2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGICAL THINKING

Auguste Comte

The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857) invented the word sociology to describe the discipline he wished to establish. Comte believed that the scientific method could be applied to the study of human behavior and society, and that this new field could produce knowledge of society based on scientific evidence. Comte believed that sociology, as the scientific study of social life, should model itself after physics; he initially called the subject social physics, a term that many of his contemporaries used. Comte also felt that sociology should contribute to the welfare of humanity by using science to predict and control human behavior. His ideas about social planning were predicated on an understanding that society and the social order are not natural or preordained by a divine power, but rather are constructed by individuals. Later in his career, Comte drew up ambitious plans for the reconstruction of French society in particular, and for human societies in general, based on scientific knowledge. The question of whether sociologists should seek to serve humanity with their work is one that sociologists still ask.

Émile Durkheim

Although Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) drew on aspects of Comte’s work, he thought that many of his predecessor’s ideas were too speculative and vague and that Comte had not successfully carried out his program—to establish sociology on a scientific basis. To have a scientific basis, according to Durkheim, sociologists must develop methodological principles to guide their research. Sociology must study social facts—aspects of social life that shape our actions as individuals, such as the state of the economy or the influence of religion. Durkheim’s famous first principle of sociology was “Study social facts as things!” By this principle, he meant that social life can be analyzed as rigorously as objects or events in nature.

Like a biologist studying the human body, Durkheim saw society as a set of independent parts, each of which could be studied separately. These ideas drew on the writings of Herbert Spencer, who also likened society to a biological organism. Each of a body’s specialized parts—such as the brain, heart, lungs, and liver—contributes to sustaining the life of the organism. These specialized parts work in harmony with one another; if they do not, the life of the organism is threatened. So it is, according to Durkheim, with society. For a society to endure over time, its specialized institutions—such as the political system, the economy, the family, and the educational system—must function as an integrated whole. Durkheim referred to this social cohesion as organic solidarity. He argued that the continuation of a society depends on cooperation, which presumes a general consensus among its members regarding basic values and customs.

Another theme pursued by Durkheim, and by many others since, is that societies exert social constraint over their members’ actions. Durkheim argued that society is far more than the sum of individual acts; when we analyze social structures, we study characteristics that have a “firmness” or “solidity” comparable to those of structures in the physical world. Think of a person standing in a room with several doors. The structure of the room constrains the range of the person’s possible activities. The position of the walls and doors, for example, defines routes of exit and entry. Social structure, according to Durkheim, constrains our activities in a parallel way, limiting what we can do as individuals. It is “external” to us, just as the walls of the room are.

Durkheim’s analysis of social change was based on the development of the division of labor; he saw it as gradually replacing religion as the basis of social cohesion and providing organic solidarity to modern societies. He argued that as the division of labor expands, people become more dependent on one another because each person needs goods and services that those in other occupations supply.

Another of Durkheim’s famous studies (1966; orig. 1897) analyzed suicide. Although suicide seems to be a personal act, the outcome of extreme personal unhappiness, Durkheim showed that social factors such as anomie—a feeling of aimlessness or despair provoked by modern social life—influence suicidal behavior. Suicide rates show regular patterns from year to year, he argued, and these patterns must be explained sociologically. According to Durkheim, processes of change in the modern world are so rapid and intense that they give rise to major social difficulties, which he linked to anomie. Traditional moral controls and standards, formerly supplied by religion, largely break down under modern social development, and this breakdown leaves many individuals feeling that their lives lack meaning. Durkheim later focused on the role of religion in social life. In his study of religious beliefs, practices, and rituals, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1965; orig. 1912), he explored the importance of religion in maintaining moral order in society.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx (1818–1883)—a German economic, political, and social theorist—also sought to explain social changes arising from the Industrial Revolution; however, his ideas contrast sharply with those of Comte and Durkheim. When he was a young man, his political activities brought him into conflict with the German authorities; after a brief stay in France, he settled in exile in Britain. Much of his writing focuses on economic issues, but because he was concerned with connecting economic problems to social institutions, his work is rich in sociological insights.

Marx’s viewpoint was founded on what he called the materialist conception of history. According to this view, it is not the ideas or values human beings hold that are the main sources of social change, as Durkheim claimed. Rather, social change is prompted primarily by economic influences. The conflicts between classes—rich versus poor—provide the motivation for historical development. In Marx’s words, “All human history thus far is the history of class struggles.”

Though he wrote about various phases of history, Marx concentrated on change in modern times. For him, the most important changes were bound up with the development of capitalism. Those who own capital—factories, machines, and large sums of money—form a ruling class. The mass of the population makes up a class of wage workers, a working class, who do not own the means of their livelihood but must find employment provided by the owners of capital. Capitalism is thus a class system in which conflict is inevitable because it is in the interests of the ruling class to exploit the working class and in the interests of the workers to seek to overcome that exploitation.

According to Marx, in the future, capitalism will be supplanted by a society with no divisions between rich and poor. He didn’t mean that all inequalities would disappear. Rather, societies will no longer be split into a small class that monopolizes economic and political power and a large mass of people who benefit little from the wealth their work creates. The economic system that will develop in response to capitalist conflict will be characterized by communal ownership and will lead to a more equal society than we know at present.

Marx’s work had a far-reaching effect on the twentieth-century world. Until the fall of Soviet communism at the end of the twentieth century, more than a third of the earth’s population lived in societies whose governments derived inspiration from Marx’s ideas. In addition, many sociologists have been influenced by Marx’s ideas about class divisions.

Max Weber

Like Marx, the German-born Max Weber (pronounced “Vay-ber,” 1864–1920) cannot be labeled simply a sociologist, because his interests spanned many areas. His writings covered the fields of economics, law, philosophy, and comparative history as well as sociology, and much of his work also dealt with the development of modern capitalism. He was influenced by Marx but was also critical of some of Marx’s major views. For instance, he rejected the materialist conception of history and saw class conflict as less significant than did Marx. In Weber’s view, economic factors are important, but ideas and values have just as much effect on social change.

Some of Weber’s most influential writings analyzed the distinctiveness of Western society compared with other major civilizations. He studied the religions of China, India, and the Near East, thereby making major contributions to the sociology of religion. Comparing the leading religious systems in China and India with those of the West, Weber concluded that certain aspects of Christian beliefs had strongly influenced the rise of capitalism. He argued that the capitalist outlook of Western societies had not emerged, as Marx supposed, only from economic changes. In Weber’s view, cultural ideas and values shape society and affect individual actions.

One of the most persistent concerns of Weber’s work was the study of bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is a large organization that is divided into jobs based on specific functions and staffed by officials ranked according to a hierarchy. Industrial firms, government organizations, hospitals, and schools are examples of bureaucracies. Weber saw the advance of bureaucracy as an inevitable feature of our era. Bureaucracy enables large organizations to run efficiently, but at the same time, it poses problems for effective democratic participation in modern societies. Bureaucracy involves the rule of experts who make decisions without consulting those whose lives are affected by these decisions.

Some of Weber’s writings also address the character of sociology itself. He was more cautious than either Durkheim or Marx in proclaiming sociology to be a science. According to Weber, it is misleading to imagine that we can study people by using the same procedures by which we use physics or biology to investigate the physical world. Humans are thinking, reasoning beings; we attach meaning and significance to most of what we do, and any discipline that deals with human behavior must acknowledge this fact.

Harriet Martineau

Harriet Martineau (1802–1876), born and educated in England, has been called the “first woman sociologist.” As with Marx and Weber, her interests extended beyond sociology. She was the author of more than 50 books, as well as numerous essays, and was an active proponent of women’s rights and the abolition of slavery. Martineau is now credited with introducing sociology to England through her translation of Comte’s founding treatise of the field, Positive Philosophy (Rossi, 1973). Additionally, she conducted a systematic study of American society during her extensive travels throughout the United States in the 1830s, which is the subject of her book Society in America (1962; orig. 1837).

Martineau is significant to sociologists today for several reasons but in particular for her methodological insight. First, she argued that when one studies a society, one must focus on all its aspects, including key political, religious, and social institutions. Second, she insisted that an analysis of a society must include all its members, a point that drew attention to the conspicuous absence of women’s lives from the sociology of that time. Third, she was the first to turn a sociological eye on previously ignored issues and institutions, including marriage, children, domestic and religious life, and race relations. Finally, like Comte, she argued that sociologists should do more than just observe; they should also act in ways that benefit society.

W. E. B. Du Bois

W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963) was the first African American to earn a doctorate from Harvard University. Among his many contributions to sociology, perhaps most important is the concept of “double consciousness,” a way of talking about identity through the lens of the experiences of African Americans (Morris, 2015). He argued that American society lets African Americans see themselves only through the eyes of others: “It is a particular sensation, this double consciousness, this sense of always measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness—an American, a Negro, two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings, two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder” (1903). Du Bois made a persuasive claim that one’s sense of self and one’s identity are greatly influenced by historical experiences and social circumstances—in the case of African Americans, the effect of slavery, and, after emancipation, segregation and prejudice.

Throughout his career, Du Bois focused on race relations in the United States; as he said in an oft-repeated quote, “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line” (Du Bois, 1903). His influence on sociology today is evidenced by continued interest in the questions he raised, particularly his concern that sociology must explain “the contact of diverse races of men” (Du Bois, 1903). Du Bois was also the first social researcher to trace the problems faced by African Americans to their social and economic underpinnings, a connection that most sociologists now widely accept. Finally, he connected social analysis to social reform. He was one of the founding members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and a longtime advocate for the collective struggle of African Americans.

Later in his life, Du Bois became disenchanted by the lack of progress in American race relations. He moved to the African nation of Ghana in 1961 when he was invited by the nation’s president, Kwame Nkrumah, to direct the Encyclopedia Africana, a government publication in which Du Bois had long had an interest. He died in Ghana in 1963. Although Du Bois receded from American life in his later years, his impact on American social thought and activism has been particularly profound, with many ideas of the Black Lives Matter movement informed by his writings (Morris, 2015).