets the ground work for all future socialization.
     Primary Socialization occurs when a child learns the attitudes, values, and actions appropriate to individuals as
     members of a particular culture. It is mainly influenced by the immediate family and friends. For example if a child
     saw his/her mother expressing a discriminatory opinion about a minority group, then that child may think this
     behavior is acceptable and could continue to have this opinion about minority groups.
     Secondary socialization Secondary socialization refers to the process of learning what is the appropriate behavior as
     a member of a smaller group within the larger society. Basically, it is the behavioral patterns reinforced by
     socializing agents of society. Secondary socialization takes place outside the home. It is where children and adults
     learn how to act in a way that is appropriate for the situations they are in.[21] Schools require very different behavior
     from the home, and Children must act according to new rules. New teachers have to act in a way that is different
     from pupils and learn the new rules from people around them.[21] Secondary Socialization is usually associated with
     teenagers and adults, and involves smaller changes than those occurring in primary socialization. Such examples of
     Secondary Socialization are entering a new profession or relocating to a new environment or society.
     Anticipatory socialization Anticipatory socialization refers to the processes of socialization in which a person
     "rehearses" for future positions, occupations, and social relationships. For example, a couple might move in together
     before getting married in order to try out, or anticipate, what living together will be like.[22] Research by Kenneth J.
     Levine and Cynthia A. Hoffner suggests that parents are the main source of anticipatory socialization in regards to
     jobs and careers.[23]
     Re-socialization Re-socialization refers to the process of discarding former behavior patterns and reflexes, accepting
     new ones as part of a transition in one's life. This occurs throughout the human life cycle.[24] Re-socialization can be
     an intense experience, with the individual experiencing a sharp break with his or her past, as well as a need to learn
     and be exposed to radically different norms and values. One common example involves re-socialization through a
     total institution, or "a setting in which people are isolated from the rest of society and manipulated by an
     administrative staff". Re-socialization via total institutions involves a two step process: 1) the staff work to root out a
     new inmate's individual identity & 2) the staff attempt to create for the inmate a new identity.[25] Other examples of
     this are the experience of a young man or woman leaving home to join the military, or a religious convert
     internalizing the beliefs and rituals of a new faith. An extreme example would be the process by which a transsexual
     learns to function socially in a dramatically altered gender role.
     Organizational socialization
     Organizational socialization is the process whereby an employee learns
     the knowledge and skills necessary to assume his or her organizational
     role.[26] As newcomers become socialized, they learn about the
     organization and its history, values, jargon, culture, and procedures.
     This acquired knowledge about new employees' future work
     environment affects the way they are able to apply their skills and
     abilities to their jobs. How actively engaged the employees are in
     pursuing knowledge affects their socialization process.[27] They also             Organizational Socialization Chart
     learn about their work group, the specific people they work with on a
     daily basis, their own role in the organization, the skills needed to do their job, and both formal procedures and
Socialization                                                                                                                      69


     informal norms. Socialization functions as a control system in that newcomers learn to internalize and obey
     organizational values and practices.
     Group socialization Group socialization is the theory that an individual's peer groups, rather than parental figures,
     influences his or her personality and behavior in adulthood.[16] Adolescents spend more time with peers than with
     parents. Therefore, peer groups have stronger correlations with personality development than parental figures do.[28]
     For example, twin brothers, whose genetic makeup are identical, will differ in personality because they have
     different groups of friends, not necessarily because their parents raised them differently.
     Entering high school is a crucial moment in many adolescent's lifespan involving the branching off from the
     restraints of their parents. When dealing with new life challenges, adolescents take comfort in discussing these issues
     within their peer groups instead of their parents.[29] Peter Grier, staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor
     describes this occurrence as,"Call it the benign side of peer pressure. Today's high-schoolers operate in groups that
     play the role of nag and nanny-in ways that are both beneficial and isolating."[30]
     Gender socialization Henslin (1999:76) contends that "an important part of socialization is the learning of culturally
     defined gender roles." Gender socialization refers to the learning of behavior and attitudes considered appropriate for
     a given sex. Boys learn to be boys and girls learn to be girls. This "learning" happens by way of many different
     agents of socialization. The family is certainly important in reinforcing gender roles, but so are one’s friends, school,
     work and the mass media. Gender roles are reinforced through "countless subtle and not so subtle ways" (1999:76).
     As parents are present in a child's life from the beginning, their influence in a child's early socialization is very
     important, especially in regards to gender roles. Sociologists have identified four ways in which parents socialize
     gender roles in their children: Shaping gender related attributes through toys and activities, differing their interaction
     with children based on the sex of the child, serving as primary gender models, and communicating gender ideals and
     expectations.[31]
     Racial socialization Racial socialization has been defined as "the developmental processes by which children
     acquire the behaviors, perceptions, values, and attitudes of an ethnic group, and come to see themselves and others as
     members of the group".[32] The existing literature conceptualizes racial socialization as having multiple dimensions.
     Researchers have identified five dimensions that commonly appear in the racial socialization literature: cultural
     socialization, preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust, egalitarianism, and other.[33] Cultural socialization refers to
     parenting practices that teach children about their racial history or heritage and is sometimes referred to as pride
     development. Preparation for bias refers to parenting practices focused on preparing children to be aware of, and
     cope with, discrimination. Promotion of mistrust refers to the parenting practices of socializing children to be wary
     of people from other races. Egalitarianism refers to socializing children with the belief that all people are equal and
     should be treated with a common humanity.[33]
     Planned socialization Planned socialization occurs when other people take actions designed to teach or train
     others—from infancy on.[34]
     Natural Socialization Natural socialization occurs when infants and youngsters explore, play and discover the social
     world around them. Natural socialization is easily seen when looking at the young of almost any mammalian species
     (and some birds). Planned socialization is mostly a human phenomenon; and all through history, people have been
     making plans for teaching or training others. Both natural and planned socialization can have good and bad features:
     It is wise to learn the best features of both natural and planned socialization and weave them into our lives.[34]
     Positive socialization Positive socialization is the type of social learning that is based on pleasurable and exciting
     experiences. We tend to like the people who fill our social learning processes with positive motivation, loving care,
     and rewarding opportunities.[34]
     Negative socialization Negative socialization occurs when others use punishment, harsh criticisms or anger to try to
     "teach us a lesson;" and often we come to dislike both negative socialization and the people who impose it on us.[34]
     There are all types of mixes of positive and negative socialization; and the more positive social learning experiences
Socialization                                                                                                                70


     we have, the happier we tend to be—especially if we learn useful information that helps us cope well with the
     challenges of life. A high ratio of negative to positive socialization can make a person unhappy, defeated or
     pessimistic about life.[34]


     Social institutions
     In the social sciences, institutions are the structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the
     behavior of a set of individuals within a given human collectivity. Institutions are identified with a social purpose
     and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules
     governing cooperative human behavior.[35] Types of institution include:
     • The Family The family is the most important agent of socialization because it is the center of the child's life, as
       infants are totally dependent on others. Not all socialization are intentional, it depends on the surrounding. The
       most profound affect is gender socialization, however the family also shoulders the task of teaching children
       cultural values and attitudes about themselves and others. Children learn continuously from the environment that
       adults create. Children also become aware of class at a very early age and assign different values to each class
       accordingly.[36]
     • Religion Agents of socialization differ in effects across religious traditions. Some believe religion is like an
       ethnic or cultural category, making it less likely for the individuals to break from religious affiliations and be
       more socialized in this setting. Parental religious participation is the most influential part of religious
       socialization—more so than religious peers or religious beliefs.[37]
     • Peer group A peer group is a social group whose members have interests, social positions and age in common.
       This is where children can escape supervision and learn to form relationships on their own. The influence of the
       peer group typically peaks during adolescence however peer groups generally only affect short term interests
       unlike the family which has long term influence.[38]
     • Economic systems Socialization within an economic system is the process of learning the consequences of
       economic decisions. Socialization impacts decisions regarding "acceptable alternatives for consumption," "social
       values of consumption alternatives," the "establishment of dominant values," and "the nature of involvement in
       consumption".[39]
     • Legal systems Children are pressured from both parents and peers to conform and obey certain laws or norms of
       the group/community. Parents’ attitudes toward legal systems influence children’s views as to what is legally
       acceptable.[40] For example, children whose parents are continually in jail are more accepting of incarceration.
     • Penal systems: The penal systems act as an agent of socialization upon prisoners and the guards. Prison is a
       separate environment from that of normal society; prisoners and guards form their own communities and create
       their own social norms. Guards serve as "social control agents" who discipline and provide security.[41] From the
       view of the prisoners, the communities can be oppressive and domineering, causing feelings of defiance and
       contempt towards the guards.[41] Because of the change in societies, prisoners experience loneliness, a lack of
       emotional relationships, a decrease in identity and "lack of security and autonomy".[42] Both the inmates and the
       guards feel tense, fearful, and defensive, which creates an uneasy atmosphere within the community.[41]
     • Language People learn to socialize differently depending on the specific language and culture in which they live.
       A specific example of this is code switching. This is where immigrant children learn to behave in accordance with
       the languages used in their lives: separate languages at home and in peer groups (mainly in educational
       settings).[43] Depending on the language and situation at any given time, people will socialize differently [16]
     • Mass media The mass media are the means for delivering impersonal communications directed to a vast
       audience. The term media comes from Latin meaning, "middle," suggesting that the media's function is to connect
       people. Since mass media has enormous effects on our attitudes and behavior, notably in regards to aggression, it
       is an important contributor to the socialization process.[10]
Socialization                                                                                                                                       71


     Some sociologists and theorists of culture have recognized the power of mass communication as a socialization
     device. Denis McQuail recognizes the argument:
              … the media can teach norms and values by way of symbolic reward and punishment for different kinds of
              behavior as represented in the media. An alternative view is that it is a learning process whereby we all learn
              how to behave in certain situations and the expectations which go with a given role or status in society.
              —McQuail 2005: 494)
     • Learning
     Learning can be social or nonsocial.[44] Consider the example of a child learning about bees. If is child is exploring
     and playing with no one else around, the child may see a bee and touch it (out of curiosity). If the child is stung by
     the bee, the child learns that touching bees is associated with pain. This is nonsocial learning, since no one else was
     around. In contrast, a child may benefit from social learning about bees. If the child is with mom, dad or anyone else,
     the child's inquisitive approach to a bee may lead to some kind of social intervention. Maybe Aunt Emy sees the
     child reaching for a bee and simply points the child in another direction, saying "Look at that pretty butterfly."
     Maybe Uncle Ed would say, "Don’t touch the bee, because it can hurt you and make you cry." Maybe Mom would
     have said, "Honey, stay away from bees because they sting." There are all sorts of ways that people can interact with
     a child to help the child learn to avoid ever being stung. Any and all of these social interventions allow the child to
     benefit from social learning, though some of these social interventions may be more educational and useful than
     others.[44]


     Other uses
     To "socialize" may also mean simply to associate or mingle with people socially. In American English, "socialized"
     has come to refer, usually in a pejorative sense, to the ownership structure of socialism or to the expansion of the
     welfare state.[45] Traditionally, socialists and Marxists both used the term "socialization of industry" to refer to the
     reorganization of institutions so that the workers are all owners (cooperatives) and to refer to the implementation of
     workplace democracy.[46] Some authors suggest that social interaction helps to exercise people's minds. People reap
     cognitive benefits from socializing," They speculate that social interaction "exercises" cognitive processes that are
     measured on intellectual tasks. "It is possible," the authors conclude, "that as people engage socially and mentally
     with others, they receive relatively immediate cognitive boosts."[47]


     Socialization and intelligence
     As humans, we always want to mingle and spend much of our time with friends.[48] This makes us to become wiser,
     smarter and more intelligent.[48] Oscar Ybarra[49] and his colleagues at the University of Michigan explored the
     possibility that social interaction improves mental functioning. In a series of related studies, they tested the
     participants' level of cognitive functioning, comparing it to the frequency of participants' social interactions.[48]


     References
     [1]   Clausen, John A. (ed.) (1968) Socialization and Society, Boston: Little Brown and Company. p5
     [2]   Macionis, Gerber, Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. (Pearson Canada Inc., 2010)pg.104
     [3]   Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate. New York: Penguin. 2002.
     [4]   Dusheck, Jennie, The Interpretation of Genes. Natural History, October 2002.
     [5]   Carlson, N. R. et al.. (2005) Psychology: the science of behavior (3rd Canadian ed) Pearson Ed. ISBN 0-205-45769-X
     [6]   Ridley, M. (2003) Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes us Human. Harper Collins. ISBN 0-00-200663-4
     [7]   Westen, D. (2002) Psychology: Brain, Behavior & Culture. Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-38754-1
     [8] Kendler KS and Baker JH (2007). "Genetic influences on measures of the environment: a systematic review". Psychological Medicine 37 (5):
         615–626. doi:10.1017/S0033291706009524. PMID 17176502.
     [9] Billingham, M. (2007) Sociological Perspectives p.336 In Stretch, B. and Whitehouse, M. (eds.) (2007) Health and Social Care Book 1.
         Oxford: Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-435-49915-0
Socialization                                                                                                                                              72

     [10] Macionis, John J., and Linda M. Gerber. Sociology. Toronto: Pearson Canada, 2011. Print.
     [11] MLA Style: "socialization." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Student and Home Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia
         Britannica, 2010.
     [12] Macionis, Gerber 2010 108
     [13] Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. pp.109
     [14] Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. p. 111.
     [15] Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. p. 109.
     [16] Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102(3), pp.
         458-489.
     [17] Maccoby, E. E. & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E.
         M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1-101).
         New York: Wiley.
     [18] McGue, M., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Iacono, W. G. & Lykken, D. T. (1993). Behavioral genetics of cognitive ability: A life-span perspective. In
         R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture, and psychology (pp. 59-76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
     [19] Plomin, R. & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10,
         1-60.
     [20] Plomin, R. (1990). Nature and nurture: An introduction to human behavioral genetics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
     [21] (http:/ / www. newportsouthwales. net/ bassaleg/ departments/ Social Sciences/ Revision/ Secondary_Socialisation. pdf)
     [22] SparkNotes Editors. (2006). SparkNote on Socialization. Retrieved April 2, 2012, from http:/ / www. sparknotes. com/ sociology/
         socialization/
     [23] Levine, K. J., & Hoffner, C. A. (2006). Adolescents' conceptions of work: What is learned from different sources during anticipatory
         socialization?. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 647-669. doi: 10.1177/0743558406293963
     [24] (Schaefer & Lamm, 1992: 113)
     [25] Macionis, John J. "Sociology: 7th Canadian Edition". (Toronto: Pearson, 2011), 120-121
     [26] Alvenfors, Adam (2010) Introduction - Integration? On the introduction programs’ importance for the integration of new employees http:/ /
         urn. kb. se/ resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:his:diva-4281
     [27] Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling antecedents and their
         pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 779-794.
     [28] Bester, G. (2007). Personality development of the adolescent: peer group versus parents. South African Journal of Education, 27(2),
         177-190.
     [29] Grier, Peter (24). "The Heart Of A High School: Peers As Collective Parent". Christian Monitor News Science: 1.
     [30] Grier, Peter (24). "The Heart Of A High School:Peers As Collective Parent". Christian Science Monitor News Service: 1.
     [31] Epstein, Marina & Ward, Monique L. (2011). Exploring parent-adolescent communication about gender: Results from adolescent and
         emerging adult samples. Sex Roles, 65, 108-118
     [32] Rotherman, M., & Phinney, J. (1987). Introduction: Definitions and perspectives in the study of children's ethnic socialization. In J. Phinney
         & M. Rotherman (Eds.), Children's ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 10-28). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
     [33] Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E., Johnson, D., Stevenson, H. & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents' ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review
         of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 5, 747-770.
     [34] http:/ / www. soc. ucsb. edu/ faculty/ baldwin/ classes/ soc142/ scznDEF. html
     [35] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ social-institutions/ Stanford Encyclopaedia: Social Institutions
     [36] Macionis, John J., and Linda M. Gerber. Sociology. Toronto: Pearson Canada, 2011. pg 116.
     [37] Vaidyanathan, B. (2011). Religious resources or differential returns? early religious socialization and declining attendance in emerging
         adulthood. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 50(2), 366-387. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01573.x
     [38] Macionis, John J., and Linda M. Gerber. Sociology. Toronto: Pearson Canada, 2011. pg 113.
     [39] Denhart, R. B., & Jeffress, P. W. (1971). Social learning and economic behavior: The process of economic socialization. American Journal
         of Economics and Sociology, 30(2), 113-125.
     [40] Arnett, J. J. (1995). Broad and narrow socialization: The family in the context of a cultural theory. Journal of marriage and family, 57(3),
         617-628.
     [41] Poole, E. D. & Regoli, R. M. (1981). Alienation in prison: An examination of the work relation of prison guards. 'Criminology, 19'(2),
         251-270.
     [42] Carmi, A. (1983). The role of social energy in prison. 'Dynamische Psychiatrie, 16'(5-6), 383-406.
     [43] Morita, N. (2009). Language, culture, gender, and accademic socialization. Language and education, 23(5), 443-460.
     [44] http:/ / www. soc. ucsb. edu/ faculty/ baldwin/ classes/ soc142/ sle& nsle
     [45] Rushefsky, Mark E.; Patel, Kant (2006). Health Care Politics And Policy in America. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 47. ISBN
         0-7656-1478-2. "...socialized medicine, a pejorative term used to help polarize debate"
     [46] http:/ / marxists. org/ glossary/ terms/ s/ o. htm#socialisation
     [47] ScienceDaily
     [48] ScienceDaily (Feb. 19, 2008)
     [49] http:/ / www. lsa. umich. edu/ psych/ people/ directory/ profiles/ faculty/ ?uniquename=oybarra
Socialization                                                                                                             73


     Further reading
     • Hurrelmann, Klaus (1989, reissued 2009) Social Structure and Personality Development. Cambridge: Cambridge
       University Press.
     • McQuail, Dennis (2005) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory: Fifth Edition, London: Sage.
     • White, Graham (1977) Socialisation, London: Longman.
     • Bogard, Kimber. "Citizenship attitudes and allegiances in diverse youth." Cultural Diversity and Ethnic minority
       Psychology14(4)(2008): 286-296.
     • Mehan, Hugh. "Sociological Foundations Supporting the Study of Cultural Diversity." 1991. National Center for
       Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
     • Bambi B. Schieffelin, Elinor Ochs. 1987. Language Socialization across Cultures. Volume 3 of Studies in the
       Social and Cultural Foundations of Language. Publisher Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521339197,
       9780521339193
     • Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs, Bambi B. Schieffelin. 2011.The Handbook of Language Socialization, Volume
       72 of Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Publisher John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 1444342886, 9781444342888
     • Patricia A. Duff, Nancy H. Hornberger. 2010. Language Socialization: Encyclopedia of Language and Education,
       Volume 8. Publisher Springer, ISBN 9048194660, 9789048194667
     • Robert Bayley, Sandra R. Schecter. 2003. Publisher Multilingual Matters, 2003 ISBN 1853596353,
       9781853596353
     • Claire Kramsch. 2003. Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives .Advances in
       Applied Linguistics. Publisher Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003 ISBN 0826453724,
       9780826453723
     • Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language, Socialization of Kaluli Children.
       Publisher CUP Archive, 1990 ISBN 0521386543, 9780521386548


     External links
     • Sprachsozialisation einiger nicht-europäischer Kulturen im Vergleich. (http://kaltric.de/mat/matlingu/
       sprachsozialisation/)
Structure and agency                                                                                                             74



    Structure and agency
    In the social sciences there is a standing debate over the primacy of structure or agency in shaping human behavior.
    Agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.[1] Structure is the
    recurrent patterned arrangements which influence or limit the choices and opportunities available.[1] The debate can
    be contrasted with the "nature verses nurture" debate, which questions whether a person's physiology ("nature") or
    socialisation ("nurture") predominates in the formation of an individual's identity. In contrast, the structure versus
    agency debate may be understood as an issue of socialisation against autonomy in determining whether an individual
    acts as a free agent or in a manner dictated by social structure.


    Structure, socialisation and autonomy
    The debate over the primacy of structure or agency relates to an issue at the heart of both classical and contemporary
    sociological theory: the question of social ontology: "What is the social world made of?" "What is a cause of the
    social world, and what is an effect?" "Do social structures determine an individual's behaviour or does human
    agency?"
    For functionalists such as Émile Durkheim, structure and hierarchy are essential in stabilising the very existence of
    society. Theorists such as Karl Marx, by contrast, emphasise that the social structure can act to the detriment of the
    majority of individuals in a society. In both these instances "structure" may refer to something both material (or
    "economic") and cultural (e.g. related to norms, customs, traditions and ideologies).
    Some theorists put forward that what we know as our social existence is largely determined by the overall structure
    of society. The perceived agency of individuals can also mostly be explained by the operation of this structure.
    Theoretical systems aligned with this view include: structuralism, and some forms of functionalism and Marxism (all
    of which in this context can be seen as forms of holism -- the notion that "the whole is greater than the sum of its
    parts"). In the reverse of the first position, other theorists stress the capacity of individual "agents" to construct and
    reconstruct their worlds. Theoretical systems aligned with this view include: methodological individualism, social
    phenomenology, interactionism and ethnomethodology.
    Lastly, a third option, taken by many modern social theorists (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990), is to attempt to find a point of
    balance between the two previous positions. They see structure and agency as complementary forces - structure
    influences human behaviour, and humans are capable of changing the social structures they inhabit. Structuration is
    one prominent example of this view.
    The first approach (emphasizing the importance of societal structure) was dominant in classical sociology. Theorists
    saw unique aspects of the social world that could not be explained simply by the sum of the individuals present.
    Émile Durkheim strongly believed that the collective had emergent properties of its own and that there was a need
    for a science which would deal with this emergence. The second approach (methodological individualism, etc.),
    however, also has a well-established position in social science. Many theorists still follow this course (e.g.,
    economists are very prone to disregarding any kind of holism).
    The central debate, therefore, is between theorists committed to the notions of methodological holism and those
    committed to methodological individualism. The first notion, methodological holism, is the idea that actors are
    socialised and embedded into social structures and institutions that constrain, or enable, and generally shape the
    individuals' dispositions towards, and capacities for, action, and that this social structure should be taken as primary
    and most significant. The second notion, methodological individualism, is the idea that actors are the central
    theoretical and ontological elements in social systems, and social structure is an epiphenomenon, a result and
    consequence of the actions and activities of interacting individuals.
Structure and agency                                                                                                         75


    Major theorists

    Georg Simmel
    Georg Simmel (March 1, 1858 – September 28, 1918, Berlin, Germany) was one of the first generation of German
    nonpositivist sociologists. His studies pioneered the concepts of social structure and agency. His most famous works
    today include The Metropolis and Mental Life and The Philosophy of Money.


    Norbert Elias
    Norbert Elias (June 22, 1897 — August 1, 1990) was a German sociologist whose work focused on the relationship
    between power, behavior, emotion, and knowledge over time. He significantly shaped what is called "process
    sociology" or "figurational sociology."


    Talcott Parsons
    Talcott Parsons (December 13, 1902 – May 8, 1979) was an American sociologist and the main theorist of action
    theory (misleadingly called "structural functionalism") in sociology from the 1930s in the United States. His works
    analyze social structure but in terms of voluntary action and through patterns of normative institutionalisation by
    codifying its theoretical gestalt into a system-theoretical framework based on the idea of living systems and
    cybernetic hierarchy. For Parsons there is no "structure"- "agency" problem. It is a pseudo-problem.


    Pierre Bourdieu
    Pierre Bourdieu (1 August 1930 – 23 January 2002) was a French theorist who presented his theory of practice on
    the dichotomical understanding of the relation between agency and structure in a great number of published articles,
    beginning with An Outline of the Theory of Practice in 1972, where he presented the concept of habitus. His book
    Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (1979), was named as one of the 20th century's 10 most
    important works of sociology by the International Sociological Association.
    The key concepts in Bourdieu's work are habitus, field, and capital. The agent is socialized in a "field", an evolving
    set of roles and relationships in a social domain, where various forms of "capital" such as prestige or financial
    resources are at stake. As the agent accommodates to his or her roles and relationships in the context of his or her
    position in the field, the agent internalises relationships and expectations for operating in that domain. These
    internalised relationships and habitual expectations and relationships form, over time, the habitus.
    Bourdieu's work attempts to reconcile structure and agency, as external structures are internalised into the habitus
    while the actions of the agent externalise interactions between actors into the social relationships in the field.
    Bourdieu's theory, therefore, is a dialectic between "externalising the internal", and "internalising the external."


    Berger and Luckmann
    Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann in their Social Construction of Reality (1966) saw the relationships between
    structure and agency as a dialectical one. Society forms the individuals who create society - forming a continuous
    loop.[2]


    James Coleman
    James Samuel Coleman's Coleman boat provides a link between macrosociological phenomena and individual
    behavior. A macro-level phenomenon is described as instigating particular actions by individuals, which results in a
    subsequent macro-level phenomenon. In this way, individual action is taken in reference to a macrosociological
    structure, and that action (by many individuals) results in change to that macro structure.
Structure and agency                                                                                                             76


    Anthony Giddens
    Contemporary sociology has generally aimed toward a reconciliation of structure and agency as concepts. Anthony
    Giddens's developed "Structuration Theory" in such works as The Constitution of Society (1984). He presents a
    developed attempt to move beyond the dualism of structure and agency and argues for the "duality of structure" -
    where social structure is both the medium and the outcome of social action.[2] For Giddens, an agent's common
    interaction with structure, as a system of norms, is described as "structuration". The term "reflexivity" is used to refer
    to the ability of an agent to consciously alter his or her place in the social structure; thus globalization and the
    emergence of the 'post-traditional' society might be said to allow for "greater social reflexivity". Social and political
    sciences are therefore important because social knowledge, as self-knowledge, is potentially emancipatory.[3]


    Roberto Unger
    Social theorist and legal philosopher Roberto Mangabeira Unger developed the thesis of negative capability to
    address this problem of agency in relation to structure. In his work on false necessity — or anti-necessitarian social
    theory — Unger recognizes the constraints of structure and its molding influence upon the individual, but at the
    same time finds the individual able to resist, deny, and transcend their context. The varieties of this resistance are
    negative capability. Unlike other theories of structure and agency, negative capability does not reduce the individual
    to a simple actor possessing only the dual capacity of compliance or rebellion, but rather sees him as able to partake
    in a variety of activities of self empowerment.[4]


    Recent developments
    The critical realist structure/agency perspective embodied in the Transformational Model of Social Action (TMSA)
    has been further advocated and applied in other social science fields by additional authors, for example in economics
    by Tony Lawson and in sociology by Margaret Archer. In 2005, the Journal of Management Studies debated the
    merits of critical realism.[5]
    Kenneth Wilkinson in the Community in Rural America took an interactional/field theoretical perspective focusing
    on the role of community agency in contributing to the emergence of community.
    With Critical Psychology as framework, the Danish psychologist Ole Dreier, proposes in his book Psychotherapy in
    Everyday Life that we may best conceptualize persons as participants in social practices (that constitute social
    structures) who can either reproduce or change these social practices. This indicates that neither participants, nor
    social practices can be understood when looked at in isolation (in fact, this undermines the very idea of trying to do
    so), since practice and structure is co-created by participants and since the participants can only be called so, if they
    participate in a social practice.[6]
    The structure/agency debate continues to evolve, with contributions such as Nicos Mouzelis's Sociological Theory:
    What Went Wrong? and Margaret Archer's Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach continuing to push
    the ongoing development of structure/agency theory. Work in information systems by Mutch (2010)has emphasized
    Archer's Realist Social Theory.[7] In entrepreneurship a discussion between Sarason et al. and Mole and Mole (2010)
    used Archer's theory to critique structuration view arguing that starting a new business organization needs to be
    understood in the context of social structure and agency. However, this depends upon one's view of structure which
    differs between Giddens and Archer. Hence if strata in social reality have different ontologies, then they must be
    viewed as a dualism. Third, agents have causal power, and ultimate concerns which they try to fallibly to put into
    practice. Mole and Mole propose entrepreneurship as the study of the interplay between the structures of a society
    and the agents within it.[8]
Structure and agency                                                                                                                              77


    A European problem?
    While the structure/agency debate has been a central issue in social theory, and recent theoretical reconciliation
    attempts have been made, structure/agency theory has tended to develop more in European countries by European
    theorists, while social theorists from the United States have tended to focus instead on the issue of integration
    between macrosociological and microsociological perspectives. George Ritzer examines these issues (and surveys
    the structure agency debate) in greater detail in his book Modern Sociological Theory (2000).


    Notes
    [1] Barker, Chris. 2005. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-4156-8 p448
    [2] Jary & Jary, Collins Dictionary of Sociology, p664.
    [3] David Gauntlett, Media Gender and Identity (http:/ / www. theoryhead. com/ gender/ ), Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0-415-18960-8. About
        Giddens' work on modernity and self-identity. Google Print (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?ie=UTF-8& vid=ISBN0415189594&
        id=Vhc60-bJGQsC& dq=Society+ only+ has+ form,+ and+ that+ form+ only+ has+ effects+ on+ people,+ in+ so+ far+ as+ structure+ is+
        produced+ and+ reproduced+ in+ what+ people+ do)
    [4] Unger, Roberto (2004). False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy, Revised Edition. London:
        Verso. pp. 282. ISBN 978-1-85984-331-4.
    [5] Contu, A. and Willmott, H. (2005) You spin me round: the realist turn in organization and management studies, Journal of Management
        Studies, 42 (8): 1645-1662 Reed, M. (2005a) The realist turn in organization and management studies’, Journal of Management Studies, 42
        (8): 1600-1644 Reed, M. (2005b) Doing the loco-motion: Response to Contu and Willmott’s commentary on ‘The realist turn in organization
        and management studies’, Journal of Management Studies 42(8): 1663-1673
    [6] Dreier, Ole., 2008. Chapter 2. In: Psychotherapy in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press.
    [7] MUTCH, A., 2010. Technology, organization, and structure - a morphogenetic approach . Organization Science. vol 21 (2) , pp. 1-14
    [8] Mole K.F. and Mole M.C (2010) Entrepreneurship as the structuration of individual and opportunity: A response using a critical realist
        perspective. Journal of Business Venturing Vol 25, no. 2 pp. 230-237



    References
    • Archer, M. (1995), Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge University Press:
      Cambridge.
    • Berger, P. L.; T. Luckmann (1966), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge,
      Anchor Books: Garden City, NY.
    • Bhaskar, R. (1979/1998), The Possibility of Naturalism (3rd edition) Harvester Wheatsheaf: Hemel Hampstead.
    • Bhaskar, R. (1989), Reclaiming Reality, Verso: London.
    • Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press: London.
    • Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, Polity Press: Cambridge.
    • Bourdieu, P. and L. J. D. Wacquant (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, University of Chicago Press:
      Chicago.
    • Elias, N. (1978), What is Sociology?, Hutchinson: London.
    • Giddens, A. (1976), New Rules of Sociological Method.
    • Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Polity Press: Cambridge.
    • Jary, David; Julia Jary (1991). Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow: Harper Collins. pp. 774.
      ISBN 0-00-470804-0.
    • Lawson, T. (1997), Economics and Reality, Routledge: London and New York.
    • Mouzelis, N. (1995), Sociological Theory: What Went Wrong?, Routledge: London and New York.
    • Ritzer, G. (2000), Modern Sociological Theory (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill.
    • Ritzer, G.; P. Gindoff (1992) "Methodological relationism: lessons for and from social psychology", Social
      Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), pp. 128–140.
    • Tsekeris, C.; A. Lydaki (2011) "The micro-macro dilemma in sociology: perplexities and perspectives",
      Sociologija, 53(1), pp. 67–82.
Structure and agency                                                                                                  78


    • Turner, J. H. (1991), The Structure of Sociological Theory (5th edn.), Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont
      CA.
    • Unger, Roberto (1987), False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy.
      Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
    • Unger, Roberto (1987), Social Theory: Its situation and its task. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
    • Wilkinson, K. (1991)., The Community in Rural America. Greenwood Press: New York, NY
Article Sources and Contributors                                                                                                                                                                        79



    Article Sources and Contributors
    Sociology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=534358158  Contributors: "alyosha", 165.121.110.xxx, 167.153.4.xxx, 199.174.163.xxx, 1Arethusa, 205.188.199.xxx, 3nacbc, A
    Geographer, A. B., A3RO, A8UDI, APH, AThing, Aaloklamsal1, Abasass, Adammohamed1993, Adasinol, Adebayo577, AdjustShift, Afgreif, Aircorn, Airumel, Alan Liefting, Alansohn, Ale
    jrb, Alex S, Alexf, AlexiusHoratius, AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, Allens, Allforrous, Amanda.haynes, Amit56, AnOddName, Anaraug, Ancheta Wis, Andre Engels, Andreadb, Andreas Philopater,
    Andres, Andrew250, AndrewHowse, Andycjp, Angry candy, Antandrus, Arakunem, Arjayay, Arunbalagopalan, Arunconcern, Asdimd, AvantVenger, Avenged Eightfold, BD2412, Backhome5,
    Banime, Barent, BarretB, Barreto, Barticus88, Beetstra, Bejideanelikesmuff, Beland, Ben Ben, Bendroz, Bentogoa, Bhadani, Bhikkhu Santi, Bigar, Birdmessenger, Black Kat, Blanchardb,
    Bobblewik, Bobfrombrockley, Bobrayner, Boneheadmx, Bongwarrior, Borislav, Br1z, Bradyculous, Briannajchan, Brion VIBBER, Britsoc, Brusk, Bubbleman123, Buyaguru, Byelf2007,
    CRGreathouse, Calmer Waters, Canadiangurl, Canadianpoptart, Canto2009, Capricorn42, Capt. James T. Kirk, Carl Logan, Carlsotr, Caromkidd, CaseyPenk, Cast, CathySc, Cbankst,
    Cdickerson01, Cedric Dwarf, Cenarium, Ceyockey, Charliehesk, CharlotteWebb, Chenzw, Chickensoda, Chickensofdoom, Chimin 07, Chinasociology, Chris 1127, Chris Roy, Chris the speller,
    Chrismartin76, Cinkapp, Citicat, Civil Engineer III, Clausen, Cloooe x, Clubmarx, Coalpatch, Cobi, Coekon, Colipon, Colonies Chris, Cometstyles, CommonsDelinker, Conti, Conversion script,
    Cosmic Latte, Cpl Syx, Cretog8, Crusadeonilliteracy, Cst17, Cureden, Cyfal, D, D-Rock, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DASonnenfeld, DCDuring, DYLAN LENNON, Dabomb87, Daedalus71,
    Damiens.rf, DancingPhilosopher, Danno uk, Danski14, Dar-Ape, Darigan, Dark Mage, Darker Dreams, Darkfelinanova, Darkmaster2004, DarwinPeacock, Darwindecks, Datta-ray, DavidPickett,
    Davidgauntlett, Davidwr, Davril2020, Ddon, Debresser, Deep1979, Defenestrate, Dekimasu, Delirium, Den fjättrade ankan, Denisarona, DennisDaniels, Deor, DerHexer, Derek Ross, Dffgd,
    Dialectric, Dianaruttman1, Dillardjj, Discospinster, Dlrohrer2003, Docu, Donald Albury, Douglas R. White, Doulos Christos, Dowcet, Downcastrelic, Dralwik, Duckie, Duke Pepelu Tivrusky,
    Dunning, Dureo, Dwt123, Dysepsion, Dysprosia, E to pi i is minus one, ESkog, Ed Poor, Edhubbard, Editor123789, Editor2020, Edusoc, Edward saint-ivan, El C, ElinorD, Elmindreda,
    Elpenmaster, Emmawors, Epbr123, Erebus555, Erolos, Esprit15d, Everyking, Evil Monkey, Evilandi, Excirial, FLCL, FPWSN, FadulJA, Falcon8765, Fashionologist, Featherfiend, Feedmymind,
    Fenice, Fixentries, Flatterworld, Fonzy, Fredbauder, Froes, Fubar Obfusco, GDudek, Gaius Cornelius, Gamewizard71, Ganemcometudo, Gary cunningham, Gavinshields, Gdarin, Geniac,
    George100, GhanaDa, Gilliam, Ginar, Giraffedata, Gizmoguy, GlaucusAtlanticus, Glenn, Globalsolidarity, GoingBatty, Golgofrinchian, GraemeL, Grafen, GrayFullbuster, Greenlight01,
    Grrrlriot, Gsaup, Gsociology, Guerorocks, Guillaume2303, Gunderiffic, Guy Peters, Gwernol, H.W. Clihor, HD-POE, Hadal, Hagedis, Haipa Doragon, Hair, Haiti01, Halcionne, Hammard,
    Hanberke, HappyInGeneral, HarryHenryGebel, Hazhk, Hbdragon88, He Who Is, Hermes the Wise, Hesham4488, Hetar, HexaChord, Hezarfenn, Hobartimus, Horton Pebes, Hotcrocodile, Hu12,
    Hughcharlesparker, Huzzah101, Hydrogen Iodide, I dream of horses, IRP, Ibn khaldun78, Ikiroid, Infoman99, Instinct, Insvik, IntrigueBlue, Irishguy, Ixfd64, J Di, J.delanoy, J04n, JForget, JMK,
    JaGa, Jackol, Jacob Lundberg, Jade Knight, Jadesina, Jafro, Jagged 85, JayC, Jaymar520, Jazzwick, Jcdavis, Jecar, Jeff3000, JenLouise, Jennavecia, Jerry, JerryIsThePosterChild, Jerzy, Jf325403,
    Jiddisch, Jim1138, Jim182, Jmaass, Jni, JobHorber, JodyB, Jojalozzo, Jonnabuz, Jonty303, JorgeGG, Jorgenev, Josephcunningham, Joshafina, Jpbowen, Jpers36, Juliapreston, Jumping cheese,
    Junglefever2009, Jusjih, JustAGal, KConWiki, KF, KJS77, Kakofonous, Kartano, Kbh3rd, Keith Tee, Kelly Ramsey, Ken Jubber, Kenny sh, Kerotan, Kessler, Khalid hassani, Khefri,
    KiLLaCRuSHs, Kikoromba, KillerChihuahua, Knight1993, Koavf, Kokiri, Kopaka649, Krenair, Kroose, Kzollman, LCP, LOL, LViau, Ladril, Ladumdum, Lambaldwin, LarryGilbert, Latka,
    Leafyplant, LeaveSleaves, Lee Daniel Crocker, Leszek Jańczuk, Levineps, Life in General, Littlefish597, Littlesoup, Llort, Llull, Logan, Longsun, Lonniepoet, LordGulliverofGalben,
    Lordvolton, Lotje, Lourine, LuK3, Lucidish, Luckas Blade, Lugia2453, Luk, Luna Santin, Lunchboxhero, Lunkwill, M-le-mot-dit, MBK004, MBWhitney, MBisanz, MER-C, MONGO,
    Madcoverboy, Madhero88, Magister Mathematicae, Mahanga, Maikstrik, Malik Shabazz, Mandarax, Mani1, Marcuswikipedian, Marek69, MarioGuima, MarkNeville, Martin Jensen,
    MartinHarper, Masterpiece2000, Masterpjz9, Materialscientist, Matt Crypto, Matthew Yeager, Mausy5043, Mav, Mawgg, Max139, Maxamegalon2000, Mayumashu, Meclee, Mermaid from the
    Baltic Sea, Mgiganteus1, Michael Hardy, Michael Snow, MichaelExe, MihalOrela, Mikaey, Mike Restivo, Milbo, Miriska, Miss Brittney Anne, Mlessard, Modernist, Modulatum, Molerner,
    Mootros, Moskvax, MrArt, Msin10, Mspandana, Muff Potter, Musical Linguist, Mutiheer, Mweymar, Mwsinclair, Mxn, Mydogategodshat, NTox, Nafile, Nakon, NaomiRG, Nasnema, Natalie
    Erin, Natl1, NawlinWiki, NellieBly, Nepenthes, Neptune99, Nerval, Netknowle, Netoholic, Newe1344, Ngeemalpo, Ni, Nick.patrick55, Nicolay, Nikai, Nikilearner, Nilmerg, Nimh00, Ninabeck,
    Niteowlneils, Nivix, Nj301409, Nmarzouk, NoahK, Noformation, Northernsoutherner, NpaK13, Nposs, Nua eire, Numbo3, Nunquam Dormio, Nurefsan, Obsidian Soul, Oda Mari, Ohnoitsjamie,
    Ojuice5001, Ok!, Olivier, Omnipaedista, Omohoa, Orion11M87, Orphan Wiki, Ot, Otets, Ottawa4ever, Owen, PHMegacorp, POKETNRJSH, PanchoS, Passw0rd, Patrick, Paulshanks, Peter
    Robinson Scott, PeterSymonds, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy), Pgreenfinch, Phanerozoic, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Pheel, Phgao, Philaweb, Pigman, Pigsonthewing, Pinethicket, Piotrus, Pjscience,
    Plastikspork, PoccilScript, Pomte, Possum, Postmodern Beatnik, Previously ScienceApologist, Prodego, Proofreader77, Proper tea is theft, ProtoFire, Prudentist, Pterosaurus Rex, Pyrospirit,
    Qbert789, Quarryman, Quiddity, QuirkyAndSuch, Qwerty Binary, RJaguar3, RTCearly, Raghith, RainbowOfLight, Rainville, Ram-Man, Raul654, Raven1977, Raven4x4x, Reach Out to the
    Truth, Reaper Eternal, Reconsider the static, RedHouse18, RedWolf, Remi0o, Res2216firestar, Reswik, Retired username, RexNL, Reyk, Reywas92, RichardF, RickK, Ricky1984, Rjwilmsi,
    Robiminer, Robinhw, Roland Kaufmann, Romanm, Ronald bolender, Ronhjones, Rudra 18, Rupe1014, Ryan Higgitt, S h i v a (Visnu), SJP, Sa.vakilian, Sabikun, Sadi Carnot, Saeed.Veradi,
    Sailor1889, Sajuachu, Samar.nasir, Samlyn.josfyn, Sander123, Sandman, Sarahstudiessoci, SchreiberBike, Sciurinæ, Scottielad, Scubbo, Seanbrowning, Sebesta, Secretlondon, Sectryan,
    SeniorScribbler, Serenity forest, Shaanmir93, Shanoman, Shell Kinney, ShereKhan8, Shlomke, Shoeofdeath, SiefkinDR, Sietse, Simmonsjd02, SimonP, Sionus, Siwangmu, Sjakkalle, Skaulan
    Jgen, Skizzik, Skohli1, Skyler13, Slightsmile, Slrubenstein, Smalljim, SmartM&M, Snoyes, Soccybrarian, Socgeek, Sociologist4life, Sociology111, Sodium, Sonicology, Sparkleiya,
    SpookyMulder, Ss87922p, Stefeyboy, SteinbDJ, Stimulieconomy, Studymore, Sue Rangell, Suffusion of Yellow, SummerWithMorons, Suneja786, Sunray, SuperHamster, Supertouch,
    Sushiflinger, Svencb, Synchronism, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, Taishan88, TakuyaMurata, Talastra, Tannin, Tapas burdwan, Tapir Terrific, TarrVetus, Tassedethe, Taw, Tbhotch, Tcww20,
    Technite, Terryeo, Texture, Tgeairn, Thatguyflint, The Anome, The Missing Piece, The Ogre, The Thing That Should Not Be, The Transhumanist, The Transhumanist (AWB), Theaterfreak64,
    Thebeard88, Theda, Thegodfather115, TheoClarke, Theseven7, Thingg, Thiseye, Threewords,eightletters..., Tide rolls, Tillwe, Tobby72, Tommaso.vitale, Tomos, Tomsega, Tonysdg14, Tosinojo,
    Tpbradbury, Trafford09, Traroth, Trevinci, TutterMouse, Twang, Twinkie eater91, Twp, Tyrol5, Ulric1313, Universalbuilder, VKokielov, Van helsing, Vanderdecken12, Vanished user
    5zariu3jisj0j4irj, Vault, Veinor, Velella, Velho, Vera Cruz, Verpar, Verticalsearch, Veshhistory, Vincentflames28, Vindalf, Vir, Vssun, WOSlinker, WaspByte, Watchdealer, Wavelength, We
    hope, West.andrew.g, Wetman, Whywhenwhohow, Widr, WikHead, WikiDao, WikiLeon, Wikidea, Wikiklrsc, Wikipelli, Wikitita, Willdw79, Wimt, Wini9000, Wishingwell11, Wiwaxia,
    Woland37, Wolfdog, Wolfkeeper, Woohookitty, WordyGirl90, Wotnow, Ww2censor, Wwwwzzzz, X-factor, Xelgen, Xsjadow, Yidisheryid, Ynhockey, YokaiKnight, Ytcracker, Zay5307,
    ZenmasterFlash, Zouhair, Zundark, Zzuuzz, Δ, Александър, €pa, 1792 anonymous edits

    Positivism  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535590537  Contributors: 271828182, Alexjohnc3, Anarchia, Anonymous6059, Arc de Ciel, Arch Mute Brave, Arno Matthias,
    Ashleymohammed93, AtomikWeasel, Awaterl, BD2412, BMF81, Bart133, Bearian, Begeun, Bennymo17, Bhayeesh, Binksternet, BirgerH, Blainster, Bob Burkhardt, Bohunk, Brougham96,
    Brz7, Buridan, Byelf2007, CSWarren, Caladein, Calor, Canadianism, Capricorn42, CaroleHenson, Centralservices, Cessator, ChikeJ, Cpl Syx, Cybercobra, Daniel212, Darth Panda,
    DarwinPeacock, David Labreure, David Lefevre, Dgdino, Dj manton, Eayliffe, Eb7473, Editor2020, Edprfspec, Edunoramus, Elipatwood, Elmindreda, Eman2293, Emaregretable, Emfish1212,
    Esperant, Eugenio Hansen, OFS, FallingRain123, Floepiejane, Frodeman, Garrisonroo, Gary King, Gcbirzan, Grant65, Gregbard, Gsandi, Gurch, HallucigeniaUK, Harizotoh9, Hazhk, Henry
    Merrivale, Herzliyya, Hgilbert, Hongooi, Huangdi, Humanengr, Ihcoyc, Ikaszpcj, IkonicDeath, Jagged 85, Jaroma, JenLouise, Jnthn0898, Joefromrandb, John Bessa, John of Reading,
    Johnbrownsbody, Jojhutton, Jonkerz, Jpeob, K, KD Tries Again, Karenh19, Katalaveno, Katyyeung, Kazvorpal, Kevmitch, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Kmweber, Koalaitis, Ksbrown, Kusma, LCecere,
    Lapaz, Laplace's Demon, Leolaursen, Lestrade, Lgearhart, Linyent2, Logologist, Lotje, LoveMonkey, Lycurgus, M3taphysical, Macbraughton, Machine Elf 1735, Madcoverboy,
    MakeRocketGoNow, Manreet.sandhu, Markhurd, MastCell, McBeardo, Meclee, Michaelminn, MikeyMouse10, Mixcoatl, Mogism, Moonlight8888, NPrice, Nagelfar, Namjan, NantucketNoon,
    Natalya, Nerdfiles, Nethency, Nightcomeson, Nihil novi, Nmarzouk, Noclevername, OlEnglish, Olaf Simons, Omnipaedista, Omphaloscope, Onancastrovejano, Pamino, Paranoid, Paul Barlow,
    Pejman47, Peter morrell, Peter1c, Philip Trueman, PhnomPencil, Piotrus, Pip2andahalf, Plustgarten, Pollinosisss, Previously ScienceApologist, Pseudosection, Ragesoss, RayBirks, Rflacco,
    Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Rjensen, Robert Skyhawk, Room429, RoseAnne1987, RoyBoy, Rtc, Rubybrian, Rursus, Ryan Lanham, Saaranga, Sajuachu, SalineBrain, Santa Sangre,
    Sardanaphalus, SchreiberBike, Sfahey, SimmyJassal, SkyMachine, SlamDiego, Spewin, Srnec, Starlight4352, Strife911, SummerWithMorons, Supertask, TJF588, Tassedethe, Tazmaniacs,
    Techauthor, Tesseract2, TheOldJacobite, Theroadislong, Thunderboltz, Tide rolls, Timeu, Tom Morris, Tomsega, Ugajin, Velho, VivekVish, Vnieznalski, W.stanovsky, W2bh, Walkiped,
    Wavelength, Wegesrand, Wingedsubmariner, Wolfdog, Wonder118, Woohookitty, Wossi, Wronguy, Xaonon, Xezbeth, Yossarian, Zachlipton, Zzyzx11, 达 伟, 272 anonymous edits

    Antipositivism  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=532063835  Contributors: Alansohn, ArglebargleIV, Arthena, Blanchette, Brad7777, Byelf2007, Cosmic Latte,
    DarwinPeacock, Dekimasu, Eduen, Erhardt, Erianna, Excirial, FadulJA, George100, Goethean, Gregbard, Guy Peters, Gwalla, Hazhk, Hetar, Hmains, JaGa, Jeff3000, JenLouise, Jengirl1988,
    Joeyconnick, Jtweiss, Kutu su, LittleOldMe old, Lzaragoza, M3taphysical, Meclee, Michael Petersen, Modify, Moonlight8888, Mtinker86, Nigelsa, Noble Sponge, Nurefsan, Omnipaedista,
    Owen, Peter1c, Piotrus, ReSearcher, RedHouse18, Remuel, Rursus, SummerWithMorons, Tebrown3, Terra Novus, Tomsega, Woohookitty, Xanderpaul, Zvar, 52 anonymous edits

    Structural functionalism  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535453417  Contributors: 5 albert square, 8packabs, Abdülcenapnasır, Acather96, Adammohamed1993,
    Addihockey10, AdjustShift, Adrianzenz, Allens, Allstarecho, Amd628, Apjohns54, Arthena, Astharoth1, Aude, Avicennasis, BD2412, Barkeep, Basicdesign, Bernardotrejos, Bhadani, Billy
    Pilgrim, Birdmessenger, Brad7777, Briannajchan, Byelf2007, Charles Matthews, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Chimin 07, Claragina, Cyberman, Czarkoff, DCDuring, Dali92,
    DannyBoy7783, DarwinPeacock, DeadEyeArrow, Demarch7, Dmyersturnbull, DuncanHill, DustWolf, Editor2020, Edward, Empty Buffer, Epbr123, Ephanyvenus, Falcon8765, Fayenatic
    london, Fenice, Free25, Gaius Cornelius, Gary King, Gerasim, Gfoley4, GoingBatty, Grafen, Greeklamb, Gregbard, Gurchzilla, HJ Mitchell, Haiderm6, Hazhk, Helen.utm, Helenyl.liang,
    Heymid, Hibernian, Hmains, Hsnch13, JLincoln, JV Smithy, JaGa, Jawaidm3, Jeff G., JenLouise, Jerzy, Jpoelma13, Jujutacular, Kai-Hendrik, Kane5187, Karenh19, Khazar2, Kjlewis, Knobluc,
    Lightmouse, Linyent2, Lotje, MC MasterChef, MER-C, Magioladitis, Mamaberry11, Manreet.sandhu, Maryam816, Maunus, Mdd, Meanos, Meclee, Michaelforsyth, Mikem1234,
    MikeyMouse10, Modify, Modotam, Mr. Billion, Mussermaster, Nicolenaz, Nikolastineo, Nir, Noorc, Northamerica1000, Oddeivind, Omnipaedista, Owen, Pablo323, Patelne7, Philippe, Piano
    non troppo, Pikiwyn, Ping60637, Piotrus, Po12iu34, R'n'B, Rcsprinter123, Rdsmith4, Recognizance, Reconsider the static, Rigadoun, Robertson-Glasgow, Rocketrod1960, Rumping, Runtime,
    Salvor, Sam Hana, Sandra.al92, Sanjukooldude, Schrauwers, SchreiberBike, Sestibel, Sfan00 IMG, Slrubenstein, Sluzzelin, Smiteri, Sociology111, Sonicology, Studymore, SummerWithMorons,
    Supposed, Tannin, TheRanger, TheTito, Tide rolls, Tomsega, Toobahussain, Torfason, Troublekit, Uday.gautam6, Unideanet, Unyoyega, Vendeka, Vnieznalski, Vrenator, Wdchk, Winston
    Trechane, Winstonwolf33, Wonder118, Woohookitty, Yaris678, Алиса Селезньова, 291 anonymous edits
Article Sources and Contributors                                                                                                                                                                         80

    Conflict theory  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=533047425  Contributors: 5hin3, 8packabs, APH, AaronSw, Against the current, Alansohn, Allens, AmiDaniel, Andres,
    Angela, Athkalani, Autarch, Basicallyweresweet, Benjamin Mako Hill, Boneheadmx, Bueno333, Byelf2007, Capricorn42, Carlon, Champtrain8, Chimin 07, Chrcharity, Cobaltcigs, Cocanut351,
    Cocoajazz, Cosmic Latte, Crazytales, Darth Mike, Davewho2, DeadEyeArrow, Debresser, Djoseph21, Drhamilton, Drmoros, Duke Wellington14, Eduen, El C, Empty Buffer, F0v3a, Favonian,
    Foobarnix, Fotisaros, Fritzpoll, Gary King, Gregbard, Ground Zero, Gsociology, Guanaco, He Br Spring 2008, Holycharly, Htw3, Hu12, Hydrogen Iodide, Ikzing, Ilikeliljon, Immunize,
    J.delanoy, J04n, JLaTondre, Jahsonic, Jawaidm3, JenL123, JenLouise, Jerzy, JoefromRML, JonBernstein, Katieh5584, Koavf, Ks108306, Kumioko (renamed), LCpl, Landon1980, Lexor,
    LilHelpa, Linyent2, Longsun, Lucidish, Lupin, Mage1413, Makecat, Manreet.sandhu, Marek69, Marj Tiefert, Maryam816, Matt.leeck, Mattplumb2, Maurice Carbonaro, Mdw0, Meclee, Mike
    McGregor (Can), Mikem1234, MikeyMouse10, Millermk, Mootros, Omnipaedista, Otterathome, Owen, Owhenthepawno, Oxymoron83, Peterdjones, Phanerozoic, PhilKnight, Phronetic, Pion,
    Piotrus, Pmcalara, Portalthinking, Reedy, Riyuky, Rjwilmsi, RockMagnetist, Royalguard11, Sam Hana, Sandra.al92, Sanjukooldude, SchreiberBike, Sesel, Shalom Yechiel, Sigma 7, Skomorokh,
    Slyfox54, SpaceFlight89, SpringSloth, Squids and Chips, Sunray, TDawnson, TakuyaMurata, Tanthalas39, The Nut, The Thing That Should Not Be, Tide rolls, Tomsega, Tsett, Velvet Llama,
    Walkiped, Wayne Slam, Wtmitchell, Xp54321, 264 anonymous edits

    Middle range theory (sociology)  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=517974624  Contributors: Anthonyhcole, Benjamin Mako Hill, Cetheriel, Chris the speller, Cohen1963,
    Criminallaw2010, DarwinPeacock, Enerstoh, HerrHomster, JenLouise, John of Reading, Lior gimel, Meclee, Nuffsoc, Pablo.ea.92, Pargeter1, Pharillon, Piotrus, Reswik, Tomsega, TyreWelkin,
    Uncle Milty, We hope, Woohookitty, Ww2censor, 17 anonymous edits

    Mathematical sociology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=494678772  Contributors: Aetheling, Altenmann, BD2412, Bci2, Bejnar, Cannibaltinea, Crypticdragon,
    DarwinPeacock, Googl, Isotope23, Jheuristic, Katovatzschyn, Mdd, Meclee, Moonlight8888, MrOllie, Piotrus, Ronz, Sadi Carnot, SchreiberBike, Scientizzle, SeniorScribbler, Tomsega, Tseeker,
    Zaslav, Zzuuzz, 33 anonymous edits

    Critical theory  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535183635  Contributors: 15Xin, 1exec1, 205.188.200.xxx, A8UDI, AaronSw, Adambiswanger1, Adoniscik, Afuhz, Amalas,
    Ampialb-uv, AndreasB, Andrew c, Andrewmagliozzi, Angela, Annawjacobs, Aurelius451, Avocats, BD2412, Badinfinity, Battlecry, Binary TSO, BirgerH, Bluemoose, Bobfrombrockley,
    Borreby, Bryan Derksen, Buffyg, Burn, Byelf2007, CCS81, Camembert, Ceiling Cat MASTAR!!!!, Cgingold, Charles Matthews, ChrisGualtieri, Cobra libre, Cognition, Commgrad, Conversion
    script, Criticaltheoryforum, Cst17, D.h, DanielCD, Darrell Wheeler, Darrenhusted, David Biddulph, Dbachmann, Demmy, Demolishrunce, DionysosProteus, Docu, Doraannao, Dr Oldekop,
    Dreadstar, Ds13, E235, Ecantu09, Ekren, Elbelz, Emesee, Empty Buffer, Esperant, FantasMic, Fayenatic london, Filceolaire, FilmDoctor, Fredcondo, Fredrik, Fungiblesovereign13, Gail, Gaius
    Cornelius, Gast2011, Gogo Dodo, Graham87, Gregbard, Gregorthebug, Grimsson, Group Cirrcunciser, Gwern, Halo, Hatch68, Haymouse, Headbomb, Heron, Hersfold, Hifrommike65,
    Hotcrocodile, Huntington, Igiffin, Illanwall, Independentvoice98, Ioeth, JEN9841, JForget, JaGa, Jahsonic, Jbetteridge, JeLuF, Jeff3000, Jfraatz, Jjshapiro, JohnCD, Jojalozzo, Jon Awbrey, Josiah
    Rowe, Juliancolton, Jwy, Kevmitch, Khalid hassani, Koffieyahoo, Kukini, Kvcad, Kyng, Kzollman, Lapaz, Larry Sanger, Larry_Sanger, Leafman, LeaveSleaves, LilyKitty, Liza Freeman, Lynch
    derance, M3taphysical, Macmelvino, Magmi, Manicsleeper, Markalanfoster, Matthewstapleton, Maunus, Mav, MaxR, Mboverload, Meclee, MegaMind, Mercurius, Mercurywoodrose,
    MeteorMaker, Mhazard9, Michael Hardy, Mjs110, Mlangione, Moonlight8888, Mootros, Mporch, Navidnak, NawlinWiki, Neelix, Never give in, Nick.ruiz, Nobody of Consequence,
    Nycresearch, Omnipaedista, Parul Vora, Patrick, Pearle, Pedant17, Pedro Aguiar, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Phil Sandifer, Phronetic, Physicistjedi, Pigeonpost, Piotrus, Planders, Pluke, Pochsad,
    Pogogunner, Poli08, Poor Yorick, Pteron, Quintessent, R Lowry, RIPSAW1986, RJFF, Ranceinnoose2, Rbellin, Red Slash, Rexroad2, Rjwilmsi, Room429, Ros Power, SFK2, Salsa Shark,
    Sanjukooldude, Semitransgenic, Semmler, Sethmahoney, Slrubenstein, Smaines, Smilo Don, SofieElisBexter, Someguy1221, Spidern, StarTrekkie, Stevenmattern, Stirling Newberry, Stitchill,
    StradivariusTV, SummerWithMorons, Sunray, Sydneyej, Tangotango, The Transhumanist, The Transhumanist (AWB), TheOldJacobite, TheSoundAndTheFury, Thegreyanomaly,
    Toiletfacerance, Tomsega, Tony grunge3, Tony56roberts, Toobahussain, Tricee, Tsop, Tulandro, Tweak279, Uday.gautam6, Ump111, Uncle Milty, Usability 3, User2004, Utku Tanrivere,
    Veinor, VeryVerily, Voyager640, Walkinxyz, Wayiran, Wayne Slam, Will Beback Auto, Woohookitty, Yk Yk Yk, Zeno Gantner, 199 anonymous edits

    Socialization  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535512770  Contributors: 2602:306:CF32:D620:113:EF61:E01E:2A67, A B Pepper, A.behlen, AGToth, Acdx, Adebayo577,
    Agampa, AliveFreeHappy, AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, Allimarieb, Amyekankiewicz, Andrewaskew, Andycjp, Animeronin, Ansumang, Antonielly, Armadillo35, Arthena, AshtonBenson,
    Attonbrass, Az1568, Baa, Bagatelle, Ballstein, Battlecry, Bbc2, Bhadani, BiH, Bizso, Blargish, BoH, Bobo192, Bongwarrior, Brionthorpe, Calvin 1998, CambridgeBayWeather, Cantras,
    Capricorn42, CarrieVS, ChrisKlammer, Christianfriend, Cl33823, Closedmouth, Connelly, Cracker017, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DGG, DarwinPeacock, Defender of torch, Delldot, Demarch7, Dina,
    Discospinster, Donner60, Dseletos, Egaqu, Eivind F Øyangen, Elf, Enviroboy, Erianna, Everyking, Ezeu, FT44, FloNight, Fplay, Free Bear, Funnybunny, GB fan, Gdarin, Gogo Dodo, Golbez,
    Graham87, GrayFullbuster, Heidijane, Htctestar, IGeMiNix, Icd, Imyoda69, Info151, Ioparty, Jacobisq, Jesserjames, Jim.dvorak, Jim1138, Jj john johnny, Jodianhall, John of Reading, Jokestress,
    Jordanstrm, Joyous!, Jujutacular, Jwchong, Karenh19, Katalaveno, Kbdank71, Kelovy, Kevinalewis, Krawi, Krigjsman, Ktr101, Kturn, Kurt Shaped Box, L337p4wn, LMackinnon, LOL,
    Ladumdum, Leksak, Limeonaid, Lindsalu, Linyent2, Logaina92, Lova Falk, Lucidish, MPerel, MarkSutton, Maryam816, Masebrock, Masterjamie, Materialscientist, Mathiastck, Mattisse,
    Meclee, Mentalken, Monedula, Nabarry, Narm00, Nashhinton, NawlinWiki, Neelix, NerdyScienceDude, Nicke Lilltroll, Nilfanion, Ohiomoba Omoh, Oldlaptop321, Ong elvin, Owen, OwenX,
    Patelne7, Pavlo Shevelo, Pearle, Penbat, Phyrros, Pinethicket, Piotrus, Pit, Plouiche, Pnewtong, Pnm, Pointillist, PolarisSLBM, Poule, Quintote, R9tgokunks, RafaAzevedo, Rameshbang, Reach
    Out to the Truth, Reallyskeptic, Reiki0803, Richardflea, Robin klein, Robina Fox, Robobucket, Ronz, SMGeorge34, Samhorn1488, Sarranduin, Shatter Resistance, ShelfSkewed, Shushruth,
    SimonP, SiobhanHansa, Skinnyweed, Slaternater, Squids and Chips, Stephenrandallm, Sthargro2, SummerWithMorons, Sunray, Supintor19will, Sxeptomaniac, Tajik24, Taowind, Tdant,
    Tetraedycal, The Anome, Tobislav, Tomas e, Tomsega, Toobahussain, Topsy39, Trnj2000, TwoTwoHello, Tykez1, ULTAMATE SORA, Ucanlookitup, Uday.gautam6, Ulric1313,
    Usutaworkshop, Valerie hodge, Viriditas, Vranak, Watterich, Wavelength, Wigren, WikiHaquinator, Winelight, Winston Trechane, WissensDürster, Woohookitty, Wynandnee, Xxxx11,
    Yamamoto Ichiro, Zenwhat, Zzuuzz, 410 ,55‫ דוד‬anonymous edits

    Structure and agency  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=532141930  Contributors: A412, Archivingcontext, Avb, BenTremblay, C mon, Canto2009, Chris the speller,
    Cmdrjameson, Common Man, Cordless Larry, DCDuring, DaphneMaltas, DarwinPeacock, Denispir, Deville, DigitalHomunculus, DragonLord, Ergative rlt, Ettrig, Farras Octara, Gregbard,
    Hooperbloob, Iowa08, JaGa, Jaw70, JenLouise, John of Reading, Joriki, Julie Nielsen, Kai-Hendrik, Kfade051, Kzzl, LMackinnon, Ling.Nut, Linyent2, Lmatt, Luckyslugnuts, M.Faye,
    Madmedea, Mattisse, Meclee, Millosh, Miranche, MooreBrooking, Mootros, MrOllie, Newbyguesses, Nick Number, Nickg, Ninjasinadojo, Novinha, Omnipaedista, One.tenth, Pablo X, Patrick,
    Paxsimius, Pending deIetion script, Phronetic, Piotrus, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim, Reagle, Reflexinio, Rich Farmbrough, Rickard Vogelberg, Rlitwin, Skakkle, Sop01mh, Squids and Chips,
    Teapeat, That Guy, From That Show!, The Ogre, TheSoundAndTheFury, Tomsega, Versus22, Xtboris, Yakushima, Αναρχία, 71 anonymous edits
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors                                                                                                                                                           81



    Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
    File:Ibn Khaldoun-Kassus.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ibn_Khaldoun-Kassus.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
     Contributors: Kassus
    File:Auguste Comte2.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Auguste_Comte2.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: C.Löser, Kilom691
    File:Karl Marx.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Karl_Marx.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: John Mayall
    File:Spencer-detail.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Spencer-detail.png  License: Public Domain  Contributors: derivative work: Zik2 (talk) Herbert_Spencer.jpg:
    Chico
    File:Emile Durkheim.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emile_Durkheim.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Chico, Dittaeva, Gvf, Mu, P. S. Burton, Piotrus,
    Tets, Thierry Caro, Tony Rotondas, Vindicator, Wouterhagens, 3 anonymous edits
    File:Ferdinand Toennies Bueste Husum-Ausschnitt.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ferdinand_Toennies_Bueste_Husum-Ausschnitt.jpg  License: Creative
    Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5  Contributors: VollwertBIT
    File:Max Weber 1894.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Max_Weber_1894.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: C.Löser, Kelson, Svencb, Thierry Caro, 2
    anonymous edits
    File:Simmel 01.JPG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Simmel_01.JPG  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Piotrus
    File:Anthony Giddens at the Progressive Governance Converence, Budapest, Hungary, 2004 October.jpg  Source:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Anthony_Giddens_at_the_Progressive_Governance_Converence,_Budapest,_Hungary,_2004_October.jpg  License: unknown  Contributors: Szusi
    File:Planche de Galton.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Planche_de_Galton.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0  Contributors: Antoine
    Taveneaux
    File:Sna large.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sna_large.png  License: GNU General Public License  Contributors: Screenshot taken by User:DarwinPeacock
    File:A sociological study of violence in history (Italy 1919-1922).gif  Source:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:A_sociological_study_of_violence_in_history_(Italy_1919-1922).gif  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0  Contributors:
    User:Marcuswikipedian
    File:AdornoHorkheimerHabermasbyJeremyJShapiro2.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AdornoHorkheimerHabermasbyJeremyJShapiro2.png  License: Creative
    Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0  Contributors: Jeremy J. Shapiro. Original uploader was Jjshapiro at en.wikipedia
    File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Hollem, Howard R
    File:JuergenHabermas.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:JuergenHabermas.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0  Contributors: User:ojs
    File:Harrisonwhite.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Harrisonwhite.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Richardfabi
    Image:Buste Auguste Comte.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Buste_Auguste_Comte.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: J'ai créé ce fichier -scupture du
    domaine public
    Image:Templo Positivista em Porto Alegre.JPG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Templo_Positivista_em_Porto_Alegre.JPG  License: Creative Commons
    Attribution-Sharealike 3.0  Contributors: Eugenio Hansen, OFS
    Image:Emile Durkheim.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emile_Durkheim.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Chico, Dittaeva, Gvf, Mu, P. S. Burton, Piotrus,
    Tets, Thierry Caro, Tony Rotondas, Vindicator, Wouterhagens, 3 anonymous edits
    Image:Schlick sitting.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Schlick_sitting.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: FranksValli, Jochenroth, Väsk
    Image:Stephen Hawking.StarChild.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Stephen_Hawking.StarChild.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: NASA
    File:Herbert Spencer.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Herbert_Spencer.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Chico, FSII, Piotrus, Speck-Made, Sven-steffen
    arndt, Thierry Caro, Zolo, 1 anonymous edits
    File:Duck Duck Goose.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Duck_Duck_Goose.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported  Contributors:
    Ragesoss
    File:Organizationalsocializationmodel.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Organizationalsocializationmodel.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0
     Contributors: Brianrangell
License                                                     82



    License
    Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
    //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Sociology, theory of sociology, sociological theory, positivism, antipositivism, structural functionalism, conflict theory, middle range theory of sociology, mathematical sociology, critical theory, socialization, structure and agency.