What Is Sociology / Is Sociology A Science?
For this, I gained 33 marks out of 33. Aww yeah!
The question of whether Sociology is a subject or not is a debate that has been raging between the many different perspectives for years. Depending upon the perspective, the answer is yes, no, or maybe, with some perspectives calling it a ‘Social Science’, and others denying this fact entirely. The problem arises when the question ‘Is Sociology A Science’ is asked in different ways, depending upon the perspective. There are three variations upon the question: ‘Is Sociology A Science?’, ‘Can Sociology Be A Science?’, and ‘Should Sociology Be A Science?’
The Positivists believe that sociology should be, can be, and is a science; with the root meaning of Positivism meaning ‘scientific’ (as coined by Positivism’s founder Auguste Comte). The Positivists believe in objectivism, that society is an object that can be studied from a distance in a scientific manner. They would go so far as to even suggest that it is desirable that we study society in this way. The results gained from the scientific research, argue the Positivists, are highly valid, as the research carried out is stripped of any values held by the researcher. If there are any values in the mind of the researcher, such as how the research is undertaken, what theories it is based on etc., then the research cannot be scientific, and therefore sociology cannot be a science.
The main problem that Positivists face is whether it is possible to ever be completely objective (and therefore scientific) about society. For example, a researcher should undertake non-participant observation, as participant observation allows for changes (or controls) of the situations, meaning that the research is non-objective and therefore not scientific. Positivists believe that we should only study what we can see and what can be measured and observed. As they see society as an object, they can take a theoretical ‘step back’ and witness society in operation, away from their interaction.
However, criticisms of Positivism state that the majority of sociological topics studied do not have law like scientific regularity. In the case of natural sciences, objects studied tend towards a common pattern that can easily be predicted. In sociology, this is not the case, as humans, while having some predictable traits, also have free will, which allows them to make decisions specific to each individual occasion. Also, Positivism, although it claims to be scientific, has not come up with any predictions as to human behavior, something it originally stated it would do.
Emile Durkheim, the father of sociology, claims that sociology can be a science, and that a sociologist should work in the same methodical way as a natural scientist. However, the criticism of his view is that when he began to study, he used a realist view of society, which examined the meanings of religious and family membership, which is different from the approach Positivism uses.
But, there are criticisms from within Positivism as well. Karl Popper, still a positivist, claims that sociology is not a science. This is because he claims that, as Positivists use structural explanations of sociology, such as Functionalism and Marxism, if these cannot be completely verified in terms of being a science, then Positivism is flawed, and therefore sociology cannot be a science. However, the main thinkers of Positivism believe therefore, that sociology should be, can be, and is a science. This is because their views are based on both Functionalism (all three) and Marxism (only can be and should be).
The Realists theories state that yes, sociology is a science. This is because they see sociology as being very similar to the other natural sciences, an idea put forward by Realist thinkers such as Russell Keat, Andrew Sayer, and John Urry. They state that sociology has the ability to study both open and closed systems within society. They state that this is the same in the natural sciences. While some experiments can be conducted in a laboratory (a closed system where al variables can be controlled, similar to that of laboratory experiments in sociology), the majority of sociological research is carried out in the field, using things such as covert and overt observations. In the field in sociology, as with the natural sciences, not all of the experiments that are carried out can be completely controlled; there will almost always be variables (similar to the idea of free will). In this respect, some Realist sociologists draw similarities to the idea of the ‘Butterfly Effect’, whereby one minute change can have large effects in a seemingly unrelated area.
Realist sociologists are also concerned with the idea of invisible phenomena, such as underlying structures within society. In this respect, they are rejecting the Positivist view, which only concerns itself with the structures that can be measured and observed. Urry connects this idea to that of the physicist, who cannot directly observe the working of the interior of a black hole, but knows that the processes are occurring. In sociology, while we cannot directly observe ‘social class’, Realists know of its existence, as we can see its workings upon society. However, the Realists do also acknowledge that they have to accept the limitations of the subject, similar to that of a natural science.
There are a few criticisms of the Realist approach. The main one is that the theories that they propose cannot be tested in the sense of Positivism, as they are all underlying and invisible structures, incapable of complete scientific measurement by sociologists. The second, large criticism of the Realist approach is that it wants the best of both worlds. It wishes for sociology to be both scientific, but also to have access to the meanings of how systems work. Even with these criticisms, the Realists believe that sociology is a science, and should be a science, as long as it tries to be similar to that of a natural science in terms of methodology.
The Marxists hold a similar view to the Positivist ideas of sociology as being a science (as Positivism is partially a part/based upon Marxism). Marx himself claimed that the existence and growth of capitalism is in itself scientifically measureable to a degree. However, he claims that it cannot be classed as a science, as the capitalist ideology prevents it from doing so. All sciences are based upon ideology by the ruling class, and if sociology is a science, then it is just the same and therefore cannot see society for what it really is. Because of this, the Marxists believe that sociology can be, and should be, a science, but at the moment it is not.
Criticisms of the Marxist view state that the foundations of Marxism are incorrect. Because the approach is based upon ideology which, unless a perfect communist society is created (which is highly unlikely to happen, as people are always inclined to want more – it is in human nature), the approach will not class sociology as a science. Also the epistemological argument that Marxists know the truth is completely unsustainable in the long run.
The Feminists are similar to the Marxist argument, believing that sociology can be a science; it is just the ideological patriarchal control and suppression of women that is preventing this from happening. They argue that all science holds with it some form of patriarchy, from male logical rationale during experiments, to scientists testing women to see if they are indeed sociologically inferior, a view taken mainly from the point of the Radical Feminists.
The Liberal Feminists take a calmer, possibly even critical stand on this view, believing that sociology can be a science, it is just that steps need to be taken to ensure that sexist attitudes are avoided at all times. Also, as with the Marxist view, the approach is based upon ideology, meaning that in the long run, the perspective is seemingly unsustainable.
Similarly to Popper, Thomas Kuhn, a historian, believes that sociology is not a science, and takes a radically different view from that of sociologists. His central idea is that of the paradigm. A paradigm is shared between members of a scientific community, and helps to define what that science is (such as physics or chemistry). It allows for a basic framework of methods, principles, and techniques that the scientific community uses to build upon and to base assumptions and hypothesis on. In Kuhn’s view, a subject cannot be a science until there is a shared paradigm. Sociology cannot be a science, as there are too many perspectives to have a general consensus. When there is a general consensus upon the subject, only then will sociology be classed as a science.
However, the critics of Kuhn state that he vastly overestimates the amount of consensus there is in the natural sciences. He also fails to realise that the scientific community is highly competitive, and therefore there is no general consensus or paradigm on many of the topics within the sciences. Also, the main sciences are all multi-paradigmatic, meaning that there are many different theories all working at the same time, and all with slightly different techniques to reach the same theoretical outcome.
Finally, the Interpretivist sociologists state that sociology is not a science, can never be a science, and should never try to be a science. They believe that the pure subject matter of sociology is radically different from that of any natural science. It cannot, therefore, be studied using controlled observation, as there are just too many variables to be observed for anyone to try and record. This mainly comes down to, again, that individuals have free will, and are not passive. Their consciousness dictates that minute differences in their surroundings (such as having a researcher near to them, or the knowledge that they are being observed) lead to very different results in their actions. To gain a true understanding of a social situation, the motivation and meaning behind each action that each individual conducts must be discovered, as only then will a true picture be gained. In this regard, only qualitative methodology should be used, as quantitative methodology does not give a full and true account of any social situation.
However, there are many criticisms of the Interpretivist perspective. The first comes from the Interactionists, who state that their research methods can be as systematic and as representative as the Interpretivist’s state. They say that if there are proper schedules for such things such as participant observation, then the results can be representative, valid, and even scientific. By doing this, the researchers can remain as objective and scientific as those using the Positivistic methodology.
To say that sociology is a science is seemingly a large statement to make. Depending upon the perspective, the answer can be both yes, no and maybe (but only if…). Taking an objective view on the subject (a Positivist viewpoint), I would say that, yes, sociology is a science.
