This course material is designed and developed by Indira Gandhi National

Open University (IGNOU), New Delhi. OSOU has been permitted to

use the material.

Odisha State Open University

 Master of Arts
SOCIOLOGY (MSO)

MSO-01
Sociological Theory and Concepts

Block

1 APPROACHING SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

UNIT-1
Social Theory and its Context
UNIT-2
Concept and Theory
UNIT-3
Theory and Paradigm
UNIT-4
Social Construction of Reality

Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

Unit 1
Social Theory and its Context

Learning Objectives :
After you have studied this unit you should be able to know
• describe the context of social theory
• discuss the role of Comte, Marx Weber, and Durkheim
• describe some early British social theorists
• assess the role of context in the rise of social theory.

Contents :
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Prominence of Socialism
1.3 Individual vsCollectivity
1.4 Comte and the Enlightenment
1.5 Durkheim and The Enlightenment
1.6 The Marxian Ideology
1.7 Weberian Ideology
1.8 The British Sociologists
1.9 Spencer’s Evolutionism
1.10 Conclusion
1.11 Further Reading

1.1 Introduction
Sociological theories are embedded in a particular social context, and aredeeply influenced
by them. Each sociological thinker or theorist has to respondto the social situation in which
he or she exists and to try and make senseof the enveloping culture. That is to say that
sociological theory is thesociologist’s response to the context in which he lives and works.
Thistruism will become increasingly apparent as you study the unit. However, itneeds to be

Odisha State Open University 3

 Sociology

pointed out that there is an inner context and an outer context.The interplay between these
two interrelated arenas of living createssociological theory. The inner context is the background
and mind-set of thetheorist and also the strong influences and ideas that motivate a thinker
tobecome a social theorist. The outer context is the overall environment,social and physical
that the society is embedded in. However this is not tosay that similar contexts cannot or do
not produce competing theories.Social Theory and its Development thus take place in a
particular social andpsychological setting. We now give a description of the overall social
contextin which sociological theory developed. As is well known sociology developedfirst
in the west and it was in the 20th century that it percolated to India.
The French Revolution in 1789 created such an urgent context that it becamean important
element to create a need for sociological theorising. Thus theFrench Revolution gave rise to
many changes in that society. These changeswere beneficial in the main but these were also
problematic. One of theseproblems was the law and order maintenance in France. Some
thinkers evenadvocated that law and order in France after the revolution was worse thanwhat
existed in the Medieval Ages. Not surprisingly the major theorists likeComte and Durkheim
were deeply concerned with law and order.

Apart from the revolution in France we find another source of stimulationto the thinkers.
This was the industrial revolution of the 19th and early 20thcenturies. The industrial revolution
was a series of developments that changedthe mainly agrarian based economies to those
depending on the factory orindustrial system. Factory jobs were readily available in the
town and therewas a shift away from the countryside into industrial jobs. Not only this
wefind that everything had begun being influenced by rapid technologicalchanges. These,
themselves required large bureaucracies to control and givedirection to the emerging
capitalism, with a premise of free trade or laissez- faire. The problem with this situation was
that social inequality began tobecome extremely disparate and while the factory owners (or
capitalists)earned large profits the workers got painfully low wages. The fact of lowwages
led to the creation of trade unions and also to movements trying tooverthrow the capitalist
system itself. Thus the industrial revolution, therelated capitalist structure, and the reaction
against them, were enormous and these affected social thinkers greatly and we find that
Marx, Weber andDurkheim were preoccupied with the problematics they unleashed.

4 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

1.2 Prominence of Socialism

Another series of factors which created a great deal of reaction was thecoming into prominence
of socialism. This was a direct critique of capitalismand was supported by some thinkers
while a majority of them were suspiciousindeed hostile to it. The main figure who supported
socialism among thesociologists was Karl Marx who was not only an effective writer but
also apolitical activist. In his political activism he was different from the armchairsocial theorists
who were against socialism. That is they wanted to improveand streamline the capitalist
systems defects, like the creation of alienationamong factory workers (masterfully depicted
in Charlie Chaplin’s ModernTimes). They did not feel that socialism was in any way an
answer or solutionto the ills of capitalism. It has been pointed out that Marx’s socialism
wasoften seen as a counterpoint from which to develop different theories.Now, due to the
industrial revolution there were great movements of peoplefrom the rural to urban locales.
These phenomena of migrations partly dueto the opening up of jobs in urban areas yet this
meant adjusting to thenew lifestyle urban areas also saw negative factors entering into the
picture,such as pollution, overcrowding, inadequate transport systems, disparitiesin income
and so on. As a matter of fact this impacted on the religioussystem also with a plethora of
cults coming up and some of these evenpredicted the ‘end of the world’ in the last years of
the 20th century, butthis did not happen. It was not surprising that early sociologists wanted
toemulate the physical and biological sciences in order to get them recognition,prestige and
create popularity for sociology.

Box 1.1: Context of Social TheoryWe have seen something of the outer context of social
theory and we woulddo well to see how and in which ways the thinkers who were affected
bythese massive changes began to start theorising within the ambit of thesocial environment.
We now turn to the role of ideas and the relationshipthese have in the development of social
theory. We begin with the impactof ideas during the Enlightment in France first. During the
Enlightmentmanynew ideas were introduced and replaced existing ideas. Philosophy of the17th
century and science were the major moving factors which influenced thethinkers/intellectuals
of France. Some names associated with this includedthinkers like Descartes and Locke.
Later thinkers did not reject the grandsystems of these thinkers but sought out ground reality
instead so that ideascould have social relevance. This was very important if sociology itself
wasto have relevance and a presence in the analysis of society and socialconcerns, and bring
about changes leading to social benefits spreading outto all segments of society. However,

Odisha State Open University 5

 Sociology

the liberalism of the Enlightenment hadits own critics or what is called the ‘Counter-
Enlightenment’ and it was theinterplay between the Enlightment and the Counter–Enlightment
which madepossible all the ideas and theorising of early sociology.Thus for example the
counter Enlightenment ideologues, like De Bonaldwanted a return to medieval times where
they felt life and living was farmore harmonious than the Enlightenment. Such writers were
against anyprogressive ideology and felt that both the Enlightenment and the
IndustrialRevolution were forces that destroyed peace, harmonies, law and order(Ritwer
1996, pp:1-36). In other words De Bonald was against anything thatdisturbed patriarchy
and the monarchy in France.

1.3 Individual vsCollectivity

Thus while the thinkers of the Enlightenment emphasised the person/individual the reaction
of those who opposed these thinkers wanted toemphasise the collectively. Thus these thinkers
wanted to point out thatthere was more to existence than the individual, and this was society
itself.Society was viewed as one long flow from past to present and onward to thefuture.
Further, we find that roles and relationships along with organisationswere the important aspects.
Again “wholeness” was vital aspect emphasisingthat the parts of a society were interrelated.
Further, the conservativereaction abhorred social change which it felt was disruptive and
could leadto societal disorder. Thus the view of institutions was wholly uncritical.Therefore,
while change was leading forward to a new world the conservativereaction supported
hierarchical structures, and felt it to be essential for thesystem of status and remuneration.
These were some of the essential featuresthat existed and had to be faced by the
‘liberals’(those with theEnlightenment, that is laving a positive view of both the French
Revolution,and the Industrial Revolution). Let us now turn briefly to some of thesociologists
of the Enlightenment.

1.4 Comte and the Enlightenment

Comte’s (1798-1857) pioneering work in Sociology (a term he coined) comprisedpartly an
analysis and reaction to the Enlightenment and the FrenchRevolution. Thus Comte’s “positive
philosophy” was aimed at what he feltto be a counter to that he considered to be the ill
effects of theEnlightenment. His own approach was influenced by variouscounterrevolutionary
thinkers such as De Bonald. Comte was, however,different from these counterrevolutionaries
and he ruled out a regression tothe medieval times because science had advanced too much

6 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

to make thatpossible. On the other hand the developed an excellent theoretical system,much
better than anyone else at that time.

Thus Comte’s sociology of “social physics” or what he called sociology wasdeveloped as a

counter to the social anarchy unleashed in France after the

Revolution. He wanted to build sociology after the rigorous approach ofscience especially
physics. Comte’s was an evolutionary theory whichcomprised a law which has three ascending
steps or ‘stages’ which have aclaim to universality that is they apply to all societies.

Thus in this theory we have first the :

1) Theological stage (circa 1300) in which supernatural powers, and religiousicons are the
most important factors impacting on society, and even theworld is believed to be a
product of God

2) The metaphysical stage (circa 1300-1800) was one in which “nature” washeld to
explain everything about man and society.

3) The positivistic stage (1800-) came next and was fundamentally influencedby science,
and the laws that it discovered. Thus there was no God ornature in this stage so far as
explanations are concerned. Comte’s positionis that it is intellectual confusion that leads
to social anarchy. Accordingto him to positivistic stage dominates only when even the
traces of thetheological and metaphysical stages have been finally reduced if notcompletely
eliminated from society. Only then would order prevail andthe evolutionary scheme be
proved correct.

Since Comte’s position was evolutionary it is clear that he did not believe in violent
type of revolutions (Lenzer, 1975).
Reflection and Action 1.1 Discuss and describe Comte’s evolutionary scheme for
the progression ofsociety.

We can mention some other aspects of his work and this includes hisobservations on social
structure and social change. Comte stressed the interrelatednessof all the components of a
society. He also believed that consensus in society was a major requirement. Further he did
not believe in the exploitative view of the production processes i.e. capitalists and
workers.Comte further recommended that there was a need for theorising and alsoof research.

Odisha State Open University 7

 Sociology

Finally Comte as a sociologist believed that sociology wouldultimately emerge as a dominant

force due to its excellence in understanding social processes.

1.5 Durkheim and the Enlightenment

We now turn to Durkheim (1858-1917) as the sociologist who took on themantle from
Comte who was his predecessor. Durkheim believed unlike Comtethat the Enlightenment
was not all negative but in fact did have someposition aspects such as emphasis on scientific
method. Durkheim was againstanarchy and social chaos, and large positions of his work
deal with studiesof social order which he felt was the need of the hour.Durkheim was a
prolific writer and wrote many classical works in sociology.Thus in The Rules of Sociological
Method (1895) he stressed that sociologyis the study of “social facts.” These social facts
are such that they areexternal to and coercive of individuals in society. This emphasis of
study hada great influence on other sociologists. He demonstrated the usefullnessofthis
approach in his study of Suicide (1897) in which he showed how socialforces have an
impact on individuals and their actions within society. Hisemphasis however, was not on the
individual but the social causes behindit. He was keen to study differences in the suicide rate
in different socialcategories and groups (e.g. groups, regions, countries). According to
Durkheimit was the variations within the social facts which explained different ratesof suicide
in different groups. Durkheim enunciated two types of social facts(a) material and (b) non
material. Material facts (bureaucracy, law) differ fromnon material facts (social institutions
and culture) and it was the latter thatDurkheim focused upon in most of his work.

Box 1.2: The Division of LabourIn The Division of Labour in Society (1893)
Durkheim tried to pin down thevarious factors which acted as the binding glue of
society. He felt that earlyor nascent societies had a moral basis for being integrated,
and this waswhat he called the collective conscience. However, the more advanced
societyhad a relatively weak collective conscience and was held together through
acomplex division of labour which interconnected members of society. Thiswas,
however, not without its problems and was at best a measure that hadan interim
effect. Nevertheless Durkheim’s solution to the problems inherentin the division of
labour was to suggest social reforms which could redressimbalances and keep the
system going on functioning.

8 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

In The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life 1912/1965 Durkheim studieda primitive society
so that he could find religion in a primitive form. In doingthis the research would also shed
light on religion in the modern world. ForDurkheim society itself is the basis for religion itself.
This insight impliedthat Durkheim was for the status quo so far as society is concerned
for”society as God” is sacred and cannot be over thrown only ameliorated.

Durkheim’s work ensured that sociology had made a place for itself in Franceby the end of
the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Durkheimin 1898 set up a scholarly
journal called “L’anneeSociologique” which wasvery successful in promoting the Durkheimian
brand of sociology to theother schools and academics. Thus the context of the French
Revolution andthe rise of industrialisation met with an academic response in the shape
ofDurkheim’s analysis of society. After Durkheim there was a plethora of hisstudents and
disciples who carried on the work. Thus with Durkheim and hisdisciples sociology rose in
stature and had begun to be widely accepted inFrance, as a distinctive discipline.

1.6 The Marxian Ideology

Let us now turn to sociology in Germany in the same span of time. InGermany there was
since the beginning a distinction between Marx andWeber and other sociologists. Thus Karl
Marx (1818-1883) was himself deeplyinfluenced by Hegel (1770-1831) but was to later
contradict him. While somedisciples remained with Hegel’s ideas others began to criticize his
system.

Hegel’s philosophy emphasised the ‘dialectic’ and ‘idealism’ of which thelatter was a second
concept. Thus dialectic itself provides a view of theworld as well as an ‘image’ of the world.
Thus the dialectic stresses the greatimportance of processes including those of conflict.
Similarly, the image oridea of the world is also dynamic while Marx accepted the use-value
of thedialectical processes he wanted to apply it in the study of economics ratherthan to
leave it as a concept applied to ideas alone. Further Hegel’s “idealism”stressed the mind and
ideas, and not the material world. That is the say itis the mind that is significant, and that the
mind and psyche alone thatexist. This is admittedly an extreme position and Feurbach tried
to ameliorateit by saying that Hegel had overemphasised “consciousness” and the sprit ofa
culture. In order to critique Hegel Feurbach pointed out that it wassociety that projected
God and put him in a hallowed position abovethemselves, getting separated/distanced from
God himself but neverthelessimbuing God with various uplifting attributes.

Odisha State Open University 9

 Sociology

Marx though aware of Hegel’s and Feurbach’s positions was critical of thesetheories. For
Marx everything could be reduced to a material base not to themind and its processes. For
Marx capitalism was the problem which led toalienation, polarisation and revolution. And for
Marx revolution by theproletariat was the answer to this “evil”. Marx’s approach led him to
thework of Ricardo and Smith who use political economists and it was thesestudies which
finalised Marx’s approach which pointed out that the profitof the capitalist was at the expense
or exploitation of the wage earners/labourers. Thus the ‘surplus value’ was the very basis of
exploitation and theroot of the capitalist system. In fact the fast growth rate of the
capitalistsystems siphoned off profits large enough to reinvest into the economicsystem (Marx,
1862).

Box 1.3: Marxian IdeologyThere is a sociological theory within Marx’s

economic works, but Marx’sradical ideas also fit into politics and it is perhaps
this reason that his ideaswere questioned even as he had questioned Hegel and
Feurbach. That Marx’swork was ideological created much opposition to it
especially by the scholarswith conservative learning. It was Marx’s polemical
style that createdproblems not simply the presence of ideology perse.

Marx’s sociology created many critics in its wake and many works focused onthe type of
activist orientation that was part of his approach. There wereother reasons that led to an
eclipse of Marx’s dialectical materialism but hisideological aspect was a major area of difficulty
for other sociologists andthinkers. This radical approach was not appreciated by the
conservativesociologists who had been bred to hate traces of anarchy in the social fabric—
not just the disruptions of the Enlightenment or the industrial revolution.Instead Marx was
fueling through his studies a mood of hostility and aggressionwhich Marx felt would lead to a
“polarisation” of classes and the poorexploited proletariat would violently dispossess the
capitalist class of theirfactories, industries, banks and so on. Thereafter a period of social
harmonywould begin in which there was a societal/community ownership of themeans of
production. There would be an end to exploitation of the ‘havenots’bythe ‘haves’.

This thumbnail sketch indicates the kind of radical approach that Marx hadwas basically
oriented to a violent overthrow of the exploiting capitalists bythe exploited proletariat. Marx’s
emphasis therefore was on the exploitative/oppressive nature of capitalism. His theoretical
analysis was aimed at removingthis aspect of capitalism. This according to Marx meant a

10 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

violent, bloody anarchickind of overthrow of capitalism. Such a revolution would by itself

removethe alienation and other negative aspects of the capitalist social formation.

1.7 Weberian Ideology

We can turn now to another major German sociologist that of Max Weber(1864-19 20). It
has often been observed that Max Weber developed his ideasand theories keeping Marxian
thought as a counterpoint or point of reference/departure to begin his theorising. According
to Weber Marx had developedauni-causal theory in which every social aspect was driven or
propelledforward by the economy and the economic factors. This criticism can beexpressed
by pointing out that Marx’s theory of “economic determinism” didnot go down very well with
Weber, who in contrast pointed out that wereseveral factors or causes which are at work
simultaneously in a society andmake it operate. In short Weber’s idea was that any aspect of
social process had several causes that made it operate and no single complex of factors(e.g.
the economy) could be given primacy so far as social processes areconcerned.

For the materialists who believed in economic determinism it was the materialfactor that
determined ideology. However, we find that in the case of MaxWeber the sequence is held
to be the other way round — that is it is theideas that determine what is done with the
economy. Weber was especiallyconcerned with the effect of religions ideas on economic
development.Thus in his study on Protestantism he showed how ideas themselves arecapable
of generating economic development. Weber also studied otherreligious than Protestantism,
including Hinduism of which he felt that itslower rate of economic development was due to a
constricting segmentationof society into a large member of castes or jatis. This meant that
once againthe landlord or person with land holdings began to exploit the lower casteswith
unfair sharing of the produce if it was sharecropping and many relateddemands if it was
possible to exploit them further. This however does notbear great depth because sociologists
in the fifties conducted studies andcame to the conclusion that Hinduism does not create
economic impedimentsand caste adapts to a new economic challenge, in a positive manner.
Weberwas interested in how the process of rationalisation led to economicdevelopment and
to the creation and existence of large bureaucracies andother social institutions (Weber,
1904). Weber was concerned with how asocial actor makes decisions regarding his goals.
He pointed out however,that these decisions were themselves influenced by the rules and
regulationsthat exist in the society.

Odisha State Open University 11

 Sociology

Box 1.4: Formal RationalityWeber was concerned with what is known as

formal rationality, was thusenveloped by the development of bureaucratisation.
Thus Weber pointed outthere are three types of authority in political structures.
These are the 1)traditional, 2) charismatic, and 3) rational legal systems of
authority. Whilethe traditional systems and charismatic authority have been
witnessedhistorically it is the rational legal system which was involved with
thedevelopment of bureaucracy in the modern sense. Traditional authority
derivesfrom a sanctity of belief patterns, like that in monarchy where
successionis in a line of kings. Thus the prince who becomes king by succession
is anexample of traditional authority. On the other hand charismatic authority
isbased on something “extraordinary” which the incumbent has which
createsleadership. The belief among the adherents of the Charismatic leaders
powersis enough for the phenomenon to exist. Thus these two types of
authorityare historically embedded we find that rational-legal authority is the
basicmodern modality of leadership. Most political systems derive leaders
froma rational legal procedure e.g. the President; Prime Minister etc. of
modernstates generally adopt a rational legal procedure.

Ultimately Weber’s theories proved more acceptable than those of Marx,especially the political
and economic applications. They were liberal in someways and conservative in other ways
and unlike Marx he did not espousetotal radicalism and violent revolutions in order to find a
solution to the”problems” of capitalism. Weber in fact was quite against such “solutions”.Thus
the western sociologist found Weber reassuring after the polemicalwriting of Marx. Weber’s
writing was formal and academic and this made iteasier to understand and holistic in the
outlook. It is little wonder than thatWeber was the most prominent German sociologist of his
time. At the sametime in Britain the Sociologists were also busy responding to their
socialcontext in which they were embedded. British sociologists tended to studythe individual
and his role in societal existence and development. Thus heresociology was built around the
factors of political economy, social reform,and that of the social-evolution theory.

As regards political economy, it was a theory of capitalism which had beendiscussed by

Adam Smith who spoke of an “invisible hand” that controlledthe market forces. The market
was over and above the individual and regulatedhisbehavior. Thus the market forces were

12 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

viewed as a source of social orderand cohesion in society. Following this perspective the
sociologist was notinvolved in criticizing market forces on society at large. Rather his job
wasto study societies, primitive and contemporary and draw out reports for useby the
government to fulfill societal goals.

1.8 The British Sociologists

At this point of time British sociologists collected field based data and thencombined these
findings into a collective picture. The emphasis was onstatistical presentation with little or no
theorizing. However, the need fortheorising was clearly felt by many sociologists. The
statistically orientedsociologists were also extremely close to the government and
thereforefailed to see any flaw in the overall political and economic system.

Reflection and Action 1.2 Which were the most important early British
Sociologists. Give their theoriesin brief.

Now there was another basic characteristic in British sociology and this wasthe concern for
reforming individuals and then keeping them to fulfillthelarger goals of society. Although
these sociologists saw the flaws in the socialsystem of the time they were nevertheless still
interested in solving problemsby laying the blame on individual behavior and attitudes. In
following thisapproach these sociologists showed a high degree of respect to the societyin
which they were members. This was clearly a conservative stand, yet itwas felt to be necessary
to ward off the ogre of Marxian Socialism.

There were some paradoxes in the situation that the British sociologistsfound themselves in.
Thus even problems such as poverty were not held tohave systematic basis. Instead it was
the individuals themselves, alone or ingroups who were blamed for their poverty. This is a
somewhat circularargument and put the individual at the centre of any kind of social ills
orproblems. Individual problems of many types were analysed, including factorssuch as
‘ignorance’, ‘crime’ or ‘alcoholism’. These were all aspects of theindividual especially
alcoholism which was regarded yet again as an individualcondition or pathology and not in
any way connected to the whole ofsociety. As can be seen here was once again an extreme
position. However,it was a matter of time that social structure became more prominent
especiallyin the theories of social evolution. This was forwarded by Herbert Spencer(1820-
1903). Spencer was a relative liberal and believed that the state shouldnot interfere with the

Odisha State Open University 13

 Sociology

market. That is Spencer believed in laissez faire. Thisindicated that he was not an advocate
of social reform but wanted socialdynamics to be without external interventions.

1.9 Spencer’s Evolutionism

Spencer was a ‘Social Darwinist’ and was of the opinion that society wouldprogress by
itself and that this evolution should not be interfered with.Spencer went to the extent of
comparing social institutions with plants andanimals. Thus he felt that social institutions would
progressively adapt totheir environment by themselves without any definite impetus.
Spencertook Darwin’s premise of “survival of the fittest” where those people whocould
adapt to the social and natural environment would live while thosewho could not so adapt
met with their end (Buttel, 1990).

Spencer also saw society as an organism, in which different parts or ‘organs’were

interconnected and each had a role or function to perform in theoverall working of the
organism. Thus unlike Comte whose evolutionism wasin terms of ideas, Spencer had the
real material world which he wanted toexplain analyse and interpret.

The evolutionary focus of Spencer is at least twofold. In the first instanceSpencer speaks of
the “size” factor in social evolution. Thus as the size ofthe society increases so do the various
infrastructural and institutional needand requirements. Differentiation and specialisation begin
to manifest ineverysphere and the fact is that both the size and complexity of a townis very
different from a metropolitan. According to Spencer the size of asociety increases by various
groups amalgamating and bonding to form largersocieties. Thus Spencer viewed increase in
size from that of a simplecommunity to that which is complex or “compound”.

Another evolutionary schema that Spencer offered was that of militant toindustrial societies.
Militant societies are early forms of organisation meant mainly for defense of a society or
aggression towards another society. Suchviolent attitudes were in themselves responsible
for increase in the size ofa society which was so important for social evolution. Yet when
industrialsocieties are established and warfare becomes dysfunctional and obstructsevolution.
Industrial societies are noteworthy for their human interactionand high specialisation. The
state is simply a monitoring agency and its basicrole is to keep law and order. This is because
industrial society representsin Spencer a quantum leap from militant societies and such societies
movetowards their own perfection. Provided a society is strongly bonded andharmonious it
will survive. But if there is weak bonding and internal socialfissures it would, according to
Spencer, die out.

14 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

1.10 Conclusion
The early ideas of sociologists were very important indications of how thecontext creates an
impact of the mind of the sociologist. The sociologistswe have discussed were all affected by
their social and psychologicalenvironment. However, as we have seen that each one of them
tended tointerpret the social world in their own individualistic ways. However itwould be
clear to you by now that the context of theory is essentially society and culture at a particular
time and place. It can then be said thatsocial theory is in itself a reflection of the social
environment and the timein which it was developed also put its stamp on the theory. Therefore,
each era, each ‘Age’ responds with newer and more different theoretical interpretations
which are the most apt for that time. There is then an‘inner’ and an ‘outer’ context from
which social theory derives. As noted inour introduction to this unit the ‘inner context has to
do with the individualhimself and his personal way of analysing developments in the ‘outer’
or encapsulating society. This is not to say that is any seriality from the ‘outer ‘to the ‘inner’
context. Rather they exist in an interrelationship between the individual mind and the societal
developments and societal consciousness. Only when this interrelationship is clearly explained
and analyzed by a thinker does social process ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ create a theory of society
as a whole. It might then be said that the early social theorists and theories which they
developed was a clear headed response to the social upheavals and developments, e.g. the
Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution and soon. Finally there is a feed-forward and a
feedback effect in each situationwhich can partly help explain the rising of early social analysis
and theirimplications.

1.11 Further Reading

• Seidman, Steven 1983, Liberalism and The Origins of Eureopean Social Theory.

• Berkeley : University of California Press.

• Bryant, Christopher GA, 1985. Positivism in Social Theory and Research. New

• York: St Martins

• Lovell, David W. 1992, “Socialism, Utopianism and The ‘Utopian Socialists’”,

• History of European Ideas.14: 185-201.

Odisha State Open University 15

 Sociology

1.12 References
• George Ritzer 1996, Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Lenzer, Gertrud (ed) 1975, Anguste Comte and Positivism : The EssentialWritings.
Mass Smith.
• Karl Marx 1862, Theories of Surplus Value, Part 1. Moscow :Progress
Publishers.
• Marx Weber 1904, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism. New
• York :Saribners.
• Buttel, Frederick H.(ed), “Symposium Evolution and Social Change”.
• Sociological Forum 5:153-112.

16 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

Unit - 2
Concept and Theory

Learning Objectives :
• After having read this lesson you should be able to, Link concept and theory
• Learn about concept and sociological theorems

Contents
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Words and Language
2.3 The Nature of Concepts
2.4 Concepts in Sociology: Some Illustrations
2.5 Concepts to Theorems: Natural Sciences
2.6 Towards Social Science: Durkheim, Weber and Beyond
2.7 Conclusion

2.8 Further Reading

2.1 Introduction

Common day experiences provide the starting point for understanding words by a group of
speakers in the same sense; as knowledge grows more technical, the words are defined for
their properties and examples of how a scientific vocabulary develops are given.

• Technical meaning of words is commonly understood and we call them concepts.

• Concepts are then used to signify a relationship with one an other like various
measurements of medical tests that ultimately lead to a conclusion
normal or pathological state.
• Such concepts are used in physics, chemistry and biology as well and they help in the
measurement of things/forces, formation of equation and conduct of experiments.
• Social sciences have limited scope for experiments, but indirect experiments through
comparative method are used.

Odisha State Open University 17

 Sociology

• Differences in societies and groups are significant for explaining their effects on human
actions.
• At times universality of explanations works, at others uniqueness and historical setting
becomes significant.
• There is greater use of history on social sciences than of natural science for the conduct
of fresh studies.
• Concepts in interaction lead to the formulation of theory, that needs constant revisions.
• Examples have been given from Durkheim and Weber; Parsons and Merton.
• Students are advised to enrich examples from own experience and related lesson units.

2.2 Words and Language

As human beings we use language to describe analyse and evaluate our actions and convey
our ideas, feelings and concerns. We interact through words and a group of words we call
sentences, there are other persons who do the same. We understand the words they use.
Gradually, we begin to use a word that means or signifies same objects to all in a community.
Language is a social product. Words are given a meaning and that meaning is commonly
accepted by others. Thus, social interaction gets facilitated. A story is fold about nine different
lineages living in separate valleys of the Naga in the north eastern India. They sat down to
take a thing (in local dialect). Others did not understand which thing was wanted. Then each
of them opened a small packet. It contained salt; but salt was described in nine different
words. So we can understand the value of one word meaning or signifying the one chosen
object. Two more examples will help. The word chair indicates a piece of furniture used for
being seated. At a time in the Parliament, members used to sit on benches. Those who were
in the government and controlled the finances were said to occupy ‘Treasury Benches’,
those on the other side were seated on ‘opposition benches’ and the person who was
addressed as ‘The Chair’. Here objects are associated with positions and the meaning
understood by persons occupying those seats. In the court ‘The Bench’ signifies the judges.
The lawyers are separated by a bar from the dias. Lawyers are thus said to belong to the
‘bar’. Here again objects : the bar and the bench, get associated with their respective position
of persons who are differentiated from each other, in cricket the white coat used to indicate
the umpire. Different dress codes are laid down for different ranks in the army and the
police.

18 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

When one word is used many times to convey the same meaning, it becomes possible for
other persons to share it and thereby to communicate with each other. Even signs can be
used to convey ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In Andhra Pradesh, if one move the head or the neck from left
to right, it means ‘yes’; in northern India that means ‘no’, whereas for ‘yes’ the movement
has to be up and down. Showing ‘thumb up’ in the west means ‘ready to go’; in the traditional
Indian setting, it stands for discarding the other. In Hindi ‘thengadikhadiya’ means ‘I damn
care for you’. These few examples show there is a need for a shared meaning of words/
signs to be able to communicate with each other. Human beings are distinguished from
animals for possessing the capacity to have language for interaction.

Box 2.1: Consensual MeaningThis is most effectively done when words have
the same meaning that is understood by all at least in a defined group. It has to
be understood that the choice of a word for describing is a human activity.
Things are described through an agreed meaning of words. Some writers refer
this as an inter-subjectivity agreement among persons. They deny any objectivity
to things. In this sense reality is a social construct. This view has been put forward
by philosophers from Vienna and carried forward through their influence.

Karl Popper and Wallerstein’s names are among of the foremost among than, as scholars
from that significant academic centre got spread over to English speaking countries making
their mark in Philosophy Economics, and Sociology and might of them brought up in the
classical trends of music continue to illustrate the argument from the same. Be it recalled that
German as a language linked the scholarly traditions of Austria and Germany.

2.3 The Nature of Concepts

When scientists use a word, it gets a technical meaning. It becomes a concept. In referring to
a human being, biologists use the phrase ‘homosapiens’ or ‘wise man’ to describe the modern
man. If a person falls ill, in common language people say he / she has got fever. As discoveries
get advanced, words like ‘malaria’ ‘influenza’ indicate the nature of the fever. They also
describe which parts or insects have affected the body. Then we understand the nature and
causes of the disease. The next step is finding the care for the same through the use of tablets
or injections. So when fever or disease is described in terms of its components and their
behaviour or misbehaviour is known, we begin to know how things or bodies associated

Odisha State Open University 19

 Sociology

and recognised get inter related. Each measurement helps the physician to analyse the nature
of the disease. Thus, temperature, blood pressure, ‘sugar’ or blood sugar content is urine
can be measured. Each of these words and their measurements have a definite meaning, thus
tests can be carried out by persons other than physicians; the words that describe each
measurement become concepts and are commonly understood is the same sense by
technicians. A common understanding helps locate the normal and pathological distribution
of the bodies or anti- bodies and their particular combinations tell how they lead the physician
to determine the disease and where to look for a cure.

Chemistry as a science came into its own when the atom was discovered as the smallest
particle of matter that could take part in a chemical reaction. Atomic Weight of Hydrogen
was taken to be 1 and of Oxygen 2; thereby weights for 92 elements were calculated. These
were arranged in a table called the Atomic table. Further, researchers on unstable elements
carried their number to 110. The elements could mix up in a reaction soon it was found that
there was no loss of weight in a chemical reaction. This was a theoretical statement. Atomic
weight was a concept. The inter relations among concepts that could be proved to hold is a
number of trials or experiments became a theoretical proposition. Further, inter relation
among such theoretical conclusions became a part of theory. The chief characteristic of
theory is that it constitutes a series of conclusions stated in terms of concepts and their inter
relations. Thus theoretical proposition gets linked to others and one/all taken together constitute
the theory in a subject.

The process of theory formation then requires the following steps:

i) Identification of the smallest unit and its characteristics.

ii) The interactions among these units that lead to the formation of compounds and
complexes in determinate ways.

iii) Statements that use concepts and their interrelations to indicate the nature of interactions
and their results.

iv) Frequent experimentation to arrive at the stated results; and if results show a difference.
Then, explain the difference and arrive at a revised statement.

20 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

Box 2.2: Conceptual Abstraction A little further explanation of a concept is

in order. We do not see a concept. We arrive at a concept. It is an abstract.
When we see a person and come to know his/ her name, it is described as
a proper noun. SomNath or AbulKalamare proper names but when they
refer to the speaker of the Lok Sabha or the President of India, we are
referring to their characteristics. Thus speaker, or president are abstractions.
Pushpa may be the name of teacher and Shashi the name of a student. Here
again, teacher and student are abstractions. We arrive at abstractions by
converting proper nouns into common nouns. Sachin and Kaif are cricketers,
and Gulam Ali a musician and so on. Can you try to convert the following
places into their characteristics. Delhi, Mumbai, Bhopal; choose from among
the following : a port city, a national capital a state capital. Match the
characteristics. The second list is of abstractions.

2.4 Concepts in Sociology: Some Illustrations

Now let us look at some concepts that sociologists use frequently.

We use one word to signify one object or a meaning. We use different words to signify other
objects. Thus we try to have same meaning for describing similar things; different words to
make differences clear. Human beings can be put into different categories eg. Male, female.
Brother and Sister belong to the same generation. Father and son to different generations;
So do mother and .....(You try)..and add your own example.... mother-in-law and

(1) .......... in law (2) .........in law. Thus we begin to describe a relationship among two
persons. These relations are found among many such units of two persons. Relations among
two persons are called dyadic (di means two); the unit of two persons is called a dyad.
Radcliffe Brown, a British social anthropologist suggested that the first social relationship is
dyadic in nature.

Odisha State Open University 21

 Sociology

When we talk of a relationship, we ask a question: Is the relationship limited to one

event or is it repeated time and again? Then we raise a second question: Is the
relationship limited to two persons only, or many people in similar situations are
involved in it. ‘A student-teacher’ relationship is found among two persons, but then there
are many teachers and many students. There is a common acceptance that students will
get related to teachers in some defined way. Here let us introduce a few concepts : A
student in getting related to the teacher performs a Role. It gets defined when repeated
time and again it acquires a pattern. This pattern is expected to be performed, An
individual performing the role has been defined as a person by Nadel. Let us go
ahead. The role of a student is performed by many students. Hence Nadel says one
role is performed by many individuals: or a person is many individuals. Now our
individual enters into more than one interrelationship every day. In the family he may be
a brother or a sister of some one else. Next he may a son related to father, a son
related to mother, and in a three generation family, a grandson related to the
grandparents and so on. This situation is described (or conceptualised) by saying that
one individual is many persons.

2.5 Concepts to Theorems: Natural Sciences

It is useful to recall the difference between arithmetic and algebra. In the first case, we try to
solve every question that is posed to us. Add two sums, three sum and so......on, or exercises
1, 2, 3 is subtraction; or to go further to multiplication and division. Each exercises is solved
individually. In algebra, we have a formula or a method of solving a problem. If (a + b) is
multiplied by (a + b), we start with a in the first set and get the following results: a × a + a x
b = a2 + ab. Then we start with b of the first set and multiply with each letter, we get b × a +
b b or ba + b2. Now we add both the results. We get a2 + 2ab + b2. So we have a formula
(a+b)2 = a 2 + 2ab + b 2 and likewise we can go to (a + b)3 to get further results. But let us
remain with the first sum. (a + b)2 = a2 + 2ab + b2. This formula will be valid for all the values
of a & b; it can be that a = 2 and b = 3; and our results will be 22 + 2.2.3 + 32 = 4 + 12 + 9
= 25. We can go on increasing the value of a or b and get the desired results. Here we need
not calculate each exercise, but use this formula to answer various values of a or b, be they
4 and 5; or 7 and 9......and so on. The algebraic exercise applies to many cases. This is
something like discovering a principle or a common method for doing each calculation
individually. The discovery of a method common to several cases of a type is a step forward
in evolving a formula, something like a theorem.

22 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

Let us now move to a set of theorems. Remember our school days learning geometry. We
learn about a point, a line, an angle, a triangle — then say a triangle has three angles and their
sum is 180º. If one angle is of 90º, the other two have to share the remaining 90º in any
combination – say 60º and 30º or 45º and 45º. In the latter case two sides will be equal in
length. If all the three angles are of 60º each, each side of the triangle with also be equal in
length. Here a relationship is posited between the degree of the angle and the length or size
of a side. We can go on further to read about triangles and quadrilaterals..... and reach the
connected 28 theorems. The inter connection of theorems then leads to theory in general, or
an all bracing theory.

Reflection and Action 2.1 Read section 2.5 and give your explanation,
interpretation and commentary.

In the example last given words like a point, a line or a straight line, and angle are concepts,
Their interconnection a theorem. The interrelation among them a theory.

In natural sciences, say in Physics and Chemistry, we come across words (Concepts). Their
interrelations and then inter connections among concepts (expressed in quantities) that lead
to theory or better ‘laws’. We take an example of an apple. It fell down from the tree, a
normal occurrence. But Newton asked the question why did the apple fall to the ground. He
propounded the theory of gravity. not apple alone, but all objects fall towards the ground. If
the earth is round then why do people on the other side of the earth do not fall away. This
doubt was expressed

by our villagers — why do the Americans on the other side of the globe do not fall away.
Newton had an answer. All things fall towards the centre of the earth. This explained all falls.
Thus the theory of gravity came into being; The explanation come with Newton — though
apples or other objects had been falling that way ever since the creation of the earth. Here
we can sum up the process of theory formation.

• Theory is an explanation of recurring even to and is a valid explanation universally in

space and time.

• The condition under which the theoretical statement would hold true need to be spelt
out.

Odisha State Open University 23

 Sociology

• The theory can be modified if subsequent experiments create new situation that have
to be considered afresh. The theory is a revisableproposition. Examples are the theory
of the atom being indivisible part of matter had to be revised after the splitting of the
atom. The case of discovery of elements beyond 92 has earlier been stated. The theory
of gravity was given a new look when a non-matter or a force like light was found to be
subject to gravity by Einstein.

• Science is impersonal in the sense that the laws and theories do not depend for their
truth value on the status of a person, be he a king, a prime minister, priest or even the
scholar himself/ herself.

• When an inquiry is conducted or a problem solved on the basis of existing knowledge

about concepts and theory and illustrated as a case of a more general application, it
is called a deductive approach. We move from theory to facts.

• When we move from facts and arrive at an explanation that process is called
induction.

• The inter-play between inductive and deductive processes constitutes the method of
science, or sciencing. Here conclusions are only provisional, and are under consent
testing and revision. As a process body of science consists of revisable propositions.

• Some authors are of the opinion that science grows double, say every 10 years, and
after 50 years quite a few conclusions or theoretical statements need modification.

2.6 Towards Social Science : Durkheim, Weber and Beyond

There has been a lot of discussion whether social sciences can follow the method of natural
sciences. These need separate discussion. Comte ‘Durkheim, and Radcliffe-Brown answered
‘yes’. Dilthey, a historian took the other view. Weber tried to follow the middle path. On
different occasions systems of explanation have been tried and these have been called ‘grand
theories’ which could be applied to several inquiries / cases. At least that is the claim. Marxism
and Parsonian systems belong to that category. Then there are descriptions at an empirical
level — facts gathered and put into tables, without any explanation. These are not theories
per se but theories can be made through proper analysis. Durkheim’s study of suicide

24 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

• rates andexplanation of their variations is the best example of theory formation from
the existing data. It will be helpful to understand his method:

• Firstly, Durkheim clarified the term, and located three (or four) types of suicides and
their nature.

• For each type, the existing data available in official records were classified in terms
of their distribution in various social categories. This classification needed intelligence
and brilliance of the author.

• Each type of suicide rate varied according to the data on social facts, and comparisons
were made.

• Explanations were given for each type.

• A theory of suicides was formulated in terms of the variations of the degree of

integrated (solidarity) in society.

• Let us recall how Max Weber formulated his theories:

• The key words: ‘The protestant ethic’ and ‘capitalism’ were defined after going
through the literature. Their ideal types were defined.

• Cases where both were present, and not present were identified.

• Comparisons in the historical settings were attempt and existing data on the type of
education prevalent in each religious group were compared.

• A conclusion on the coincidence of the rise of capitalism in protestant dominated

regions was confirmed

• Why this inter relationship holds is examined.

• How is the explanation of this case related to the general history of civilizations is
attempted.

Path breaking studies such as these continue to receive attention among scholars from related
subjects as well as the main discipline over a period of time. It happens that certain parts of

Odisha State Open University 25

 Sociology

a theory receive greater attention is subsequent studies. Durkhiemian studies on suicide

received attention at the hands of psychologists and social psychologists in particular and
they began re-examining the loss of sense of security as a possible explanation, besides
others. One of the types of suicide was classified as ramomic. A group of writers considered
this concept as central to the analysis of modern societies. In turn they began to de-link the
concept from that of solidarity, introduced more psychological variables in it; while Merton
retained the social component as control. Thus succeeding social scientist find an alternative
relevance of the concept and try to look problem of a different age through it (with some
modifications).

a) Max Weber

The second example refers to Max Weber. His treatment of the protestant ethic gave rise to
the counter-point at the hands of writers treating the Catholic, Hindu, Shinto and Confucian
faiths suggesting a sort of ‘negation of negation’. Marxaistscholarsprin pointed on ‘structural’
factors as being more decisive than the ‘cultural’ as propoureded by Weber. Yet most of the
Asian dialogue on entrepreneurship kept alive the debate with Weber within the cultural
frame. Mario Rutten in the article on the

‘Study of Entrepreneurship in India’ ….. neatly summarizes the position and calls for greater
interaction among the two major approaches (2003 : 1319-41). There have been ample
discussion on Weber v. Marx, and a sort of convergence signifying Marx and Weber as
complements of each other. Yet other variations of Weber are found in the conceptualisation
of ethno-methodology and phenomenology wherein actor’s point of is being given primacy
over ‘others’. Within Marxism one comes across increasing emphasis on empirical studies
of the sub-altern as well as other political forms of dominance. The classical writers who
developed ways of looking at social facts, currents, and actions, in their own times, are being
increasingly discovered for their relevance to addressing the problems of the new societies,
or our contemporary periods. This dynamism constitutes the process of science linking
concepts and theories of the classical writers and modern situations.

b) Parsons and Merton

Among the twentieth century writers Talcott Parsons is the most significant for conceptualising
human actions and connecting economy, polity, institutions and pattern maintenance. This
exercise required contribution from economics anthropology, psychology and sociology,

26 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

and their integration into a general theory of action. As Parsons grew mature, he examined
economy, polity, family and professions, specially medicine, as sub –systems and in cooperation
with valued colleagues looked into specifics of the American society. In discussing writers of
significance spread over a life time, with some contributions appearing posthumously, a
question is raised about the continuity of the academic effort involved. Critics at times find
that ‘the young’ author was different from the ‘mature’ ‘one; the ‘younger’ being more general
and the ‘mature’ being more specific. This is what one gets by looking at Marx with 1848
serving as the dividing line, more or less. The Philosophical manuscript and the communist
Manifests belong to that period,the Capital to the next. A similar exercise on Parsons suggests
that the publication of Towards a General Theory of Action’, (1936) and to an extent
Social System mark the first phase.

c) Theories of Society

Thereafter specifics gained currency, and the treatment got manifestly grounded in the empirical
situation of the American Society. We have hinted at the influence Parsons had on Indian
scholarship in a different unit. Some critics commented upon Parsons as if he was guilty of
using too many concepts to state his position and synthesize the effects. Their use earned him
more critics than supporters. Yet from among the galaxy of his students and co-workers. We
get more and more specific studies of various aspects of society.

Merton was among the most serious of the students who attempted a freshcombination of
empirical studies and grand theory taking some aspects selectively at a time. Harry M. Johnson
passed on the gains of the entire approach in a test book entitled Sociology, which get
translated in Hindi by Yogesh Atal who had spent a semester with Merton. Other writers
studies the family, religion, economy and polity. Merton is important for having coined the
phase ‘theories of the middle range’ — middle between grand theory and pure description.
He thought at that level, theory had a heuristic purpose i.e. acting as a guide for further
research (including field studies). Accordingly, he systematised classical explanation for
use as tools of research of modernsocieties and to an extent modified old concepts giving
them a new relevance and vibrancy. He did this for ‘function’ by pin pointing three categories,
function, dysfunction and non-function and to look for a’ balance of consequences’ of the
three. He devised a protocol of for observation’ that would permit gathering of information
with a potential for being understood in the functional perspective. At the conceptual level, he
had a fresh look at the analysis a comparison between the sociology of knowledge, and at

Odisha State Open University 27

 Sociology

the level of nature cosmopolitan and local press. He clarified social aspects of anomie, the
conflict between the accepted goals of a society and the use of rather open means for achieving
the same; and then the specification of the Theory of the ‘Role-Set’’ and the ‘Reference
Group’ as examples of middle range theory developed at different stages of the inquiry.
Merton’s other contribution lay in attempting some questions set by financing agencies; and
using the opportunity for developing concepts that would acquire explanatory power in the
broad frameworks of Social Theory andSocial Structure. In the preface to a volume an
social problems, hedistinguished between social problems and sociological problems, a
point well taken by M.S. Gore in most of his presentations and deliberation in the Indian
setting.

Conceptualising for studying special features of the Indian society has been attempted by
M.N. Srinivas through ‘SANSKRITIZATION’ and ‘Dominant Caste’. Adrian C. Mayer
found it useful to study municipal elections in Dewas town of Madhya Pradesh through the
operation of quasi-groups (half formed groups)for a specific situations in the nature of ‘actions
sets’. There is an increasing trend in sociology in India for showing the limits within which
some of the concepts made popular in the west can help us grasp the nature of social processes
operating in India. ‘Little community’ and ‘Peasant society’ are some of the examples and
others can be added.

2.7 Conclusion
Words and concepts are products of mind, and when their meaning is shared, communication
of ideas takes place in daily life as well as in academic circles. The development of science
made the meanings more and more specific, as also grammar and logic. Natural sciences
connect concepts with experiments, and conclusions affect the inter connection among various
concepts, and their combinations. Science keeps on growing and doubling itself faster than
social sciences or humanities. History of ideas is more significant for the latter, as old formations
and theories are discovered to provide insight into current problems. Yet, refinements keep
on happening. This has been illustrated chiefly with respect to the methods and approaches
used by Durkheim and Weber; and the nature of the middle range theories initiated by Merton
over the grand theories of Parsons. In the body of the Unit, the manner in which words like
structure and function have developed has been briefly touched upon. Students are advised
to study the related material supplied in specific unit. Merton also developed ‘protocols’ for
observation, and paradigms for studying questions in a theoretical or structural perspective.
The next lesson deals with the Paradigms and Theories

28 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

2.8 Further Reading

• Lefebvre, Henri 1968 The Sociology of Mar. New York: Vintage.

• Lachman, L.M. 1971 The Legacy of Max Weber. Barkeley, California: Glendessary
Press.

2.9 References

• Durkheim, Emile Suicide, translated by J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson, glencoe Ill.
The Free Press 1951, (Original ‘in French : 1897)

• Merton, R.K. 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure, New Delhi, Amerlnd
Publishing Co.

• Parsons, Talcott, 1965, Theories of Society Foundations of Modern

SociologyTheory, Complete in 1 Vol., New York, The Free Press.

• Veena Das ed. 2003, The Oxford Indian Companion to Sociology and Socialand
Social Anthropology, (sp. att. ‘The Study of Entrepreneurship in India,by Mario
Rutten.

• Weber, Max 1930, Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Translated by
Talcott Parsons, London, Allen and Unwin (original in German: 1920-21).

Odisha State Open University 29

 Sociology

Unit -3
Theory and Paradigm
Learning Objectives :
After having studied this unit you should be able
• discuss the meaning of theory
• compare the contributions of Marx Durkheim and Weber to social theory
• describe classical and contemporary theories.
Contents
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Sociological Theories
3.3 Classical Sociological Theories
3.4 Law of three Stages
3.5 Weberian Ideology
3.6 Parson’s Action Theory
3.7 Recent Advances in Sociological Theories
3.8 The Concept of Paradigm
3.9 Conclusion
3.10 Further Reading

3.1 Introduction
In simple words theory refers to the explanation of general principles of an art or science
which is constructed with practice. It is true that on the basis of practice we derive certain
rules and at times we are able to separate these rules from whatever we have seen in practice.
Thus we begin to differentiate between theory and practice. Theory is generally helpful in
explaining practice, theory refers to the much higher level of abstraction whereas practice to
the empirical situation. If we look at the relationship between theory and practice then broadly
speaking there emerge two possibilities like: (i) theory and practice might be seen as quite

30 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

distinct from each other and (ii) theory and practice might be conceived as complementary to
each other. According to the first point of view it seems necessary to make a distinction
between theory and practice. Thus we come across the statements like it is a very good idea
in theory but in practice it just might not work. According to this point of view theory and
practice are two quite different things. According to the second point of view it appears that
theory and practice are not two different things but can help in understanding each other.
From our point of view although it is important to understand the difference between theory
and practice, but there is a need to see the relationship between the two. In fact both theory
and practice constitute a whole which could well be examined in its own right. However, all
this concerns with the general understanding of the term theory, which is often contrasted
with practice. But in the area of logic and philosophy the term theory has been treated in a
slightly different way. Accordingly, theory refers to a set of interrelated propositions. Proposition
refers to the statement which could be proved either true or false. Here the emphasis should
be given to the nature of the statement itself which bears the quality of beingproved true or
false. In our daily life — experiences we come across such statements which could neither
be proved true nor false. Such statements are to be kept out of the preview of proposition as
well as theory. In the process of theory-building it seems necessary to formulate propositions
carefully. Hence the proposition must be formulated in such a way so that it bears the quality
of being falsified. Such an approach is very much helpful in formulating not only sociological
theories but also reflects its required scientificstatus. The basic quality of scientific research is
that it progresses forward through the process of falsification, it means that in the light of new
data, the existing theories are tested again and again. Till these existing theories are found
capable of explaining the data, they don’t face any kind of challenge to them. But if these
theories fail to explain the new data, they begin to be questioned. The community of scientists
is busy in continuously examining these existing theories in the light of the new data. The
moment these existing theories fail to explain the new data, these theories are put under a
question mark and sometimes these theories can be rejected — also paving the way for new
theories to take their place. Rejection of the existing theories is known as ‘falsification’ and
scientific research proceeds ahead through this process. Here we would like to return back
to our original question concerning the structure of theory itself. As discussed earlier any
theory is composed of a certain number of interrleated propositions. These propositions
normally display the conditions that they could be falsified and this very condition of
propositions bring them on the track of scientific research. Thus before constructing any

Odisha State Open University 31

 Sociology

proposition we must ensure that it fulfills the conditions of falsifiability so that it could be
accommodated well in theory. After this we shall try to understand the nature, meaning and
types of sociological theories.

3.2 Sociological Theories

Broadly speaking, the discussion on the nature, meaning and types of sociological theories
could be divided into five parts. In the first part we shall try to understand the nature and
meaning of the sociological theories during its classical age or period. Considerable amount
of work was done by the pioneers of sociology during this period to establish the credentials
of the discipline. Sociology could well emerge as a separate discipline only due to the great
efforts made by prominent scholars in its classical age. Next, in the second part we shall
discuss about the nature and types of contemporary sociological theory. In fact, this period
reflects to the time when the subject sociology could come out of its classical period both
chronologically as well as conceptually. During this period certain important advances were
made in sociology and some of the shortcomings of the classical period were also addressed
to. In the third part there is a discussion on the recent advances made in sociological theories.
Here we come to see of sociology not only emerging as a new discipline but also maturing as
a subject. During this period sociology got established as an important mature and independent
subject having its own identity. Next, in the fourth section, we shall come to know about
theories and perspectives in sociology that characterise the subject with some new efforts
and rigour and here we shall see how several doubts over the nature and types of sociological
theories were clarified. After this, in the fifth part we shall examine how certain challenges
were put forward before the sociological theory and how it responded to such problems and
challenges. But one point can be added here that although sociological theory as it exists
today has been able to overcome many obstacles and problems in its own way, but
nevertheless this has never been an easy task to do so.

3.3 Classical Sociological Theories

The period of classical sociology belongs to the era when sociology emerged as a new
discipline with the one central assertion that the scientific study of society is possible. Prior to
that period philosophers, intellectuals as well as layman thought of and conceived of society
in their own ways but the science of society could not emerge out. Philosophers’ reflections,
literary romanticism and criticism and people’s own individual conceptions about society

32 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

had been the characteristics of the era prior tothe emergence of sociology. Although intellectuals
belonging to different streams of thought as well as common people have had reflected upon
the nature of society but their efforts were primarily individual efforts. On the other hand
society had existed for a longer duration which displayed its own internal statics and dynamics.
How does society behave as an entity in itself? How can it be studied scientifically? Can it be
done? If yes then how? All such questions dominated the earlier era in the development of
sociological theory. This era belongs to what is today known as classical sociological theory.
The following discussion refers to the same.

The term sociology was coined by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) a French sociologist and
philosopher. He is also known as father of sociology. Although he has made some significant
contributions to the subject — a part of which shall be discussed here too, but the most
creditable work done by him related to his efforts in establishing sociology as a scientific as
well as an independent discipline. Before him instead of sociology, we rather had philosophy,
literature and art through which reflections on society were used to be made. Thus, in other
words how society could be conceived of philosophically, literally or through art had been
the only available ways and tools to reflect upon society. The modern method of scientific-
analysis of society as suggested by Auguste Comte was not just available before him.
Therefore, the contributions of Auguste Comte must be seen as the pathbreaking ones helping
to establish sociology as a new and independent discipline in its own right. Auguste Comte,
in short discussed at length, of course philosophically to argue that the scientific study of
society is possible and when such efforts succeeded the new subject would be known as
sociology. What we must realise at the moment is the simple fact that this had never been an
easy task. After establishing sociology as a new and independent scientific discipline, Auguste
Comte had made some of his own contributions to it. Auguste Comte’s own contributions to
the subject sociology are referred to, although briefly, in the following discussion.

3.4 Law of Three Stages

Having established sociology as a separate and independent discipline, Auguste Comte divided
sociology into two parts known as social statistics and social dynamics, former dealing with
the questions of equilibrium in society and letter with the problems of change in society.
Auguste Comte has also referred to hierarchy of sciences like : astronomy, mathematics,
physics, chemistry, biology and sociology. He was of the opinion that sociology can’t be
reduced to other sciences be it mathematics (especially statistics), biology or political economy.

Odisha State Open University 33

 Sociology

Auguste Comte has also talked about the law of three stages namely theological,
metaphysical and scientific. According to him, every society passes through these
three stages. In the theological stages all the explanations concerning the events happening
in nature were attributed to God who was supposed to be in full command of the
situation. The second state i.e. metaphysical refers to the transitional stage where
neither as the events taking place in nature were considered neither as a supernatural act
nor as based upon scientific explanations. This sort of transitional stage existed
somewhere around fourteenth century. The third stage is known as scientific stage,
where neither theological nor metaphysical sort of explanations about society are
considered sufficient. In the scientific stage of society the explanations are examined
rigorously and no explanation is considered as a final one. Each explanation is
considered as valid explanation only for the time being until a better explanation arrives
on the scene. Auguste Comte believed that scientific methods could be applied for the
study of society as well. The assertionslike that one although look simple but it actually
contains an important philosophy, widely known as positivism. It was the philosophy of
positivism which dominated the academic scene not only in France but over the entire
Europe. In fact the name of Auguste Comte has been associated with the philosophy in
such a way that it is sometimes considered as the only important contribution that he had
made as it cut across the geographical boundaries of France and the academic limits of
the discipline of sociology. The scholars from some other disciplines have commented
widely on the notion of positivism. Auguste Comte suggested that his scientific method
for the study of society would be based upon comparison, observation and experiment.
Auguste Comte has explained these and allied concepts in detail, but in short it could be
said that he was able to establish sociology as a new scientific as well as an independent
subject. Although it was Auguste Comte who had made the earlier but essential
beginnings, it was Emile Durkheim who carried forward the fate of sociology by
providing it new strides. His contribution to sociological theories is discussed next.
Box 3.1: Durkhermian Approach Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), a prominent
sociologist from France continued with the tradition of positivism established by
his predecessor fellow countryman and sociologist Auguste Comte. In a sense
we can say that Emile Durkheim continued from where Auguste Comte had left.
Durkheim was still grappling with the questions like whether it was possible to
apply the laws of natural sciences for the scientific study of society or not and his
answer to this question was surely in the affirmative. Emile Durkheim went ahead
and virtually demonstrated how could it actually be done. He elaborated his
sociological approach in his book, The Rules of Sociological Method.

34 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

Although his book deals with some of the complicated details regarding what according to
him would be the sociological approach in future, but one illustration might be given here,
Durkheim’s method of social analysis emphasises on the study of what he calls it, ‘social
facts’. His discussion on social facts not only clarifies his methodological as well as theoretical
formulations but also helps in establishing sociology as a new, important and independent
scientific discipline. In fact we can say that the first serious sociological formulation in the
history of the subject begins with Durkheim’s detailed treatment of the idea of ‘social fact’.
His other formulations like the division of labour in society, the study of suicide, the notion of
elementary forms of religious life and views on education and sociology are all concerned
with the formulations built around social facts. We shall briefly attempt to understand some
of the issues related to the notion and methodology concerned with the formulation of social
facts. According to Durkheim, “social facts are ways of feeling, thinking and acting commonly
spread among thepeople, external to individual and exercising a constraint upon him”. This
quite compact notion might appear difficult to understand and comprehend. But we shall
attempt to explain some of the complex issues related with it. These social facts are different
from facts concerning us at the individual or the psychological level. Additionally, Durkheim
has also clarified that these social facts are ‘external’ and exercise constraints upon individuals.
According to him we can identify these social facts when we attempt to go against them.
Some of the social facts identified by Durkheim himself in his various research works are
like: rate of crime, rate of suicide, division of labour in society and religion. How to use these
social facts for the purpose of social-analysis? In this context Durkheim has given two clues:
one, he suggests that social facts should be treated as ‘things’ and two, one social fact must
be explained with another social fact preceding it. In this, way Durkheim has tried to achieve
mainly two objectives : one, to ensure that sociology virtually becomes a scientific discipline
and two, to take care that sociology remains as an irreducible subject and doesn’t split into
several parts belonging to other subjects. Durkheim has also referred to ‘normal’ and
‘pathological’ aspects of society in this context. Durkheim’s approach regarding how to deal
with various theoretical and methodological issues could be seen in his book. The Rules of
Sociological Method in detail. After understanding the theoretical contributions of Emile
Durkheim, we shall try to explain the efforts of yet another pioneering scholar Karl Marx.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a philosopher, social scientist as well as a sociologist from
Germany. The academic scholarship of Karl Marx is widely known throughout the world.
Although Marx attempted to solve several academic problems, he never claimed to be a

Odisha State Open University 35

 Sociology

sociologist. What is today known as the Marxist sociology is based upon his various
formulations that are basically sociological in nature. In other words, we have to find out or
make out the sociological contents from his writings. This additional task has been done by
the sociologists at later stages. Marx’s theoretical formulations that were basic for him and
useful for sociologists are referred here. Some of the basic formulations of Marx include :
historical materialism, classes and class-struggles, theory of surplus value and alienation.
Marx’s formulations provided a departure from the earlier discussed engagements for
sociological analysis. Marx’s theory was also used as a political ideology by various Leftist
political parties of the world and a sizable part of the world had been under the rule of the
communist parties of the world till recently. In and around 1989 several political — systems
in different countries belonging to the ‘Second World’ collapsed at the end of the cold war
period between the two then existing superpower countries. All such countries had practiced
Marx’s theoretical formulations as their political guidelines.

Marx’s theoretical formulations reflect a departure from the ones by the previously discussed
authors by exhibiting one major point. Marx’s method includes the principles of ‘dialecties’
which was not discussed by any of the sociologist earlier. As in principle the use of the notion
of dialectics was not an entirely a new discovery by Marx, it was used earlier by his fellow
countryman G.W.F. Hegel. What was significant and new in Marx’s theoretical formulation
was materialistic interprelation of society with the help of dialectical method. As in the case
of Hegel, he saw the progress of society through idealism, achieved through dialectics, in the
case of Marx the progress of society was possible through materialistic dialectics. Another
significant departure in the writings of Marx was his emphasis on the historical method.
When the principle of dialectics was applied for the study of history, it wascalled historical
materialism. Materialistic interpretation of society mainly includes the social situation, which
helps in shaping-up the ideas of people. At some places the notion of historical materialism
has been used interchangeibly with that of dialectical materialism. Marx’s emphasis on history
and dialectics was also related to his formulations on classes and class-struggles. Karl Marx
alongwith his academic collaborator and lifelong friend. Friedrich Engels, had clarified that
all the known periods of history upto present time could be seen as having class-struggles.
For example, according to Marx and Engels in the slave society we have classes like masters
and slaves, in the feudal society there are feudal lords and serfs and in the capitalist society
we have capitalists and workers. These are the main classesstruggling against each other for
the sake of ownership and control over means of production.

36 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

Box 3.2: Working ClassMarx and Engels could however, foresee the victory
of the working class which was struggling against the capitalist class. There are
several other issues that are discussed by Marx and Engels especially in the
context of capitalist society like exploitation, theory of surplus-value, alienation
and the revolutionary potential of the working class. With the victory of the working
class Marx and Engels could foresee the emergence of the socialist society, which
would be the society without any class and finally coming of the communist society.
In the writings of Marx we can see a lot of clarity of thought, new interpretations
about society, progressive ideology and a call for the emancipation of people in
general. Although Marx has written extensively, his ideas have been coherent as
well as precise. The importance of his ideas and its application has been important
to such an extent that almost no sociological interpretation of the existing reality
was considered complete until and unless it has examined the phenomenon from
the Marxist perspective.

After understanding the theoretical formulations of Karl Marx, we shall try to know about
the contributions of yet another scholar namely Max Weber.

3.5 Weberian Ideology

Max Weber (1864-1920) was a prominent sociologist from Germany who belonged to the
era of classical period in sociology. Max Weber is known in sociology for his brilliant writings
on a variety of topics. Max Weber gave a new direction to sociology to which he offered,
different as well as new ways of thinking and research. His ways of thinking and analysis
were different from Auguste Comte or Emile Durkheim. In our opinion Max Weber presented
his ideas which were basically concerned with the German sort of understanding but still
reflecting the European and the Western flavour. Max Weber has written on a variety of
topics from social action to bureucracy and also contributed in the vital areas like methodology
of social sciences. Although Max Weber attempted to define sociology in his own terms and
ways, certain formulations made by him like Verstehen still require clarifications. Sociologists
are still struggling with the idea of how exactly to proceed on the lines of thought developed
by Max Weber.

Reflection and Action 3.1 Outline the ideologies of Marx and Weber. What
are the commonalities in these sociologists.

Odisha State Open University 37

 Sociology

How to go for experimentation with some of the formulations developed by Max Weber
like social action, Verstehen or phenomenology ? It still remains an area where much remains
to be understood and subsequently done. However, some success has been achieved for
example around the conceptions like bureaucracy. Max Weber’s concepts of course carry
higher values in terms of its theoretical contents, but its actual operationalisation has largely
remained a problematic area. Max Weber for example defined sociology as an interpretative
understanding of social action. Max Weber continued to speak of social as having two
qualities : one, while doing such an action, the actor must take into account the presence of
another actor and wholly or partially be guided by it and two, the actor must attach a
subjective meaning to it. Max Weber has also written about the subjectivity versus objectivity
issues in social sciences. His ideas about the importance of Verstehen and ideal-types are
brilliant and excellent in terms of its theoretical value and rigor. But how to make them
operational at the practical and empirical level still remains a problematic area. On the one
hand the subject sociology has been widely enriched by the writings at the theoretical level
but otherwise not much has been achieved at the experimental level as Max Weber during
his own lifetime worked on different topics without clarifying much on the topics on which
he himself had worked earlier. However, Max Weber’s formulations on the Protestant ethics
and its relationship with the rise of capitalism are widely accepted and acclaimed. Max
Weber was able to demonstrate in his study that there was a positive relationship between
the Protestant ethics and the development of capitalism. We must ensure making before any
sort of a sweeping generalisation that Max Weber had presented it as a unique case in the
context of Western Europe only. In spite of his brilliant ideas, Max Weber’s work has to
some extent remained unexposed due to various reasons. But in spite of all this there is no
doubt that Max Weber’s formulations have contributed to a large scale in the area of
developing sociological theories. Thus after examining the theoretical contributions of some
of the classical authors like Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber,
here we come to the end of the contributions made by these scholars in the classical era of
the development of sociology. After this we shall attempt to see the contributions made by
the sociologists in the contemporary period.

The contemporary period of modern sociological theories could be seen as an important

departure from its classical period. During the classical period the central question has been
to establish sociology as an independent discipline but during the contemporary period the
main concern has been not only to come out of that classical image, but also to carry on the

38 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

subject further. During this contemporary period the scholars tried to learn from some of the
previous shortcomings in the works of the scholars who did some researches after Durkheim,
Weber and Marx. During this period, learning from the mistakes of the immediate past,
taking the inspirations from the works of the classical sociologists and rebuilding the subject
have been the main concerns. In this context, it seems relevant to mention the names of two
important sociologists who have made their significant contributions. Their works have also
been accepted and recognized as important ones after the classical period. These two scholars
are Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton. Although the works of these scholars from the
U.S.A. have been accepted internationally, but here only some of their important contributions
are being discussed.

3.6 Parson’s Action Theory

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) was an important sociologist from U.S.A. who had contributed
on the theory of social action, discussed about the action frame of reference and social-
system and lately on evolution. His contribution on what he calls it AGIL — Paradigm and
Pattern-Variable Scheme are also well known. We shall discuss about them briefly. Talcott
Parsons had the advantage of reviewing several scholars from classical sociology and some
other social scientists as well. He believed that he could present an integrated theoretical
point of view where all the formulations of previous social scientists would lead to. His
theoretical constructions, later integrated the points of view of psychologists like Sigmund
Freud, economists like Alfred Marshal and sociologists like Vilfredo Pareto, Emile Durkheim
and Max Weber to name a few. He also believed that all the contributions made by various
social scientists lead in one direction to arrive at or rather converge at one single notion of
what he calls it ‘social action’. Parsons also wanted to understand how social and cultural
values are internalised into personality system. In his later work TheSocial System (1951),
Parsons said that the three essential components ofaction are ‘personality system, ‘social
system’ and ‘cultural system’, although each one being a part of action, but none being
reducible to the other. In yet another work, Working Papers in the Theory of Action
(1953), Talcott Parsons alongwith his colleagues like Robert Bales and Edward Shills has
explained about what he calls it the ‘AGIL Paradigm’. Accordingly, A refers to Adaptation,
G to Goal — Attainment, I to Integration and L to Latency. Thus AGIL — Paradigm developed
by Parsons provided him much higher respect as he ascended towards formulation of
sociological theories at a much higher level. His another important theoretical formulation

Odisha State Open University 39

 Sociology

has been what he called it, the “Pattern Variable Scheme”. It suggests that either an individual
or community as an actor has important choices to make against two polar opposite
categories. For example, whether an individual or community in general promote ascription
or achievement, alternatively universalism or particularism. Talcott Parsons has referred to
five sets of such alternative choices. Additionally, within these five sets of choices, some
permutations and combinations could also be made out. For example, from the earlier
referred choices mentioned here, it could be ascertained whether the choices made are for
universalist achievement or alternatively particularistic ascription sort of orientations. A detailed
discussion on these issues could be seen in his book The Social System (1951). As stated
earlier Talcott Parson has also written on medical profession and theories of evolutionism.
In general the theories of Parsons are also seen as his contribution to developing the theories
of functionalism. But regarding the theories developed by him, several scholars from the
Western societies as well as from elsewhere have expressed the opinion that his formulations
are difficult to understand and there is a need to present it all in the simpler form. There is
another criticism which is associated with his work. It has been stated by several scholars
that the works of Talcott Parsons are too much theoretical in nature, sometime they appear
as ‘grand theories’ and generally have very little to do with the existing life of today or with
the empirical reality. Agreeing with all such criticisms that it is true that Parsons theoretical
formulations might appear difficult to comprehend, might not refer to the empirical material
but nonetheless, they could be considered as important contributions. In the views of the
preset author, such theoretical formulations are required in sociology and the learners of
sociology must attempt to comprehend such rigorous material. Talcott Parsons himself clarified
that his works had remained concerned with the tasks of providing theoretical schemes
only. According to him then it remained the task of some other scholars/sociologists to
verify and test his theories. But in order for sociology to grow as a subject, it was necessary
to strike a balance between theoretical formulations and factual informations. Another
sociologist namely Robert K. Merton has tried to move exactly in that direction. His
contributions to sociological theory are discussed in what follows.

Box 3.3: Mertons Contributions Robert K. Merton (1910-), another prominent

sociologist from the U.S.A. has tried to strike a reasonable balance between
theory and fact. He was somehow convinced that neither theory nor facts alone
would suffice to move in the desired direction. Basically, he argued to develop
research methodology in such a way as it not only included a meaningful balance

40 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

between theory and fact but also attempted to improve the quality of both. For
example, on the one hand Merton never accepted the formulations of his
predecessor sociologists as such and on numerous occasions he has tried to
make corrections in the writings of various scholars including Radcliffe – Brown
and Malinowski. Robert K. Merton, who attempted to rebuild and reformulate
“functional theory” has identified several mistakes committed unknowingly by
earlier scholars and later he attempted to reconstruct functional theory.

Robert K. Merton firmly believed that the whole of functional theory could not be abandoned
or discarded because some of the mistakes were committed by some of the contributors to
it at the earlier stages. His approach was to learn from the mistakes, identify them, try to
remove them and make functional theory as a viable approach for research investigations in
sociology. Regarding social research he explained it as an interplay between theory and
facts. Merton’s views on social research could be found in his book, SocialTheory and
Social Structure (1968). his views on the functional theory couldalso be seen in the same
book. While reconstructing functional theory, Merton has referred to three postulates one,
the postulate of functional unity of society; two, the postulate of universal functionalism and
three, the postulate of indispensability. He later suggested that such postulates which once
upon a time guided the works of some earlier sociologists were no longer necessary.
Additionally, Merton has explained about what he calls it, “Middle Range Theories” and its
necessities in the contemporary period. Merton has also clarified in detail about what he
calls it “Reference Group Theory”. In this way we could see that in his own way, Robert K.
Merton tried to build-up the much required ground and created the environment for the
development of sociology as a scientific discipline. From the above discussion it is now clear
that both Talcott Parsons as well as Robert K. Merton made great efforts to carry forward
the discipline of sociology and in this endeavor they were quite successful too.

3.7 Recent Advances in Sociological Theories

Recent advances that were made in sociology are quite important and meaningful. Besides
the works of Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim, A.R. Radcliffe – Brown, Branislaw
Malinowski, Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton which were mainly influenced by and to
a large extent remained concerned with the philosophy of positivism, there was another

Odisha State Open University 41

 Sociology

stream of thought emerging out during the same period. The development of sociology has
witnessed, apart from the philosophical background of positivism another stream of thought
initiated and encouraged by the German sociologists like Max Weber.

Reflection and Action 3.2 Provide an outline of recent advances in

sociological theories. Write down your answer in your notebook.

It was Max Weber who defined sociology as an interpretative understanding of social action.
Max Weber initiated the debate on why the elements of subjectivity, subjective understaning
and Verstahen should be included in sociology. Max Weber, never impressed by the
formulations centeredaround positivism wanted to give a new direction to the formulations
in sociological theory. In fact the whole debate centeredaround the issues of subjectivity
versus objectivity was initiated and inspired by Max Weber. In fact, sociology as a subject
has been strengthen by the efforts made by Max Weber. Here a reference to only two such
new areas of research namely phenomenology and ethnomethodology shall be made. These
two topics represent the main areas concerned with the recent advances made in sociological
research. Two other topics require a mention here as they have emerged in the recent times,
they are postmodernism and globalisation. We hope that at various stages of learning sociology
all such concepts shall be discussed. Although sociological theories initially developed to
strengthen the subject and establish it as a core discipline in itself, but with the advancement
of the subject certain perspectives clearly emerged in the process. Here a reference shall be
made to only such perspectives which have had a direct bearing upon the development of
sociology. Sometimes the terms like theories and perspectives have been used interchangeably
also. Some of the popular perspectives developed in sociology are known as functional
perspective, conflict perspective, exchange perspective and symbolic interactionist
perspective. Although several scholars in one or another way have been associated different
perspectives but here only those thinkers shall be mentioned whose names are generally
familiar to us. The names of Emile Durkheim and Robert K. Merton have been associated
with the functional perspective, Karl Marx represents the conflict perspective, B. Malinowski
discussed the material related to the exchange perspective whereas Herbert Blumer discussed
about symbolic interactionist perspective. Here it might be advised that while discussing
about sociological theories it would be relevant to keep in mind the role of thinkers, as well
as that of various perspectives to which they were associated.

42 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

3.8 The Concept of Paradigm

It was Kuhn, who first suggested that development within a discipline, especially science is
not a gradual process but in fact takes place quite suddenly. Hence, Kuhn’s books entitled
the structure of scientific revolution. Kuhn calls these sudden charges as “paradigm shifts”.

According to Kuhn, science and by extension social science undergoes its process in three
phases which are discernible.

• Prescientific phase
• Normal science
• Paradigm shift

In the initial phase theories of explanation are incomplete and completing with one another.
At some point one of the theories establishes itself bringing in the phase of normal science. In
this phase a single theory or a set of theories emerge dominant which Kuhn calls a paradigm.

When there is a paradigm shift the situation is one where the previous theories have proved
to be redundant. For Kuhn this a natural process and it repeats itself over time as the new
and established theories themselves become incomplete as knowledge expands. At this
point the solution lies in modifying the theories or to abandon them for another set of dominant
or competing theoretical explanations which offer more complete and better explanation for
both science, social science and world-view as whole.

We can give an example of paradigm shift by referring to Copernicus who pointed out that
it was the earth that revolved around the earth rather than the sun revolving around the earth
as was Ptolemy’s position. Copernicus gained adherence to his views with scientific data to
prove them. A sudden shift in terms of theories concepts and perspectives emerged with
great speed and there was a paradigm shift. A new theoretical explanation emerges and
establishes itself ushering in the new set of theories and perspectives. Another example of
paradigm shift occurred when Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced Newton’s theory of
gravity.

We must point that according to Kuhn the paradigm shift implies a rather drastic if not total
replacement of the previously established theories of science and social science. In short the
earlier theories are non comparable. The shift is total. The way language is used, the

Odisha State Open University 43

 Sociology

development of new concepts, words and meanings is part of a paradigm shift so are norms,
values and mores.

To put it differently a paradigm shift implies a new view of the world, its perception, perspective,
and overall attitudes of the world community charges and charges with great speed. In the
era, of globalisation which witness the postmodern paradigm shift in which the local context
is considered to be the focus of study and the consideration of general or mega theories is not
considered either wise or practical.

Thus the concept of paradigm has two aspects to it. The first is that which engulfs the whole
and subsumes its various parts on subsets. It comprises all the procedure of science or social
science. This is a global paradigm. At the second level me find there are theories and practices
which bolster the existing paradigm of the society/globe.

We must clarify it here that although some efforts have been put in to make sociology a
distinct, independent and a scientific discipline, by some great scholars included, but the
sociological theories thus produced have also been challenged on several grounds. This once
again highlights the scientific nature of sociology where every theory can be put to test and
liable to be rejected if found wrong. Thus, in sociological theories, as in other sciences as
well, there is nothing like an eternal a universal truth that remains a truth under all the conditions
and at every moment of time. Sociological theories should also not to be confused with
something like religious or meta-physical assertions. Nor sociological theories are comparable
to philosophical guidelines to be followed. Sociological theories have come out of such
problems and the challenges faced by them today are of another nature and most of them are
of scientific type. And in order to achieve that scientific nature, sociology has travelled a
longer path since the writings of Auguste Comte who had established it as a positivist science.
The first challenge to sociological theories has come from the huge amount of data that have
been generated throughout the world, especially after the World War II. For example,
datagenerated in the area of demography has led to several new innovations at the theoretical
level. Similarly data concerning Human Development Index has helped in making transnational
comparisons. The second challenge to sociological theory has come from the processes of
change that are taking shape at various levels of society. To put it in simple words it could be
said that the processes of social change keep on going in society, independently of the fact
whether sociologists study them or not. In fact in the contemporary world the processes
social change are not only complex in nature but they are taking shape at a much faster pace

44 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

today. As a result of it, many a times sociologists are not actually in a position to study them
all. There are several such phenomenon which require some serious sociological studies like
for example, the consequences of AIDS and that of terrorism. Much remains to be done in
these areas. The third challenge to sociological theories came when society at large had
undergone some significant periods of time. These important periods include the end of the
World War II, end of the colonial rule at various places in the world and the emergence of
various independent nation – states. The sociological theories have had to accommodate
itself several times when such important changes were taking shape in the world. The fourth
challenge to sociological theory has come due to some misconceptions about sociology as a
subject that is basically meant to solve the current problems of society. In fact sociology is
quite capable of solving the problems of society too, but so far it has kept itself limited upto
their scientific study only. But at the level of response to some of these problems and challenges
faced, sociologists have attempted to address some of them. As a consequence of the efforts
of the sociologists we have seen the emergence of certain theoretical formulations
centeredaround the conceptions like rationality, postmodernism, globalisation and civil society.
At the level of sociological theory, intellectuals and academicians from the subject have also
responded meaningfully on the topics like democracy, socialism and secularism. Sociologists
to some extent through their writings have made their presence felt in the area of the
reconstruction of society.

3.9 Conclusion

We have seen what comprises a theory and what a paradigm means. We have taken an
analysis of classical sociological theories, and seen how Comte enunciated the law of the
three stages, Marxian ideology, Weberian ideology, Parson’s action theory and some recent
advances in sociological theory. Finally we turned to the concept of paradigm and explained
what it means in terms of the intellectually violent stuff’s in the dominance of theories, which
have been termed paradigm shifts by Thomas Kuhn. We have adequately indicated the
subject to which we addressed ourselves to.

3.10 Further Reading

• Agger, Ben (ed.) 1978, Western Marxism: An Introduction, Santa Monica, Calif:
Goodyear

Odisha State Open University 45

 Sociology

• Alford, Robert R. and Friedland, Roger 1985, Powers of Theory: Capitalism,the

State, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

• Blumer, Herbert 1959, “What is Wrong with Social Theory?” in H.Blumer, Symbolic
Interaction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall

• Kuhn, Thomas 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago University

of Chicago Press

• Ritzer, George 1996, Sociological Theory Us. Mc Graw-Hill

46 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

Unit - 4
Social Construction of Reality

Learning Objectives :

Once you have studied this unit you should be able to know
• define “reality” and “social construction”
• describe construction of reality
• indicate the relation between language legitimation socialisation and reality
• describe social reality and the symbolic universe.

Contents :
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Construction of Reality
4.3 Phenomena of Social Reality
4.4 Everyday Social Reality
4.5 Language and Social Reality
4.6 The Objective Reality of Society
4.7 Legitimation and Social Reality
4.8 Socialisation and Legitimation
4.9 Social Reality and The Symbolic Universe
4.10 Maintaining Social Reality and Language
4.11 Conclusion
4.12 Further Reading

4.1 Introduction
In this lesson we are going to try and understand what exactly is meant by the “social
construction” of “reality”. What do we mean by these words? Unless we understand each
of these interrelated concepts it would be difficult to proceed with our presentation of this

Odisha State Open University 47

 Sociology

most important aspect of social reality. Social reality indicates quite clearly that what we are
referring to is in fact basically the capacity of society to develop different ways of looking at
the constituents of the visible aspects of reality. Thus in fact as we will see that there are
many societies and many cultures, but what is common among them is that social reality
tries to perpetuate itself through the younger generation, but this does not usually succeed
and the social reality of each generation has several points of departure from the preceding
generation.

What is being said is that members of any society live by certain beliefs and principles but
these were not always there and there have been significant shifts in each generations point
of view and perspectives. The points of importance in discussing the social construction of
reality is that in most societies the version of reality is not a single monolithic construct but
rather consists of several layers of meaning and existence. That is to say that there are many
social constructions of reality which differ from category to category. So we must point out
that while the method of social construction of reality remains similar in most societies it is
also very clear that there are “multiple synchronic realities”, that is many versions of culture
and realityare available especially in plural societies where these realities then intermesh and
interact and influence each other in various ways. Thus it is clear that “reality” is constructed
in a specific way but this does not mean that all versions of reality are the same. There is
often much difference in their expression. Society which creates reality, as we will see,
provides many different points of ingress and is responsible for creating a socially intermeshed
reality. What we are saying then is that there are plural indeed multiple reality systems
available for us to observe in our daily life which is really the very root of any social
constructions and sustains the same even through periods of lawlessness and disruptions.

Once we have read and understood the points made above it should be clear that what we
are discussing concerns the secure and integrated way in which society perpetuates its
attitudes and beliefs. It is also clear that each generation brings with a whole lot of perceptual
expectations and a minimum acceptable standard of living so that it can lead a meaningful
existence. So it has to be noted that society as a whole contains and keeps in balance that
entire social process from cradle to the tomb.

48 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

4.2 Construction of Reality

Now it would be natural to ask how is all this construction of multiple and synchronic realities
are achieved. What are the ways and the mechanism in which we as members together
create a perception of the world process. Surprisingly social realities are created as soon as
the new members of society are ready a particular imprinting is begun to be ingrained in
them. Among the important areas of life include the economic, political, psychological, and
so on and each of them is put together by training the new generation to act and behave in
some particular manner which they deem to be fit and worthy of them.

The social fabric of any society is a fragile construct which has to be constantly renewed
through ritual and sustained interactions. Thus reality itself is “fragile”so that any disturbing
or conflictual situations lead to a breakdown of order and mayhem rules. After such social
breakdowns which occur in interaction, in times of war with another nation or even chronic
lawlessness. It takes much time to recover from such breakdowns of reality and the time
they take to repair the social fabric may last many years or even make a lifetime impact on
some of the members. Thus as we introduce the lesson we have to point out that culture is
many faceted and the construction of reality though similar in many societies does in fact
differ from individual to individual and from nation to nation. There is doubt that in the mind
of the young and impressionable that has to develop certain capacity to be bounded say by
religious or economic status. Thus there is different life style created by the different castes
and classes which have a full blown ideology and interaction in everyday life. These are not
mere ways of looking at things out of curiosity. Rather it is a critical situation where the
constructed reality has to be continuously fed and bolstered so to speak into the social
system or systems.

As such when we discuss how social reality is constructed then it becomes very clear to us
that in order to perpetuate itself society takes recourse to both socialisation and education
and continues to control the individual to some extent and even bring within him a sense of
responsibility to further perpetuate his reality.

We are going to explain in this lesson how social process constructs reality and there by
goes further to establish that very pattern of culture and ideology which they themselves
were taught and learnt to make the appropriate judgments and decisions within that very
frame work. Thus in such a delicate and precise operation it becomes obvious that not all

Odisha State Open University 49

 Sociology

members would be able to fit in fully into the social fabric, and these are deviant individuals
and society attempts through various other therapies to bring the deviant back into the
centre or the “mainstream” of society.

We have pointed out in various ways that our reality and experience are all constructed by
human beings in communities, large groups, nation states, and at times by much larger concerns
than the nation state itself. The task of the sociology of knowledge is to indicate how precisely
these constructions of social reality are evolved by human beings and groups and community
of human beings. Thus the interrelationship between knowledge and the social context in
which it has evolved is an important ingredient in understanding how society is able to create
and recreate itself over the ages.

According to some social scientists it is believed that the societal context was the basis of
the existence of ideas but not the precise ideas themselves, and therefore gave the individual
some critical degree of voluntary actions and freedom of action. On the other hand there are
other social scientists who believe that human thought per se is never safe from ideology and
the intellectual climate prevailing in the environment as a whole. It is thus clear that, as the
social scientists have pointed out that the acquisition of knowledge is accretional and it
gathers relatively slowly, and only when sufficient aspects of the knowledge sought are
examined does the view of any reality become focused and clear. Thus knowledge is
accumulated over time and it is not possible for it to be given full blown to the new members,
and existing members are continually given fresh inputs through media, institutions, family
and work environment and so on to keep them abreast of the events that are happening in
society as a whole.

4.3 Phenomena of Social Reality

Berger and Luckmann feel that to study the phenomena of social reality implies that we use
everyday common sense reality as a point of departure. This is what knowledge ultimately
comprises: the interaction and participation in social life and process. Thus “commonsense
ideas” are the most important ingress into understanding the sociology and phenomena of
individuals, groups and society. Thus it is clear that society has at the very least two sides to
its existence and ontology- one is subjective and the other is objective. Together these facts
give rise to the understanding that while there is a group life for an individual there is in fact
an objective reality , rules and regulations which have to be adhered to, unless the individual

50 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

or group wants to be ostracized. Thus first of all the reality of social life is sui generic that
exists over above and beyond any single individual. Thus Berger is interested, as are we, in
finding out how humans produce and perpetuate social life in all its manifold facets and
aspects. Thus by attempting to understand social reality we are really asking how it was
constructed, because this is what will give us the cues to proceed further with our line of
enquiry.

4.4 Everyday Social Reality

Berger and Luckmann point out that everyday life and its basis is such that it is best
apprehended by the method of phenomenological analysis, which happens to be a descriptive
method. Thus we observe that consciousness has the basic property of existing in several
dimensions and several types of reality. Thus human beings are aware to a greater or lesser
extent that the social world comprises of many or “multiple realities” in everyday life. These
multiple realities are themselves well ordered and more or less fully developed and quite
capable of influencing each other. Thus phenomena are, such that a particular pattern can be
discerned by human beings, and these social facts are imposed upon them. In other words a
new entrant into a society sooner or later finds that he or she has a particular social order
which is imposed upon him or her. Thus we find that common sense knowledge is what
human beings share intersubjectively through interaction with other human beings. This
becomes very clear in the structure of routine that human beings follow in the course of their
daily life. Pursuing an enquiry into common sense knowledge and its social context is relatively
simple, but Berger and Luckmann point out that the difficulty exists in the comprehension
and “translation” of those areas which are not classifiable as common sense knowledge but
are in fact non everyday reality.

Box 4.1: Indexical ConstructionsThe entire social world….. is a set of

indexicalities, which are taken for granted. They are rarely called into question,
and when they are, the questioning stays at a superficial level, accepting fairly
quick and easy classifications instead of pursuing the search for objectivity to its
end. For there is no end: the search for objectivity definable reality is a bottomless
pit. (Randall Collins 1988, Theoretical Sociology. Onlando : Harcourt Brace
p: 277).

Odisha State Open University 51

 Sociology

To understand the social construction of reality we have to be aware of the time-structure of

daily life since this sheds an important insight on the overall social order. As Berger and
Luckmann point out that temporality reflects and is a basic property of consciousness itself.
Again we find that the temporal structure of daily life is an extremely complicated matter.
This is because consciousness exists and interacts at many different level and all these different
levels of reality have to be seen as interrelated and arranged in a specific pattern. Thus the
temporal structure existing in society indicates clearly defines the situation for members of
the particular society they belong to.

Let us consider the question of daily interactions between human beings in any particular
society. In these interactions it is the direct or face to face situations which define much of the
structure of reality in everyday life. This is because when there is face to face interaction the
self and the other an inter subjective understanding by each of the other. Self reflection is
also an outcome of the behaviour with others, as it makes us conscious of what we are and
stand for in society, since it creates or even “gives” us our attitudes and subsequently our
behaviour, which in turn is the basis of human social reality, or “realities”.

It may be pointed out however that everyday reality itself has many components and these
itself could generate specific situations and attitudes. It is therefore clear on observation that
while there are basic similarities in social reality there are also areas that create rules of their
own and impose them on the members of a given reality. This reality again although it is so
clearly present in social situations is in fact influenced and bounded by the rules of social
reality clearly present in social situations is in fact influenced and bounded by the rules of
social reality.

4.5 Language and Social Reality

Another area where social reality is present is that of the area of language. All languages have
a particular grammar and syntax, and is the most significant and important sign system of all
societies. It helps to create a fund of knowledge which is continuously going expansion and
contraction as different words and ideas which enter into the overall fund of knowledge and
ideas. And there are some aspects of knowledge and understanding which ‘fall out’ of the
overall system of ideas and knowledge. Thus for example the English language has compiled
vast dictionaries which are revised, edited and updated, and in these social procedures
many new words and concepts enter into the language. There are also words and ideas that
become defunct and are removed from the dictionary and language.

52 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

So we can say that language as a social reality accumulates knowledge and transmits it to
other members of the human system, which in turn create a socially ordered environment.

It may be pointed out here that language itself is a highly complex aspect of social reality and
research into how a human being leans and adapts to the social order or reality. Thus it is
pointed out that language is symbolic and therefore capable of apprehending social reality.
Therefore, it is a social fact which exercises control or restraint over human members, and
yet remains an externalisation, and outside the individual. This is because the ontological
reality of language is such that it is the backbone of social order and its main artery of
communication.

Reflection and Action 4.1 Is society socially constructed or is it a divine

religiously raised structure? Reflect and comment.

We can therefore say that language is a vast repertory of knowledge, reason, morality,
politics and social attitudes. It can then be added that if the language is changed the particular
ideological leaning of a linguistic framework would also be deeply affected. Thus social
reality can be apprehended by a study of language and its application to varying situations
within the societal context. Related to this is the idea that not only does language provide us
an ingress into the overall structure of society, it is basic to human progress and the shift in the
prominent features of social reality form a basic component on the history of theories and
ideas so far as sociology and the sociology of knowledge is concerned.

4.6 The Objective Reality of Society

Let us now consider the objective reality of society. By objective reality we mean that
society exercises control over the individual, and is beyond the control of any single individual.
Let us see how this happens in society with the specific focus on institutions. How does an
institution direct and control the behaviour of its members, and how is it that while individuals
are born live and die, institutions can exist indefinitely in time. This is why we are choosing
this area for the exemplification of the social reality which exists and how it continues to
exist.

Let us look at the phenomena of institutionalisation, a procedure that creates a space and
certain goals and aims that would be reached through various rules that define institutional
behaviour. It has been pointed out that every institution exists in both a physical environment

Odisha State Open University 53

 Sociology

and a social environment. The fact is that both these are “given” and cannot be altered at
will. In fact it is his overall social and physical environment that makes man a human being.
It is this interaction with the physical and social environment that creates the existence of all
human activity. This is because no human activity can be begun or completed without the
due impact of the overall or “total” environment.

Now the question arises regarding how institutions themselves begin continue and establish
themselves. In short we are now asking the origin of human institutions. It may be pointed
out that institutions arise when there is the “reciprocal typifications” of the habitualized
behaviour that make for strictly patterned behaviour which should not go out of the limits of
the overall control pattern. Thus the various different tasks that members carry on lead to an
institution taking over social control of its members. When this has happened we may say
that the institutions has “arrived” or has become crystallized. Thus institutions which were
initially humanly created over time soon develop a socially objective reality of their own.

Box 4.2: Experience and Interpretation…We cannot claim that this

embedded ness is absolutely universal… the world is not always taken as
ordinary by all people and all occasions. Buddhist mediators and other mystics
have devised deliberate methods for withdrawing the mind’s assent to ordinary
assumptions about reality and have claimed to experience an illumination by
looking at whatever transpires without putting any interpretation upon it. (Randall
Collins 1988, Theoretical Sociology, p:279 Orlando : Harcourt Brace).

Berger and Luckmann point out that the relation between man and his social world is dialectical,
that is each phenomena acts, interacts and reacts to the other. Thus man and nature cannot
be separated as each has an effect on the other which can be beneficial or detrimental. Thus
we can say that social reality has three interrelated aspects. These are the facts that society
is produced by human beings; further it becomes clear that society is an objective reality;
and that as a consequence of these factors man becomes a social product himself.

Now society requires to be accepted or realised, that is to say it is in need of legitimation,

which is done by socialising the new generation of members into the preexisting patterned
ways of interaction. Socialisation it may be pointed out is done steadily and almost continuously
during the growing years, and it never ends even unto death and attitudes towards the beyond.
That is to say institutions provide for rules of birth, life and death and how these processes

54 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

can be made more efficient. However socialization is never wholly able to keep all members
in the line of control and as such there are some percentage of deviants in any society.

The inner control or the control of attitudes is what makes the institution such a powerful
force. However social reality, shared experiences, and common compliance lead to an inner
and outer congealing of experience which settles down in the subconscious and exercises
control and this is what makes socialisation firm , steady and perpetual. It is through institutions
like the family that we learn to become human beings and to exhibit behaviours that are
socially beneficial. However again there is no perfect correlation between legitimation
socialisation and overall behaviour. And there are “lapses” in socialisation which can sometimes
lead to a tear in the social fabric in the form of riots or other violent disturbances just because
the social control of institutions and how it is passed on sometimes break down, and such a
situation could be dangerous for social harmony.

Apart from the above we find that human beings have to enact a particular learned role
behaviour which is essential to the wellbeing of the fabric of society. Roles set up mutual
obligations and reciprocal links. When these roles are repeated often enough an elaborate
role structure develops. This is so even if a role play is relatively simple, and much more so as
the role has wider implications and much greater social control.

Thus a role defines the social self and the other way round. Roles have their origin in reciprocal
typifications, just as do institutions. Roles create a social fabric that is linked both in time and
space, and has further to conform to the role limits and thereby forming the very backbone of
institutions and social life as a whole.

This is to say it is institutions that shape the individuals and then start depending upon them.
Therefore to play a role properly the player or member must know the wholeness of the role,
and realise it in its many intricacies, including the cognitive and the behavioral aspect. This
implies that there is a social distribution of knowledge in society which occurs as the members
play and enact their social roles, leading to a basic understanding of how a member is supposed
to respond to some other social person in interaction or reflection. It has been pointed out
that the study of roles is very important in the sociology of knowledge since that is what leads
us to learn about how the macroscopic institutions impact upon the individual and the group
and create “real” experiences which are part of the construction of social reality. Thus as we
go along we find that construction of social reality is in fact an elaborate cooperative effort of
all the members of society, and is not something that any one individual can undertake.

Odisha State Open University 55

 Sociology

If a society is relatively coherent and orderly it will have institutions that are respected and
shared by members of a society. On the other hand if there is much conflict and disorder in
society it is clear that the institutions within society are breaking up or at least not being
subscribed to in any great measure. In other words if there is a society that is highly balkanized
its institutional base will also have multiple synchronous societies, or subcultures. In fact it is
the existence of subcultures which indicate quite clearly that we cannot talk about “reality” in
the singular and it must be realised that “reality” is not the same throughout a society or a
nation state. In fact there are plural perceptions of society depending on the precise position
that a member is located within his or her community. This is because knowledge is the
product of interaction between its knowledge base and the social context. However we
need to point out here that there are such institutions which become so powerful, that they
indeed become “reified” and take on an almost independent course sometimes disturbing
the given arrangements in society in anomic situations where social order breaks down
temporarily.

4.7 Legitimation and Social Reality

Let us now turn to another aspect of the social construction of reality, and this is the process
of “legitimation” which provides an institution within society its overall rationale and rules of
conduct. It provides the society with a set of rules and regulations which are taken to be the
actual or true meaning of the purpose or ideology of an institution. By being legitimated the
institutions in society are able to provide guidelines of the work conditions that members of
each institution are supposed to follow or face sanctions which could range from the nominal
to the extreme forms of the same existing rules that apprehend conduct that is not in the
interests of the organisation.

Reflection and Action 4.2 Why does social institution need legitimation?
Reflect and comment.

Thus legitimation provides a total rationale regarding what the actor or actors are supposed
to do, could do and even want to do. In short we cannot say that institutionalisation is
relatively successful unless all actions are legitimated by the ideology of the institution which
is normally an extension of the overall national or globe society. However we need to keep
in mind that the theoretical-ideological axis that upholds most institutions is often a fragile
one and the indifferent or different behaviour within an institutional context can make it
breakdown and cease to exist effectively. At this point we must indicate that another dimension

56 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

of legitimation concerns the symbolic universe. These symbolic universes take the social
construction of reality to another level, which help to make society cohere. The symbolic
universe is a matrix of total meaning both objective and subjective and it is actually the
apprehension of the symbolic universe is necessary to be able to be a member of society and
thereby living within the prescribed social order and be a member of any specific society.
Thus it is the symbolic universe which is a cognitive tool to apprehend, be a member of, or
even to subvert the process of social construction which as we pointed out earlier suffers
from being in a fragile condition and therefore has to be bolstered by various institutional
modalities to give it continuity and to go on from generation to generation, all the while
adapting and reordering itself to meet the challenged of a new generation, which has grown
up with different values. As such no matter how legitimate an institution within society is, it
definitely undergoes changes and new legitimation links have to be brought in to explain new
, even threatening situations. As such the process of legitimation may be spread out over time
ns that may prove to be much greater than even the total life of any of its members. Thus it is
the symbolic universe which is of prime importance in the overall “hierarchy” of a human
being can experience.

Box 4.3: Mind and Society The symbolic universe is what arranges a society in
the mind of the members so that what is perceived through the senses, in fact all
possible experience is filtered down through the cognitive process both objective
and subjective. It is thus the binding glue of society and we have briefly indicated
that it takes control of all the discrete bits of knowledge and social procedure
and is able to combine and resolve it within the given frame work of societal
membership. As Berger and Luckmann put it that “it makes sense of the entire
universe”. By this we mean the social and cultural states of being that exist in
any culture have to be apprehended as cognitive aspects of gaining membership.
This is so because each group of members who share similar situations will be
coerced into trying a finding meaning in the world of everyday life, because it is
in part a projection of the desires, fears and expectations of other members
within an institution or institutions in society.

Thus it becomes clear that the symbolic universe is a method for not only apprehending
reality but creating it also, and thus what we are talking about is the fact that there is an

Odisha State Open University 57

 Sociology

intermesh between the subjective and the objective side of reality, both of which are perceived
by human beings who are members of any institution or group of institutions in any society.

Thus it is pointed out that “placement” within a symbolic order or symbolic universe is really
very important and the very basis of the perception that will be available to any member in
society. Thus we can clearly see how members of any society are keenly engaged in the task
of socially constructing a reality that is able to cope with all unforeseen situations. However
such total control is very difficult and in every society we find that there are problems which
cry for a solution. Further it is also absolutely clear since Durkheim that any socially constructed
system “leaks”, that is there are always some people or groups of people which see reality
in a way different from the majority of the members. This is what often causes “tears” in the
social fabric of society with no matter how much care the members have helped to construct
or build it up. In short human beings have not only to be apprehending legitimate structures
but maintaining their continuity. Indeed there are some groups or institutions like family,
polity, commerce and so on which also find similarities among them but they are also quite
different in their scope and spread in any group no matter how large or small it is.

4.8 Socialisation and Legitimation

Let us now turn to how the human mind uses various concepts to uphold the symbolic
universe that is related to and is a part of societal processes. Thus if an institution is to be a
part of the members existence it has to be appropriately legitimated, by being located or
placed in some particular part of the symbolic universe. This is what gives it meaning and
power to social reality. If the symbolic universe undergoes a shift over time then new
legitimating structures and discourses are invented by the human mind, to bolster the social
reality that has been disturbed or “shaken”, and make it whole again. This happens in times
of great stress political, economic or social, but the symbolic universe remains even though
in a somewhat attenuated form.

Now further if the symbolic universe is confronted with a pattern of socialisationthat is

paradoxical or even contradictory to it then a problem of lack of meaning arises and has to
be dealt with the establishment of a new ideological framework or concepts that can deal
with the altered reality. When this happens the societal forces and institutions begin to repress
the groups who are perceived as threatening for the symbolic universe, in an attempt to
retrieve all that can be kept from the old symbolic order into the new, and thereby salvage

58 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

something from the past or the social order which has readjusted itself to deal with the new
situations in social processes.

We may say then that mythology itself provides the conceptual apparatus for the symbolic
universe, and this functions as a adaptive mechanism so far as the society is concerned. It has
been pointed out that mythology itself was created to overcome paradoxes and inconsistencies
in the overall environment. Berger and Luckman point out to maintain the symbolic universe
there are several types of conceptual equipment including:

• Mythology
• Theology
• Philosophy and
• Science
Now while mythology is associated with the mass construction of social reality we find that
the other three elements mentioned become increasingly the domain of the specialists and the
elites. Such a body of knowledge is quite different than what the specialists in theology,
philosophy and science are concerned with. That is to say that the relation between the lay
person and the expert becomes very different from each other as the latter are a specialised
activity of the social elites

We may ask at this point that what are the implications and applications of the creation and
maintenance of the symbolic universe. There are in fact two features of the symbolic universe
maintenance. These are:

• Therapy and
• Inhalation.
In the case of the therapeutics of symbolic universe maintenance what happens is that the
attempt of the concepts that form the symbolic universe are used to re-socialise members so
that they can play their role in society. Yet it may be noted that therapy itself does not claim or
reclaim all the members. In such a case the symbolic universe and its implications have not
been properly understood, if they have been understood at all.

Odisha State Open University 59

 Sociology

In the case of the concept of inhalation we find that all areas of meaning and existence that
are not subsumed under the symbolic universe have to be erased or eliminated so that they
do not start challenging the legitimacy of the same.

Thus in both these approaches or applications we find that the aim of the exercise is to
ensure integration and incorporation into society. If this is not done the society will undergo
anomic disturbances, and the social order will become dysfunctional. Thus a truly
representative symbolic universe is one that covers conceptually each and every aspect of
reality and leaves nothing out whatsoever. It is obvious that such a system does not exist and
in practice each member is basically approximating the concepts of the symbolic universe.
In doing this the members of a society come to have many ideas in common but there is still
room for individuation of the members.

4.9 Social Reality and the Symbolic Universe

Now what is the implication for social organisation and the maintenance of the symbolic
universe? We have already made the point that reality is socially defined, and that it is human
beings and human groups that define its contours. Thus we find that the specialists in a
society provide complete legitimation of the social reality. Such experts usually hold very
different views from lay members on definitions of reality. Thus we may point out again that
there can be differences of view and opinion between the experts and the laymen. There is
thus a sort of competition on whose definitions and concepts are going to be beneficial and
become operative in social interaction.

As we can see there are different ways of apprehending and perceiving social process.
Which way is seen as the best course of action depends on the ideology which is invoked
and which concepts are used to explain any aspect of the symbolic universe that has become
the area of concern, eg. societal conflict over the distribution of resources. Groups often
subscribe to an ideology which will benefit them and invoke theories which will help them
achieve their goals, social, economic or political.

Box 4.4: Pluralism and Reality It may be noted that most modern societies are
pluralistic comprising many races ethnicities and religions. In such pluralistic societies
the room for conflict is much reduced and outright conflict is rare. Pluralism itself
arises in times of rapid change and erodes the strong foundations of traditions and
make them form new structures and patterns of interaction, and new theories are
invented to legitimate the new social structures in society.

60 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

Such legitimations are necessary as we have pointed out, because without them no new
ideology can be formed or if formed it cannot be successful in maintaining and propagating it.
On the other hand we find institutions themselves are changed or altered in some way to fit
into the existing social reality, and there is thus a dialectic between institutions and social
reality. Again the definition of reality itself projects that reality and these definitions often have
a self fulfilling aspect to them and begin to change the contours of reality itself in social
process. Thus social change can only be understood as a dialectical process between the
new theories that legitimate new institutions.

These institutions are also affected and themselves change to have a closer correlation between
themselves and the theories and ideologies used to legitimate them. It may be added here
that the social construction of reality is a human product and has been realised by the efforts
of human beings alone and is experienced by them as a set of complete experiences. The
sociology of knowledge maintains that the existence of the symbolic universe is reflected in
the lives of the members of the society. As a corollary to this we may add that the existence
of a symbolic universe has its base in individuals and has no existence apart from their lives.
In short although we are saying that man produces the reality within which he then lives,
procreates and expires, he is not quite capable of altering it alone and requires a group or
community to do the same.

Let us now turn to the description of society in relation to subjective reality. We shall first
dwell on primary and secondary socialisation as ways in which human beings create their
own reality. Thus society exists both as objective and subjective reality. To understand this
fully we need to appreciate that society is an ongoing process which comprises the elements
of :

• Externalisation

• Objectification and

• Internalisation

As the human externalises social reality it acts back upon him and he internalises it. This
means that the existing social situation has been apprehended and subscribed to in such
great measure that certain actions and interactions become most mechanical and their existence
is never called into question. Thus there is a time sequence involved in the imparting of
certain basic and essential points of social reference, which means it takes time to become a

Odisha State Open University 61

 Sociology

fully fledged member of any society. Being a fully fledged member of a society means that the
member has acquired membership, and is able to make decisions, interpretations and even
plan and pursue an objective or a goal over time. Thus as Berger and Luckmann put it that
the individual becomes a member “through a temporal sequence” and as the social reality is
apprehended more and more the members of a society are able to predict the outcome of
certain actions and interactions. This is to say as social reality is apprehended more and
more the human being is able to be an aware member of society, being able to realize and
live up to his expectations within limits set by society itself.

It may thus be pointed out that primary socialisation comprises the understanding of roles of
the personal others and the generalised other. In short such socialisation proceeds from the
inner circle or close circle of a human being to wider and wider circles until it encompasses
the whole of society. Now this does not happen in a majority of cases and primary socialisation
in some cases does fail to bring about the desired uniformity within the society. This type of
deviance within the society however is not a matter of alarm but of serious concern. Thus
when the gestalt of the generalised other has been learnt we find that both the objective and
the subjective sides of social reality balance and successful primary socialisation has been
completed.

Secondary socialisation in fact is a necessary aspect of the division of labour, and how
knowledge has been distributed within the society. At this point we find that the institutional
sub worlds have been internalised and role specific knowledge has been generated, concerning
the social activity and output that any role required. Thus secondary socialization adds new
layers of data and knowledge which in some cases even supercede some aspects of primary
socialisation. However to establish overall consistency we find that secondary socialisation
presumes conceptual clarity to bring together different bodies of knowledge under a single
umbrella. We may point out here that while in primary socialisation of the members or group
that is acting upon a human being is relatively small.

In the case of secondary socialisation the people who act and influence ones mentality and
behaviour are very many numerically speaking. One has entered the ocean from the pond
and in secondary socialisation one is in the midst of society at large. There is inevitably a
formality and lack of personal depth in the secondary socialisation, which is there because of
the complex division of labour, which in itself demands that the institutional reality is not
disturbed too much and there are institutions like marriage which have been there in human
society since time immemorial and continue to be with us.

62 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

As can be readily seen both primary and secondary socialization are delicate procedures
and have to be carefully imparted and acquired. Thus socialisation is a process that occurs
as part of every human society, but to maintain the objective and subjective structures does
not always happen. There is a certain level of deviancy in every community. To contain this
deviancy society has to develop some control procedures to protect its disruption and eventual
disintegration. Thus reality maintenance procedures such as mass media or mass contact
programmes become part of the overall attempt to perpetuate social reality and to make the
human perception of it be integrated and coherent.

In this regard it can be pointed out that usually it is primary socialisation which has a greater
durability and is much more strongly ingrained than the procedures of secondary socialisation
whose layers of gloss of meaning often do not stand up to scrutiny and start breaking apart.
Well established rules of conduct may be challenged and a new set of rules may take their
place or at least effect some part of their existence. Thus secondary socialisation is more
“artificial” by nature, and is less deeply lodged in the human than the primary socialisation.
As we shall now discuss it is casual conversation which is what is responsible for the
continuation of both the objective and the subjective states of reality.

Thus we now turn to a description of the role language plays in reality maintenance.

4.10 Maintaining Reality and Language

It may be pointed out here that the language that a society uses is a strong foundation and
process for the maintenance and perpetuation of socially constructed reality. In language
society finds an institution so to speak, and maintains social reality through its incessant use
both in formal and informal settings. In fact there are prominent theories which indicate that
language itself may be at the base of reality and helps greatly in constructing it. It needs to be
indicated just as language is a social fact then the reality and conceptualisation of social
reality is an aspect of ongoing social reality.

Box 4.5: Paradigms of Social RealityLanguage needs to be modified over

time and this itself indicates that social reality is malleable to a certain state and
undergoes changes especially in the dominant ideology, as a whole of the society
under consideration. This in itself implies that over a process of time new

Odisha State Open University 63

 Sociology

paradigms of social reality emerge and posit their own challenges to the
members of society. Such new paradigms of social reality however take time
to settle down into the consciousness of the members, and we can have two
or more paradigms working at the same time in a society. Thus as we pointed
out earlier there is in fact a multiple social reality, rather than one single
overarching model of society. It is then obvious that such a complicated and
delicate man oeuvre as constructing reality is an ongoing process and can be
subverted only to an extent by rival groups in the society or community who
give different versions and different choices to the members. In terms of life
options and work options so that the relationship is dialectical.

Thus if language structures and usage help construct realty, it is also clear that life experience
and life situations also feedback into language structures effectively modifying them and
influencing their overall content. It needs to be kept in mind that language is indispensable in
creating compatible consensual social constructions, and that it is what connects people. We
need to mention here briefly that when we consider language and we are entering into the
realm of a vast system of symbols , gestures, hints, clues and even moral prescriptions, and
the fields of semiotics and kinesthetics, all of which are an aspect of societal process., and
are central to human communication. Thus the role of language in the construction of reality
cannot be undermined or minimised. In fact without effective communication, sharing of
information, ideas and knowledge, there is no culture in a society. Language in it widest
sense is a tool par excellence in the hands of society, and with its help both the subjective and
objective aspects of socially constructed reality come together and cohere. It can also provide
alternative models for reality construction. And in plural societies different communities or
groups do have the capacity to raise appropriate models of reality, which then act back on
that community creating a two way bridge for communication.

4.11 Conclusion

The whole question then is that of the internalisation of the social reality, both objective and
subjective, and this happens as a dialectic between man and his social structure. In fact the
entire idea is to strike a balance between nature and culture if the persistence of the social
reality is not to be disrupted. Thus successful socialisation is that in which there is a high
degree of consonance or adjustment. Between the outer and inner realities, so that the human

64 Odisha State Open University

 Sociology

is an active participator in social process rather than being simply at the mercy of societal
procedures and rules.

At this point we reach a caveat and this is the fact that often socialisation is not effective. This
happens when the phenomena of individualism takes root in a society and creates humans
who do not subscribe wholly to the social order and social reality. In such instances we find
that there are various socially available procedures to bring the deviants from the overall
ideology back to the common fold. Such is the role of counselors, psychiatrists, shamans
saints and others.

We may ask at this point why socialisation does not work in many cases? One reason could
be the fact that the concerned human child is being subjected to two different discourses on
the social reality. Thus if husband and wife are not consonant in their behaviour it the child or
children which are now unable to adopt in to any existing discourse on reality and may have
two or more systems in their consciousness. Such instances may often turn so serious, and
the deviance is so disruptive of social process that such members may have to be isolated in
a hospital to help them get over their conflict and confusion regarding the apprehension of
one single reality, usually backed by the dominant version of reality.

This is a fascinating area of research, and we find that problems of internalising the social
structure by members is becomingly increasingly difficult in the modern and postmodern
worlds, where the stress on individuality is very great. Individuality implies putting ones own
perspective in the place of the given perspective of social reality. This usually causes a rupture
in the socially accepted definition of reality where all members are supposed to be integrated
and cohere and cooperate with each other. Instead in present day global society what is
valued above all is creative integrity, and this implies evolving some basic model or paradigm
which is not really subscribing to the total paradigm but to a very specific and important part
of it. This implies that we can study the social construction of reality in different ways, and
modern man is realizing increasingly that individual or community interpretations of social
reality and social order, are not to be rectified, except in extreme situations, where it is not a
dissonance with society but a breakdown of the entire edifice of social reality. However as
all plural societies indicate plural versions of reality will dominate so long as the social structure
is capable of taking the strain. In fact now-a-days the move is away from monolithic models
of societal explanation to micro models of social behaviour.

Odisha State Open University 65

 Sociology

4.12 Further Reading

• Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann 1967, The Social Construction of Reality.
New York :Doublesay.

• Garfinkel, Harold 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs : Prentice

Hall.

• Goffman, Erving 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York:
Doubleday.

• Schutz, Alfred 1932/67, The Phenomenology of Social World. Evanston, Hl:

Northwestern University Press.



66 Odisha State Open University