Sociology || Introduction to sociology

What is Religion ?

2020-09-10T22:08:00.001+05:30

What is religion?

For most people, this is a simple question which hardly merits deep thought. Religions are commonly defined by a belief in God or gods and perhaps an after- life, but they also involve worship in religious buildings such as chapels, synagogues or mosques and doing 'religious things' such as praying and eating or not eating certain food- stuffs. However, for sociologists of religion trying to set limits to their field of study, reach- ing general agrcement on such a basic matter has proved extraordinarily difficult. Indeed, Aldridge (2007: 30) argues that 'Religion is a contested concept. We cannot expect to agree on a definition and then debate matters of substance, since matters of substance are built into any definition. There is not, and never will be, a universally agreed definition of religion. But why not?

One reason is that sociology contains a plurality of general theoretical perspectives, and these differ in how they construe the nature of social reality. As a consequence, they also disagree about how that reality can and should be studied. For example, many macro-level studies adopt a realist view which sees religion as a fundamental social institution that transmits values, a oral code and norms of behaviour across generationis. Hence "religion' exists objectively and has real effecis on individuals. Alternatively, several other micro-level studies are rooted in a more social constructionist position, which focuses on the ways in which what constitutes 'religion' is continually reproduced and changed in everyday interaction processes.

In general terms, competing sociological definitions of religion can be divided into three types: inclusive definitions, exclusive definitions and definitions in use. Inclusive definitions tend to be functionalist in orientation, viewing religion as central to human life as such and, in some ways, functionally neces- sary for society. An example is the following: 'religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life'. Others refer to religion as all those beliefs about the forces that shape human destiny. On this view, religion provides people with answers to enduring questions of existence, offers hope, and halp to behind people together in solidarity.

The main problem with inclusive defini- tions is they tend to include too much. That is, they imply that everyone is implicitly religious, whether or not they acknowledge it. As all humans face the same 'ultimate problems' of dying, death and the search for meaning, then they should all 'be' religious in some way. Even apparently secular political ideologies and regimes such as communism or leisure pursuits such as supporting football have been interpreted as forms of 'religion', because they represent systems of belief and practice that help people to find meaning in the world. However, critics suggest this stretches the definition of religion to everyone and every- thing thereby removing kev questions such as whether religion is growing or secularization is advancing (Aldridge 2007).

Large crowds of football supporters-such as these Liverpool fans-exhibit some of the characteristics attributed to religions. Indeed. one of Liverpool FC's slogans is 'Support and Believe. But is this really an example of religion? How does football supporting differ from mainstream religions?

By contrast, exclusive definitions reject the functionalism of inclusive ones, instead looking to define religions by reference to the substance of their varied beliefs. In particular, exclusive definitions are rooted in the idea that all religions make a distinction between a worldly empirical reality and a 'super- empirical' or transcendent reality (Robertson 1970). Adopting this distinction means that many groups and institutions - such as football supporters or secular political ideologies - are effectively excluded on the grounds that they make no reference to a transcendent reality.

This has the benefit of limiting what counts as religion, allowing sociologists to address the extent of secularization through empirical research. However, the attempt to produce a single definition to encompass all known religions relies on a very broad concept of the "super-empirical', which is less applicable to new religious movements as well as to some Eastern religions. The distinction between empirical and super-empirical realities reflects its origins in Western social science.

The third type of definition is one described as a 'definition in use' and is similar to what today we call social constructionism. For many sociologists a social constructionist approach to the study of religion offers a better starting point than the previous two types. Rather than assuming that there is a real phenomenon called religion and then exploring the varied ways in which it is manifest in society, constructionism sees it as more productive to investigate all of those situations in which people themselves make reference to 'religion' or 'religious mean- ing' and engage in self-defined 'religious' practices. This means that sociologists do not need to wrestle with the problem of devising their own universal definition; it is enough to investigate how religion has been and is used by a whole range of individuals, groups and organizations and how those uses have been challenged. Constructionist studies look at how the meaning of religion has changed over time, how people use the concept for their own purposes and whether that use is increasing or diminishing.

However, one problem associated with all 'definitions in use' is that they do not set out a clear boundary between religious and non-religious phenomena, accepting that all of those things considered 'religious' by people themselves are legitimate subjects for research. Yet, for social constructionists, this lack of definitional clarity is not debilitating for empirical sociological research. On the contrary, Beckford (2008: 21) argues that

uncertainty about what religion really is does not pose a problem to social scientists: it merely challenges them to understand how so many human beings still manage to navigate life without achieving certainty about religion or religious issues.... Social scientists therefore search for clear and robust reasons for the strong religious convictions that they observe in some cases. Neither religious confusion nor religious certainty can be regarded as natural or given in the nature of things.

Over time, both inclusive and exclusive definitions have lost ground to more social constructionist approaches to the study of religion. As you read through the different theories outlined in the section that follows, consider which of the three types of definition are being used. You should also think about what the different perspectives have contributed to our overall understanding of religion and religions.

Sociologists and religion

When sociologists study religion, they do so as professional sociologists, not as believers or unbelievers. This means that, as sociologists, they are not concerned with whether specific religious beliefs are true or false. For exam- ple, they may ask how a religion is organ- ized, what its principal beliefs and values are, how religious organizations are related to the larger society, and what explains their successes and failures in recruiting and retaining adherents. The issue of whether a particular belief is 'good' or 'true', however important that may be to those involved, is not something sociologists can address. Of course, as private individuals, they may well have strong views, but as sociologists they try to prevent these from influencing their research and its findings.

In practice, sociologists have been espe- cially concerned with religious organizations, which are some of the most important in society. Within Christianity and Judaism, religious practice often occurs in formal organizations - churches and synagogues though this is not necessarily true of Asian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, where religious practices are likely to occur in the home or other informal settings. In the developed societies today, many reli- gions have become established through bureaucratic organization. We will also see later that some sociologists view religions as essentially similar to business organiza- tions, competing for members and resources (Warner 1993).

Sociologists have often seen religions as important sources of social solidarity. Reli- gious beliefs, rituals and collective worship help to create a 'moral community' in which all the members know how to behave towards one another. However, religion has also been a factor in destructive social conflicts, such as struggles between Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims in India, clashes between Muslims and Chris- tians in Bosnia, and 'hate crimes' against Jews, Muslims and other religious minorities in the United States and Europe. The question of whether religion per se produces harmony or conflict is, for contemporary sociologists, a historical and empirical one, and the classical founders were the first to tackle such questions in a sociological manner.

Collected from Anthony Giddens.

** Durkheim's study of suicide rates

2020-08-03T09:25:00.000+05:30

Durkheim's study of suicide rates

The research problem

One of the most unsettling aspects of our lives is the phenomenon of suicide, which often leaves those left behind with more questions than answers. Why do some people decide to take their own lives? Where do the pressures they experience actually come from? One of the early sociological classics which explores the relationship between the individual and society is Emile Durkheim's analysis of suicide rates, Suicide: A Study in Sociology ((Durkheim 1952 [1897]). Even though people see themselves as individuals exercising free will and choice, their behaviours are often socially patterned and shaped and Durkheim's study showed that even a highly personal act like suicide is influenced by what happens in the social world.

Research had been conducted on suicide prior to Durkheim's study, but he was the first to insist on a sociological explanation. Previous writers had acknowledged the influence of some social factors on suicide, but generally resorted to race, climate or mental disorder to explain an individual's likelihood of committing suicide. According to Durkheim, though, suicide was a social fact that could only be explained by other social facts. The suicide rate was more than simply the aggregate of individual suicides - it was a phenomenon with pattemed properties. Suicide rates, for example, vary widely across the world's societies.

In examining official suicide statistics in France, Durkheim found that certain categories of people were more likely to commit suicide than others. He discovered, for example, that there were more suicides amongst men than amongst women, more Protestants than Catholics, more wealthy than poor, and more single people than married people. Durkheim also noted that suicide rates tended to be lower during times of war and higher during times of economic change or instability. Why should this be so?

Durkheim's explanation

These findings led Durkheim to conclude that there are social forces external to the individual which affect suicide rates. He related his explanation to the idea of social solidarity and to two types of bonds within society-social integration and social regulation. Durkheim argued that people who were strongly integrated into social groups, and whose desires and aspirations were regulated by social norms, were less likely to commit suicide. He identified four types of suicide, in accordance with the relative presence or absence of integration and regulation.

1. Egoistic suicides are marked by low integration in society and occur when an individual is isolated, or when his or her ties to a group are weakened or broken. For example, the low rates of suicide amongst Catholics could be explained by their strong social community, while the personal and moral freedom of Protestants mean that they stand alone' before God. Marriage protects against suicide by integrating the individual into a stable social relationship, while single people remain more isolated within society. The lower suicide rate during wartime, according to Durkheim, can be seen as a sign of heightened social integration in the face cf an extermal enemy.

2. Anomic suicide is caused by a lack of social regulation. By this, Durkheim was referring to the social conditions of anomie when people are rendered 'normless' as a result of rapid change or instability in society. The loss of a fixed point of reference for norms and desires such as in times of economic upheaval or in personal struggles like divorce - can upset the balance between people's circumstances and their desires.

3. Altruistic suicide occurs when an individual is. over-integrated'-social bonds are too strong and values society more than him- or herself. In such a case, suicide becomes a sacrifice for the 'greater good'. Japanese kamikaze pilots or Islamic 'suicide bombers' are examples of altruistic suicides. Durkheim saw these as characteristic of traditional Societies where mechanical solidarity prevails.

4. The final type of suicide is fatalistic suicide. Although Durkheim saw this as of little contem- porary relevance, he believed that it results when an individual is over regulated by society. The oppression of the individual results in a feeling of powerlessness before fate or society.

Suicide rates vary between societies but show regular patterms within societies over time. Durkheim took this as evidence that there are consistent social forces that influence suicide rates. An examination of suicide rates reveals how general social patterns can be detected within individual actions.

Critical points

Since the publication of Suicide, many objections have been raised to Durkheim's study, particularly in relation to his uncritical use of official statistics, his dismissal of non- Social influences on suicide and his insistence in classifying all types of suicide together. Some critics have also shown that it is vitally important to understand the social process involved in collecting data on suicides, as coroners' definitions and criteria influence the number of deaths actually recorded as suicides'. Because of this, suicide statistics may be highly variable across societies, not necessarily hecause of differences in suicidal behaviour but because of different practices used by coroners in recording unexplained deaths.

Contemporary significance

Nonetheless, despite such legitimate criticisms, Durkheim's study remains a classic. It helped to establish sociology as a discipline with its own subject - the study of social facts - and his fundamental argument in his book on suicide retains its force: that to grasp fully even the apparently most personal act of suicide demands a sociological explanation rather than simply one rooted in the exploration of personal motivation.

Theoretical traditions in sociology

2020-07-29T16:11:00.000+05:30

Theoretical traditions in sociology

As we have seen, the classical founders of sociology Durkheim, Marx and Weber adopted different approaches to their studies. Durkheim emphasized the coercive strength of social forces in generating shared values and consensus. Marx also saw social structures as highly significant, but argued that conflict and inequality were endemic in all societies. On the other hand, Max Weber focused attention on the meaningful character of social life and the social actions of individuals. These basic differ- ences have persisted throughout the history of sociology, developing into three broad socio- logical traditions of enquiry: functionalism (Durkheim), conflict theory (Marx) and social action or 'interactionist' approaches (Weber).

Some of the major trades and economic transactions today take place on the stock market in highly rationalized format, with little or none of the personal interaction which would have been common in bartering and markets before the advent of modernity.

The three traditions are introduced briefly below, but you will encounter arguments and ideas that dratw upon them throughout the book. After a while you should be able to iden- tify which tradition any particular research study you come across is closest to.

Functionalism

Functionalism holds that society is a complex system whose various parts work together to produce stability and that sociology should investigate their relationships. For example, we can analyse the religious beliefs and customs of a society by showing how they relate to other institutions because the different parts of a society always develop in close relation to one another. Functionalists, including Comte and Durkheim, have often used an organic analogy, comparing the operation of society to a living organism. They argue that the parts of society work together, just as the various parts of the human body do, for the benefit of society as a whole. To study a bodily organ such as the heart, we need to show how it relates to other parts of the body. By pumping blood around the body, the heart plays a vital role in the continuation of the life of the organism. Similarly, analysing the function of a social institution such as the education system means showing the part it plays in the smooth running of a society.

Functionalism emphasizes the importance of moral consensus in maintaining order and stability. Moral consensus exists when most people in a society share the same values. Functionalists regard order and balance as the normal state of society, and this social equilibrium is grounded in the moral consensus among society's members. For instance, Durkheim argued that religious beliefs reaffirm people's adherence to core social values, thereby contributing to the maintenance of social cohesion.

Until the 1960s, functionalism was probably the leading theoretical tradition in sociology, particularly in the United States. Talcott Parsons (1902-79) and Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) were two of its most prominent exponents. Merton's version of functionalism has been particularly influential. He distinguished between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are those known to, and intended by, the participants in a specific type of social activity. Latent functions are consequences of that activity of which the participants are unaware. For înstance, Merton used the rain dance performed by the Hopi tribe of Arizona and New Mexico. The Hopi believe that this ceremony will bring the rain they need for their crops (manifest function). But the rain dance, Merton argued, also of promoting cohesion of Hopi society (latent function). A major part of sociological explanations, according to Merton, consists in uncovering such latent functions of social activities and institutions.

Sport is part of the school curriculum ostensibly io encourage healthy living. However, a functionalist approach woulc also see it as an important socialization process to toach chidren both competitiveness and how to work as a team

Merton also distinguished between functions and dysfunctions. To look for the dysfunctional aspects of social behaviour means focusing on features of social life that challenge the existing order of things. For example, it is mistaken to suppose that religion is always functional- that it only contributes to social cohesion, When religious groups disagree with one another the result can be major social conflicts, causing widespread social disruption, Thus, wars have often been fought between religious communities - as can be seen in the struggles berween Protestants and Catholics in European history.

Since the 1980s the popularity of functionalism has waned as its limitations have become apparent. Though it is not true of Merton, many functionalist thinkers focused on stability and social order, minimizing social divisions and inequalities based on factors such as class, race and gender. Functionalism also placed too little emphasis on the role of creative social action within society. Many critics argued that functional analysis attributes to societies social qualities that they do not have. Functionalists often wrote as though whole societies have 'needs' and 'purposes', even though these concepts «make sense only when applied to individual human beings.

Conflict theories

Like functionalists, sociologists using conflict theories emphasize the importance of social structures. They also advance a comprehensive 'model to explain how society works. However, conflict theorists reject functionalism's emphasis on consensus. Instead, they highlight the importance of divisions in society and, in doing so, concentrate on issues of power, inequality and competitive struggle. They tend to see society as composed of distinct groups, each pursuing its own interests, which means the potential for conflict is always present, Conflict theorists examine the tensions between dominant and disadvantaged groups, looking to undlerstand how relationships of control are established and maintained.

Both Marx and later Manist approaches have been highly influential in conflict theory, though it is important to note that by no means all conflict theories are Marxist. Ferminism, for example, is a form of conflict theory which concentrates on gender inequality - the unequal situation between men and women that exists in imost societies. For some feminist theorists, gender inequality is as or more significant than class-based inequality and has a longer history. Male domination of society continues even today, though women's political activism has made an impact in many areas of life, bringing about some measure of more equal treatment (Abbott et al 2005).

As a conflict perspective in sociology, feminism draws attention to issues that sociologists previously ignored. In particular, feminist research and theorizing looks at the micro level as well as the macro world of large social structures. For example, feminists have studied unequal gender relations in domestic situations and other 'private' spheres of life (such as sexual relations) - a controversial move in the 1960s and 1970s (Rahman and Jackson 2010). Feminists have also carried Dut research into the use of gender stereotypes and language in interactions, pointing out and challenging many taken-for-granted 'malestream' assumptions (favouring men over women) built into the structure of how we describe and think about the world. We can see this in numerous everyday words and expressions, such as chairman, mankind (to discuss humanity as such) and man-made. This is a simple illustration of the myriad ways which woinen's subordinate position in society is reflected in the unacknowledged male domination of language.

Of course, feminists do not ignore the macro level either. Many feminist studies have shown that gender inequality is embedded within modern social structures such as legal systems, education and schooling, government and politics, and many more. Similarly, in order to demonstrate the extent and scope of gender inequality, feminist work has made use of official statistics and examined patterns of change over long time periods. Feminist theorizing has continually developed into new areas and types of theory, and these are covered in more detail later in the book.

The conflict tradition in sociology has benefited from feminist research and theorizing. In particular, combining macro- and micro-level studies has shown that evidence of structured incquality can be found in the private sphere of social life every bit as much as in large structires. The 1970s slogan 'the personal is palitical' adequately summarizes why sociology cannot ignore the personal aspects of our everyday lives (Jackson and Jones 1998).

Symbolic interactionism

Weber's social action approach inspired many 'interactionist' forms of sociology. One of the most influential has been symbolic interactionism, which also owes much to the Armerican social philosopher George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). Symbolic interactionism springs from a concern with language and meaning. Mead argues that language allows 11s to become self-conscious beings - aware of ourown individuality and able to see ourselves "as others see us'. The key element in this process is the symbol. A symbol is something that stands for something else. For example, words that refer to objects are symbols which represent what we mean. The word 'spoon' is a symbol we use to describe the utensil that we use to consume soup. Non verbal gestures and forms of communication are also symbols. Waving at someone or making a rude gesture have symbolic value.

Symbolic interactionism directs our attention to the details of interpersonal interaction and how that detall is used to taake sense of what others say and do. Sociologists influenced by symbolic interactionism often focus on face to-face interactionns in the context of everyday life. They stress the role interactions play in creating society and its institutions. Max Weber was an important indirect influence on this theoretical approach because, although he acknowledged the existence of social structures, he held that these were created through the actions of individuals.

While the symbolic interactionist perspective has yielded many insights into the nature of our actions in the course of day to day social life, it has been criticized for ignoring the larger issues of power and social structures and how they serve to constrain individual action. However, one very good example of interactionism that does take into account such issues is Arlie Hochschild's (1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Hochschild observed training sessions and carried out interviews at Delta Airlines' Stewardess Training Centre in Atlanta, USA. She watched flight attendants being trained to manage their feelings as well as leaming other skills. Hochschild recalled the comments of one instructor, a pilot: 'Now girls, I want you to go out there and really smile', he instructed. "Your smile is your biggest asset. I want you to go out there and use it. Smile. Really smile. Really lay it on.'

Hochschild's research found that, as Western economies have become increasingly based on the delivery of services, the emotional style of the work we do needs to be understood. Her study of 'customer service' training mighs be familiar to anyone who has worked in fast food restaurants, shops or hars. Hochschild calls this training a form of 'emotional labour - labour that requires the management o feelings in order to create a publicly observ able and acceptable facial and bodily display According to Hochschild, companies providing services increasingly lay claim not onl- to workers' physical activity but also to thei emotions.

This research considered an aspect of life- that most people took for granted and showe that sociology couid deepen our understanding of it. She found that service workers - like physical labourers - often feel a sense of distance or alienation from the particular aspect of themselves that is given up in work. The physical labourer's arm, for example, might come to feel like a piece of machinery and only incidentally a part of the person moving it. Likewise, service workers often told Hochschild that their smiles were on them but often feel a sense of not of them. In other words, they felt distanced from their own emotions. Hochschild's book is an influential application of symbolic interactionism, and many other scholars have built on her ideas to expand the interactionist tradition.

Traditions and theories

Functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism are theoretical traditions broad, overall orientations to the subject matter of sociology. However, we can make a distinction between these broad traditions and particular theories which develop from them. Theories are more narrowly focused and are attempts to explain particular social conditions, events or social changes. For example, feminism is part of the conflict tradition, as feminists see a basic conflict in society between the interests of men and women. But feminist sociologists have also devised numerous narrower theories to explain specific aspects of gender relations (patterned relationships between men and women), such as why more married women are entering paid work, why women are still seen as responsible for childcare, or why young men now do less well in education than young women. Many theories of this kind have been developed in the different areas of life that sociologists study.

The fact that sociology is not dominated by a single theoretical tradition might seem to be a sign of weakness, but this is not the case. The jostling of rival traditions and theories is an expression of the vitality of the sociological enterprise. In studying human beings - ourselves - theoretical diversity rescues us from dogma and stagnation. Human behaviour is many-sided, and it is unlikely that single theoretical perspective could cover all of its aspects. Diversity in theoreicai thinking provides a rich source of ideas which stimulate the creative capacities that are so essential to progress in social scientific work.

Founders of sociology

2020-07-26T15:42:00.000+05:30

Founders of sociology

Human beings have long been curious about the sources of their own behaviour, but for thousands of years attempts to understand people relied on ways of thinking passed down from generation to generation. Before the rise of modern sciences, 'folkways' - traditional knowledge and practice passed down though generation - held sway in most communities, and these persisted well into the twentieth century. One example people's understanding of their health or illness. Older people, with a good knowledge of a community's folkways, provided advice on how to prevent illness and cure disease. Reflecting on his american childhood in lawrence county, Kentucky, cratis Williams gives us a flavour of the Appalachian culture of the time (williams 2003: 397-8)

A plaque of lead suspended on a string around a child's neck warded off colds and kept witches away while the child was sleeping. Children plagued by nightmares could wear these lead charms to assure themselves of sweet sleep and pleasant dreams, for nightmares were caused by witches and evil creatures that could not operate in the presence of lead. Adults given to snoring and nightmares sought relief by smelling a dirty sock as they went to sleep.

In today's modern societies, very few people advocate such measures or hold similar beliefs. Instead, a more scientific approach to health and illness means that children are vaccinated against previously common disease and taught that nightmares are normal and generally harmless. Pharmacies do not routinely sell smelly socks to cure snoring either! The origins of systematic studies of social life lie in series of sweeping changes ushered in by the French Revolution of 1789 and the mid-eighteenth-century industrial revolution in Europe. These events shattered older traditional ways of life , and the founders of sociology looked to understand how such radical changes had come about . But , in doing so, they also developed more systematic, scientific ways of looking at the social and natural words , which challenged conventional religious beliefs.

Auguste Comte

No single individual can found a whole field of study, and there were many contributors to early sociological thinking. However, particular prominence is usually given to Auguste Comte (1798-1857), who invented the world 'sociology' around 1840. Comte had originally used to term 'social physics' to describe the nee Field, but some of his intellectual rivals at the time were also using that. To distinguish his own approach from theirs he coined the term 'sociology'.

Comte's thinking reflected the turbulent events of his age. Comte looked to create a science of society that could discover the 'laws' of the social world, just as natural science had discovered laws of the natural world. Although he recognized that each scientific discipline has its own subject matter, he thought that a similar logic and scientific method could be applied to them all. Finding laws that govern human societies could help us to shape our destiny and improve the welfare of all humanity.

Comte wanted sociology to become a 'positive science' that would use the same rigorous methods as astronomers, physicists and chemists do. Positivism is a doctrine which says that science should be concerned only with observable entities that are known directly to experience. On the basis of careful observation, laws can be inferred that explain the relationship between observed phenomena. By under - standings the casual relationship between events, scientists can then predict how future events will occur. A positivist approach in sociology aims to produce knowledge about society based on evidence drawn from observation, comparison and experimentation.

Comte argued that efforts to understand the world have passed through three stages: the sociological, metaphysical and positive stages. In the theological stage, thinking was guided by religious ideas and the belief that society was an expression of God's will. In the metaphysical stage, society came to be seen in natural, not supernatural, terms. The positive stage, ushered in by the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, encouraged the application of scientific methods to study society. Comte regarded sociology as the last science to develop, but it was also the most significant and complex.

In the latter part of his career, Comte was keenly aware of the state of the society in which he lived and was concerned with the inequalities produced by industrialization and the threat they posed tp social cohesion. The long-term solution, in this view, was the production of the moral consensus through a new 'religion of humanity' to hold society together despite the new patterns of inequality. Although comte's vision was never realized, his contribution in founding a science of society was important to the later professionalization of sociology as an academic discipline.

Emile Durkheim

The ideas of another french sociologist, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), had a more lasting impact on sociology than those of Comte. Durkheim saw sociology as a new science that turned traditional philosophical questions into sociological ones which demanded real-world research studies. He argued that we must study social life with the same objectivity as scientists study the natural world. Which he summed up in his famous injunction to 'study social facts as things!' by this, he meant that social institutions have a brand, objective reality that enables them to be analysed as rigorously as object in the natural world.

But what is a social fact ? Durkheim explains that social fact are all those institutions and rules of action which constrain or channel human behaviour. For the individual, social facts can feel rather like an external pressure, though most of the time they are simply taken for granted as natural or normal parts of life. For instance , they monetary system is a social fact we rarely think about. We are paid in money, we borrow money from banks to buy a car or a house, and if we have not been good at managing money we will be considered a high risk and may not be allowed to borrow. But the monetary system was already in place before we were born and, as we are forced to use it if we want to take part in our society, we are subject to its rules. In that sense, the system constraints or shapes our actions. This is typical of all social facts; they exist independently of the individual and shape their actions.

In Durkheim's analysis of suicide rates, he used the concept to social facts to explain why some countries have higher suicide rates than others. Suicide seems to be a purely individual act, the outcome of extreme unhappiness or perhaps deep depression. Yet Durkheim showed that social facts such as religion, marriage and divorce, and social class all exert an influence on suicide rates. And, as there are regular patterns across different countries, these patterns must be explained in a sociological not a phycological way.

Durkheim was preoccupied with the changes transforming society in his own lifetime and was particularly interested in social and moral solidarity - what it is that binds society together. Solidarity is maintained when individuals are integrated into social groups and regulated by a set of shared values and customer. In the division of labour in society, Durkheim (1984 - [1893]) argued that the advent of the industrial age also led to a new type of solidarity.

According to Durkheim, older cultures with a low division of labour (specialized roles such as work occupations) are characterized by mechanical solidarity. Most people are involved in similar occupation and are bound together by common experiences and shared beliefs. But the development of modern industry and the enlargement of cities produced a growing division of labour which broke down the mechanical from of solidarity. With the increasing specialization of tasks and roles, a new type of organic solidarity was created. As the division of labour expands, people become increasingly dependent upon one another, because each person needs goods and services that those in other occupations supply. Like the human 'organic' body, each part of organ depends on all the others if the whole society or body is to function properly.

Nonetheless, Durkheim thought that social change in the modern world was so rapid and intense that major difficulties arose. As societies change, so do lifestyle, morals, beliefs and accepted behaviour patterns. But, when change is rapid and continuous, the old values lose their grip on people without any new ones becoming established. Durkheim called such as unsettling condition anomie - deep feelings of aimlessness, dread and despair. As many people are left perceiving that their lives lack meaning structure. ** (Durkheim's study of suicide rates) 👈(If you want to know more about suicide rates, then click here)

Karl Marx

The ideas of karl marx (1818 - 83) contrast sharply with those of Comte and Durkheim, though he too sought to explain the changes associated with the industrial revolution. When he was a young man, Marx's political activities brought him into conflict with the German authorities; after a brief stay in France he settled permanently in exile in British, where he saw the growth of factories and industrial production as well as the resulting inequalities. His interest in the European labour movement and socialist ideas were reflected in his writings, and much of his work concentrated on political and economie issues. Yet, since he connected economie problem to social institutions, his work was rich in sociological insights.

Capitalism continues to provoke extremely passionate feeling in the twenty-first century, such as in the recent Occupy movements protesting against a perceived 'greedy' from of capitalism. Anti-capitalists have often drawn on marx's ideas.

Although he wrote about broad sweep of human history, Marx's primary focus was on the development of capitalism: a system of production that contrasts radically with all previous economie system. Marx's identified two main elements within capitalist enterprises. The first is capital - that is, any asset, including money, machines or even factories, that can be used or invested to make future assets. The accumulation of capital goes hand in hand with the second element, wage - labour. Wage - labour refers to the pool of workers who do not own any means of production themselves, but must find employment provided by the owners of capital.

Marx's argued that those who own capital - capitalists - from a ruling class, while the mass of the population make up a class of waged workers - the working class. As industrialization spread, large numbers of peasants who used to support themselves by working the land moved to the expanding cities and helped to from an urban industrial working class, which Marx also called the proletariat. According marx, capitalism is a class system in which relations between the two main classes are characterized by conflict. Although owners of capital and workers are dependent on each other - capitalists need labour, workers need wages - this dependency is unbalanced. Workers have little or no control over their labour, and employers are able to generate profit by appropriating the products of the worker' labour.

Marx saw conflicts between classes as the motivation for historical development; they are the 'motor of history'. As marx and engels(2008 [1848]) wrote at the beginning of the communist manifesto, 'the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.' According to marx, there have been a series of historical stages, beginning with 'primitive communist' societies of hunters and gatherers and passing through ancient slave - owning systems and feudal systems with landowners and present farmers. The emergence of a new commercial or capitalist class displaced the landed nobility, and just as capitalists had overthrown the feudal order, so too would the capitalists be overthrown by the proletariat.

Marx theorized that a workers revolution would bring about a new society in which there would be no large-scale division between owners and workers. He called this stage communism. He mean that all inequalities would just disappear, but society would no longer be split into a small class that monopolizes economie and political power and a mass of people who benefit little from their labour. The economie system would be under communal ownership, and a more humane, egalitarian society would emerge.

Marx's ideas had a far - reaching effect on the twentieth century. Until only a generation ago, more than a third of the Earths population lived in societies whose governments derived inspiration from Marx's ideas. However, since the revolutionary wave that began in Poland in 1989 and swept aside communist regimes across Eastern Europe, ending with the collapse of Communism in the soviet Union itself in 1991, Marx's ideas have lost ground. Even in China, where a Communist party still holds political power, capitalist economic development has taken a firm hold. The working class revolution Marx foresaw looks further away today than it did in Marx's time.

Max Weber

Like Marx, Max Weber was not just a sociologist; his interested ranged across many areas. He was born in Germany, where he spent most of his academic career, and his work covered economics, law, philosophy and comparative history as well as sociology. He was also concerned with the development of capitalism and he ways in which modern societies differed from earlier types. In a series of studies, Weber set out some of the basic characteristics of modern industrial societies and identified key issues that remain central in sociology today.

Weber saw class conflict A's less significant than didi marx. In Weber's view , economie factors are important, but ideas and values can also help to bring about social change. His celebrated and much discussed work the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism (1992 [1904-5]) proposes that religious values - especially those associated with Puritanism - were of fundamental importance in creating a capitalistic outlook. unlike the other early sociologists, Weber argued that sociologist should study social action - the subjectively meaningful actions of people that are oriented towards other people. It is the job of sociology to understand the meanings behind all of those individual actions.

An important element in Weber's sociological perspective is the ideal type. Ideal types are models that can be used to alert us to some social phenomenon and help us to make sense of it. These hypothetical construction can be very useful in pointing research towards a subject. For example, we could construct a simple ideal - type 'terrorist group', based in the most striking aspects that have been noted in the IRA in northern Ireland, ETA in Spain, the Red Brigades in Italy and the global networks of al - Qaeda. We might note that all these groups oparate outside mainstream politics; they use extreme violence against the state and they target civilians to demonstrate their power. We can then use this ideal type to analyse other real - world instances of political violence.

Of course, in reality there are many differences between our four groups. The Red Brigades were communist, the TRA was a Irish nationalist group, ETA is Basque separatist Organization and al - Qaeda is a global Islamist network. But using out ideal type, we can accommodate these differences while also seeing that they share enough to be described as 'terrorist groups'. It is important to note that , by 'ideal' type , Weber did not mean that the conception was perfect or desirable. Ideal types are 'pure' or 'one - sided' forms of real phenomena. But constructing an ideal type of terrorism (or anything else ) from certain aspects of many observed cases is more effective than using one real terrorist group as a template for others.

Weber saw the emergence of modern society as accompanied by important shifts in patterns of social action. People were moving away from traditional beliefs grounded in superstition, religion, custom and long - standing habit. Instead, they engaged increasingly in rational, instrumental calculations that took into account efficiency and the future consequences of their actions. In industrial society, there was little room for sentiment or doing things just because they had always been done that way. The emergence of science, modern technology and bureaucracies was described by Weber as rationalization - the organization of social life according to principles of efficiency and on the basis of technical knowledge. If religion and long - standing customs previously guided people's attitudes and values, modern society was marked by the rationalization of politics, religion, economie activity band even music.

Weber had major concerns about the outcome of rationalization. He feared that the spread of bureaucracy would imprison individuals in a 'steel-hard cage' from which there would be little chance of escape. Bureaucratic domination, although based on rational principles, could crush the human spirit by over-regulating all aspects of life. For Weber, the seemingly progressive agenda of the eighteenth-century age of enlightenment, of scientific progress, increasing wealth and happiness produced by rejecting traditional customs and superstitions, also had a dark side with nee dangers.

Neglected founders of sociology?

Although Comte, Durkheim, Marx and Weber are, without doubt, foundational figures in sociology, there were some in the same period and others from earlier times whose contributions should also be taken into account. Sociology, like many academic fields, has not always lived up to its ideal of acknowledging the importance of every thinker whose work has intrinsic merit. Very few women or members of minority ethnic groups had the opportunity to become professional Sociologists during the 'classical' period of the lale nineteenth and early twentieth century. In addition, the few who were given the opportunity to do sociological research of lasting importance have frequently been neglected. Important scholars such as Harriet Martineau and the Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun have attracted the attention of sociologists in recent years.

Harriet Martieau (1802-76)

Harriet Martineau has been called the 'first woman sociologist', but, like Marx and Weber, she cannot be thought of simply as a sociologist. She was borm and educated in Encland and was the author ofmore than fifty books, as well as numerous essays. Martineau is now credited with introducing sociology to Britain through her translation of Comte's founding treatise of the field, Positive Philosophy (see Rossi 1973) In addition, she conducted a first hand, systernatic study of American society during her extensive travels throughout the United States in the 1830s, the subject of her book Society in America (Martineau 1962 [1837]). Martineau is significant to sociologists today for several reasons.

First, she argued that, when one studies a society, one must focus on all its aspects, including key polifical, religious and social institutions. Second, she insisted that an analysis of a society must include an understanding of women's lives. Third, she was the first to tum a sociological eye on previously ignored issues, among them maniage, children, domestic and religious life, and race relations. As she once wrote: "The nursery, the boudoir, and the kitchen are all excellent schools in which to leam the morals and mammers of a people' (1962 [1837]). Finally, she argued that Sociologists should do more than just observe, they should also act in ways to benefit a society. As a result, Martineau was an active proponent of both women's rights and the emancipation of slaves.

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)

The Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun was born in what is today Tunisia and is famous for his historical, sociological and political economic studies. He wrote many books, the most widely known of which is a six-volume work, the Muqaddimah ('Introduction'), completed in 1378. This is viewed by some scholars tóday as essentially an early foundational work of sociology (see Alatas 2006). The Muqaddimah criticized existing historical approaches and methods as deaing only with description, claiming instead the discovery of a new 'science of social organization' or 'science of scciety', capable of getting at the underlying meaming of events.

Ibn Khaldun devised a theory of social conflict based on understanding the central characteristics of the nomadic' and sedentary' societies of his time. Central to this theory was the concept of 'group feeling' or solidarity (asabiyyah). Groups and societics with a strong group feeling were able to dominate and control those with weaker forms of intemal solidarity. Ibn Khaldun developed these ideas in an attempt to explain the rise and decline of Maghribian and Arab states, and in this sense he may be seen as studying the process of state-formation - itself a main concem of modern, Western historical sociology. Nomadic Bedouin tribes tended towards a very strong group feeling, which enabled them to overnun and dominate the weaker sedentary town-dwellers and establish new dynasties. However, the Bedouin then became seitled into more urbanized lifestyles and their previously strong group feeling and military force diminished, thus leaving them open to attack from external enemies once again. This completed a long cycle in the rise and decline of states. Although Westem histornians and sociologists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century referred to Ibn Khaldun's work, only in very recent years has it again come to be seen as potentially significant.

The Development of sociological thinking

2020-06-30T22:34:00.001+05:30

The Development of sociological thinking

When they start studying sociology many students are puzzled by the diversity of perspective they encounter. Sociology has never been a discipline where a single body of idea's is accepted as valid by everyone, though there have been times when some theories have been more widely accepted than others. Sociologist often disagree about how to study human behaviour and how research findings should be interpreted. This is quite normal and part of all scientific subjects. However, unlike physics or chemistry, sociology involves studying ourselves, and this can severely challenge our long-held views and attitudes. Sociology can be unsettling and disturbing. Nonetheless, we have to make every effort to set aside our emotional and political commitments while we are in the process of 'doing sociology'.

Theories and theoretical perspectives

It is in fact that I brought a cup of coffee this morning, that it cost a certain amount of money and that the coffee beans used to make it were grown in Central America. But in sociology we also want to know why things happen. To do so, we have to construct theories which explain the facts. For instance, we know that many millions of people now use the internet and social media to stay in touch with friends or maintain an online diary. But this is a very recent development. How did social media come about and why do so many people use them? Why are younger people more likely to use social media than older people? What impact are social media likely to have on either forms of communication? To address such questions, we need theories.

Theorizing means constructing abstract interpretation using a series of logically related statement that explain a wide variety of empirical or 'factual' situation. A theory about social media, for example, would be concerned with identifying how communication technology has developed over time and what the prerequisites were for the success of the new media. In the best sociology, factual research and explanatory theories are closely related. We can only develop valid theoretical explanations if we are able to test them by means of empirical research. Contrary to popular belief, facts do not speak for themselves, they need to be interpreted. Many sociologists work primarily on factual research, but unless they are guided by some knowledge of theory, their work is unlikely to be able to explain the complexity they find. This is true even of research carried out with strictly practical objectives.

Many 'practical people' are suspicious of theorists and may see themselves are too ' down to earth' to pay any attention to such abstract ideas. Yet all practical decision make some theoretical assumptions. The manager of a bussiness, for example, might have no regard for 'theory'. Nonetheless, she might think that employees are motivated by money to work hard. This is, of course, a simple underlying theoretical interpretation of human behaviour, which the manager takes for granted without realizing it.
Without a theoretical approach, we do not even know what to look for when beginning a study or interpreting results at the end of the research. But the interpretation of factual evidence is not the only reason for theorizing. Theoretical thinking must also respond to general problem of how social life can and should be studied. Should sociological methods be modelled on the natural science? How can we conceptualize human consciousness, social action and institutions? How can sociologist avoid introducing personal bias into their research? Should they even try? There are no easy answer to such question, and they have been answered in different ways since the emergence of sociology in the nineteenth century.

What is sociology for ?

2020-06-27T16:50:00.007+05:30

What is sociology for ?

Sociology has several practical implications for our lives, as C. Wright mills emphasized when developing his idea of the sociological imagination. First, sociology gives us an awareness of cultural differences that allows us to see the social world from many perspective. Quite often, if we properly how other live , we aslo acquire a better understanding of what their problems are. Practical policies that are not based on an information awareness of the ways of life of people they effect have little chance of success. For example , a white english social worker operating in a predominantly Latin American community in South London will not gain the confidence of its members without being sensitive to the different experience of ethnic groups in the UK.

Second, sociological research provides practical help in assessing the result of policy initiatives. A programme of practical reform may simply fail to achieve what it's designers sought or may produce unintended consequences of an unfortunate kind. In the years following the second world war , large public housing blocks were build in city centres in many countries. These aimed to provide high standards of accommodation for low - income groups from slum areas. However, research leter showed that many people who had moved from their previous dwellings to large apartment blocks felt isolated and unhappy. High - rise apartment blocks often became dilapidated and provided breeding grounds for crime.

Third, many sociologist concern themselves directly with practical matters as professional. People trained on sociology are to be found as industrial consultants, researchers in 'think tanks', urban planners, social workers and personnel managers, as well as in many other career's. An understanding of society and social relations can also be useful for future careers in law, journalism, bussiness and the health professions.

Fourth, and in some ways most importantly , sociology can provide us with self - enlightenment or increased self - understanding. The more we know about why we act as we do and about the overall workings of our society, the more likely we are to be able to influence our own futures. Sociology does not just a assist powerful groups or governments. The knowledge sociologists produce is made available to everyone and it is often used by voluntary agencies, charities and social movements to bolster their case for change. However, sociological research findings, in themselves, are 'neutral'. That is, they can tell us what society is like , how it 'works' and how it changes over time, but they cannot advice on whether it should be that way. That is the proper subject of competing political and moral debates.

Public and professional sociology

In recent years, some sociologists have argued that sociology has not engaged enough with the public and has concentrated too much on internal professional debates. In 2004, in his presidential address to the annual meet- ing of the American Sociological Association, Michael Burawoy argued for a new 'public sociology' that would forge relationships with audiences beyond the narrow confines of universities. He maintains that the profession- alization of sociology in the twentieth century has been beneficial, but it has also led to soci- ologists talking more to each other than to the public 'out there' (Burawoy 2005).
Burawoy says there are four types of soci- ology: professional sociology, public sociol- ogy, policy sociology and critical sociology. Professional sociology is the conventional, university-based, scientific sociology which generates large research programmes and bodies of knowiedge and provides academic careers Policy sociology includes all those studies which pursue goals defined by clients, such as funding bodies and government departments looking to tackle social prob- lems. Critical sociology is 'the conscience of professional sociology', pointing out the assumptions of research projects and profes- sional sociology (Burawoy 2005: 9). Feminist theory is one example of this strand, drawing attention to the lacunae in and unstated biases of scientific sociology. Public sociology is the fourth type and is rooted in dialogue. That is, public sociology speaks with social groups such as trade unions, social movements, faith groups and organizations in civil society in a genuinc conversation about the future direc- tion af society. In this sense, the suggestion is that a more politically engaged sociology is necessary, though this is not something that all sociologists wonld support.
For Burawoy and others, public sociology still depends on professional sociology, but the twa exist in a relationship of 'antago- nistic interdependence'. Scienrific sociol- ogy produces rescarch methods, empirical evidence and theories which are necessary for public sociology's engagement with non- academic audiences. But, unlike professional sociology, the putlic version opens up a dialogue with those audiences, allowing the discipline itself to be partly shaped by the concerns of non-sociologists.
Critics point out that this is a very stark dividing line. In practice, much of today's professional sociology already tries hard to engage with participants and outside audi- ences. There is also much more overlap berween the four types described (Calhoun 2005; Ericson 2005). Many feminist studies, for instance, are not simply critiques of scien- tific sociology but are empirical themselves, using research methods and questionnaires and contributing to professional sociology. Critics also argue that there is a danger that sociology will become subordinated to the political motives of social movements and activist groups. If the image and reputation of professional sociology is tained. then it may, irontcaliy, have serious consequences for public support for the discipline. And if public sociology really is dependent on the hard-won scientific credibility of professional sociology, it too could suffer as a result.
Nonetheless, in spite of such criticisms, the hasic argument that professional sociology has not done cnough to engage with public concerns has been quite widely welcomed. The lack of a public presence for sociology is seen as damaging to the public awareness of sociological theories and evidence, which leaves a gap to be filled by other disciplines such as political science, history or psychol- ogy. Professional associations, such as the British Sociological Association, have taken steps to encourage their members to develop more of a media presence as an initial move towards raising the profile of sociology in soci- ety, and we can probably expect this trend to continue.

Levels of analysis: microsociology and macrosociology

2020-06-26T21:51:00.007+05:30

One important distinction between different theoretical perspective involves the level of analysis at which each is directed. The study of everyday behaviour in situation of face-to-face interaction is usually called mircosociology, while macrosociology is the analysis of large-scale social structures and long-term process of change. At first glance, it might seem that microanalysis and macroanalysis are entirely distinct from one another, but infact the two are closely connected.

Macroanalysis is essential if we are to understand the institutional backdrop of daily life. The ways in which people live their everyday lives are influenced by social institution, as is obvious when we consider the impact our lives of the education system, the political framework and the system of laws by which we live. Similarly, while we may many choose to send acquaintance an email message, we can also choose to fly thousands off miles to spend the weekend with a friend. Neither of these communication would be possible without the amazingly complex global infrastructure of our world and the many people, organization and institutions required to build and operate them.

Microanalysis is in turn necessary for illuminating the details of such broad institutional patterns. Face-to-face interaction is clearly the main basis of all forms of social organization, no matter how large the scale. Suppose we are studying a bussiness corporation. We can understand it's activities by looking at face-to-face behaviour - the interaction of directors in the boardroom, workers in the various officers, or workers on the factory floor. We may not build up a complete picture of the whole corporation this way, but could certainly make a significant contribution to understanding how the organization works 'on the ground'.

Of course, people don't live their lives as isolated individuals, nor are their lives completely determined by large social structures. Sociology tells us that everyday life is lived in families, social groups, communities and neighborhoods. At this level - the meso (or 'middle') level of society - it is possible to see the influence and effects of both micro and macro - level phenomena. Many sociological studies of local communities deal with the macrosociological impact of huge social changes, such as economic restructuring, but they also explore the way in which individuals, group and social movement cole with such changes and turn them to their advantage.

For example, when in the mid - 1980s the British government decided to reduce the role of coal it is energy policy, this was disastrous for traditional mining communities, as as people's livelihoods were threatened by mine closures and unemployment. However, many former miners retrained with local companies to find work in other industries. Similarly, the 2008 financial crisis led to rising unemployment and failling living Stander's, but this also forced some people to learn new skills or start their own small businesses. Individuals are not simply at the mercy of large - scale social and economic changes but adapt creatively to them. Studying the community level of social life provides a window through which to observe the interaction of micro and macro levels of society. Much applied research (research with a practical aim) in sociology takes place at this meso level of social reality.

Is sociology scientific ?

2020-06-23T22:04:00.004+05:30

Is sociology scientific ?

In the early nineteenth century August comte described sociology as an emerging science that should adopt the successful and positivist methods of the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry to be successful. Durkheim, Marx, and the other founders of sociology aslo thought of sociology as a scientific subject, but today many sociologist are not so sure. "Can we really study social life in a scientific way " ? Are laud humphreys' observations on the tearooms really scientific? Before we can answer such questions we must first understand what this word means: What exactly is science ?

Science involves the use of systematic methods of empirical investigation, the analysis of data, theoretical thinking and logical assessment of arguments to develop a body of knowledge about a particular subject matter.

On this simple defination, sociology is a scientific endeavour because both quantitative and qualititative research does involve systematic methods of empirical investigation, the analysis of data assessment of theories in the light of evidence and logical argument in the relation to human societies. However, studying human beings is, in significant ways, very different from studying events in the physical world, which means that the social and natural science cannot be 'scientific' in identical ways. Unlike object in the nature , humans are self- aware beings who confer meaning and purpose on what they do . We cannot even describe social life accurately unless we first grasp the concepts that people apply to their own actions. For instance, to describe a death as a 'suicide' means knowing what the person in question was intending when they died. If a person steps in front of a car and is killed , an observation may suggest suicide' but suicide can only be established if we know that their action was not, in fact, an accident. Intention abd meaning are crucial explanation features to human action , which sociologist can not ignore if their accounts are to be valid.

The fact that we cannot study human beings in exactly the same way as objects in nature is in some way an advantage to sociologists. Sociological researchers are able to ask question directly of those they study - other human beings - and get responses that they understand. Biologists, for instance, have no such direct access to animals whose behaviour they study and interpret. The opportunity to converse with the participants of research studies and to confirm the researcher's interpretation of participants' action means that sociological findings are, at least potentially , more reliable ( different researchers would arrive at the same result) and valid ( the research actually measures what is it supposed to) than those in the natural scinces. However, sociological research also creates some difficulties that are not encountered by natural scicentists. People who are aware that their activities are being scruitinized may not act in the same way that they normally do, thus invalidating the conclusion of social research. People may consciously or unconsciously portray themselves in a way that differs from their usual attitudes and may even try to 'assist' the researcher by providing the responses they believe the researcher is looking for sociologist have to be aware of this problem and devise strategies to counter it in their research practice.

Researcher studying the behaviour of chemicals or frogs do not have this addictional problem to deal with, and a distinction is often made between animal behaviour and human action, where the latter aslo include intentions and meanings.

DEFINATION, SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION .

2020-06-21T17:04:00.026+05:30

    INTRODUCTION:-

In the family of social sciences, Sociology is comparatively a new entrant. But because of its dealing with social problems, social relationships and social interactions the importance of the study of this subject has considerably increased. It has considerably developed in methodology, scope and approach. Attempts are now being made to study every social problem scientifically and objectively, eliminating subjectivity to the extent possible a distinctive way of examining human interactions. Sociology is the systematic study of social behavior and human groups. It focuses primarily on the influence of social relationships upon people’s attitudes and behavior and on how societies are established and change. As a field of study sociology has a very broad scope. It deals with families, gangs, business firms, computer networks, political parties, schools, religions, and labor unions. It is concerned with love, poverty, conformity, technology, discrimination, illness, alienation, overpopulation and community.

DEFINATION :-

The science of society, social institutions, and social relationships specifically : the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings.
Sociology is simply defined as the scientific study of human life, social groups,whole society and the human world as such. It can be a dazzling and compelling enterprise,as it's subject matter is our own behaviour as social beings. The scope of sociology is extremely wide, ranging from the analysis of passing encounters between individuals on the street to the investigation of international relations and global froms of terrorism.

Most of us see the world in terms of the familiar features of our own lives - our families, friendship and working lives, for example. But sociology insists that we take a broader view in order to understand why we act in the way we do. It teaches us that much of what we regard as natural, inevitable, good and true mayor be so , and that things we take for granted are actually shaped by historical event and social processes. Understanding the subtle yet complex and profound way in which our individual lives reflect the contexts of our social experience is basic to the sociologist outlook.

THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION :-

Learning to think sociologically means cultivating our imagination. Studying sociology is not just a routine process of acquiring knowledge from books like this one . A sociologist has to be able to break free from the immediacy of their personal circumstances ti set things into a wider context . Doing sociological work depends on developing what the American author C. Weight mills, in a famous phrase called the sociological imagination .
The sociological imagination requires us, above all, 'to think ourselves away' from the familiar routines of our daily lives in order to look at them from a new point of view. Consider the simple act of drinking a cup of coffee. What could we possibly find to say , from a sociological point of view, about such a commonplace and uninteresting act?

We could point out , frist of all , that coffee is not just a refreshment; it has symbolic value as part of our day-to-day social activities. Often the rituals associated with coffee-drinking are more important than consuming the drink. For many people, the morning cup of coffee is the centrepiece of a personal routine and an essential first step to starting the day. Morning coffee can be followed later in the day by coffee with others - the basis of a group, not just an individual ritual. Two people who arrange to meet for coffee are probably more interested in getting tougher and chatting than in what they actually drink . In all societies, drinking and eating provide occasions for social interaction, and these offer a rich subject matter for sociological study . But that's far from all.
Coffee also contains caffeine , a drug which has a stimulating effect on the brain. many people drink coffee for the 'extra lift' it provides. Long days at the coffee or late nights studying- some student do this , believe it or not - are made nore tolerable by regular coffee breaks. Coffee is a habit - forming substance , but coffee addicts are not normally regarded as 'drug users'. This is because, like alcohol, coffee is socially acceptable drug, whereas cocaine, for instance, is not. Yet some societies tolerate the consumption of cocaine but frown on both coffee and alcohol. Sociologist are interested in why these differences exist and how they came about .

Getting together with friends for coffee is part of a social ritual which asto situates people within a broader social context.

Third, an individual who drinks a cup of coffee is unwittingly caught up in a complex set of social and economic relationship stretching across the planet. Coffee links people in the wealthiest and the most impoverished parts of the world . It is consumed in great quantities in wealthy countries but grown primarily in poor ones. Coffee in one of the most valuable commodities in international trade , providing many countries with their largest source of foreign exchange. The the production, transportation and distribution of coffee require continuous between people thousands of miles away from the coffee drinker. Studying such global connections is an important task for sociologists today.
Fourth, the act of sipping a coffee presumes a long process of social and economic development. Along with other familiar items of western diets -- like tea, bananas , potatoes and white sugar -- coffee became widely consumed only from the late 1800s , though it was fashionable among social elites before then. Although the drink originated in the middle East , it's mass consumption dates from the period of Western expansion more than 200 years ago . Virtually all the coffee we drink today comes from areas such as south America and africa that were colonized by Europeans; it is not a 'natural' part of the western diet.
Fifth , coffee is at the heart of current debates about globalization, international fair trade, human rights and environmental destruction. Coffee has become 'branded' and politicized. The decision consumers make about what kind of coffee to drink and where to buy it have become lifestyle choices. Some people drink only organic coffee, decaffeinated coffee or coffee that is 'fairly traded' through schemes that pay the full market price to small producers in developing countries.

Coffee is more than a pleasant drink for these workers, whose livelihoods depend on the coffee plant.

Others patronize 'independent' coffee houses rather than 'corporate' chains such as starbucks and costa. For sociologist, the apparently trivial act of drinking coffee could hardly be more fascinating.