ADVERTISEMENTS:
Relation of Sociology with Other Social Sciences!
It endeavours to study the social life as a whole. But the social life is so complex that it is impossible to isolate social problems from the whole range of human experience.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The life of man is many-sided. There is an economic aspect, legal aspect, an aesthetic aspect, a religious aspect, a political aspect, and so forth. Sociology, therefore, can understand social life as a whole by taking help from other social sciences which study exclusively one or the other aspects of human activity.
Sociology, for example, in order to understand a particular society has to take stock of the economic, political, cultural, geographical environments, language, religion, morals, law and finally inter-action with the rest of the world. That clearly shows that Sociology cannot have an existence independent of other social sciences.
But that does not mean that Sociology only borrows from other social sciences and gives them nothing. As a matter of fact, the various social sciences, as we shall study below, are very much dependent on Sociology for the simple reason that no aspect of human life can be detached from its social aspect.
Furthermore, the various social sciences devote themselves to the study of one aspect of human life and, therefore, are not in a position to give us a complete survey of the social life. For instance cultural Anthropology studies man, especially primitive man and his culture only as they existed in times long past.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Economics studies man only as wealth-getter and wealth-disposer and enquires into the relations of wealth and welfare. History studies the record of man following only chronological knowledge of the significant events.
Psychology studies man only as a behaving individual. Social Psychology is concerned with the ways only in which the individual reacts to his social conditions and so on. It is left to Sociology to study interrelations between these elements of social life, and by utilising the results arrived at by, special sciences to given an interpretation of social life as a whole.
In this sense, Sociology is a more comprehensive science and includes the special social sciences. That is why Sociology has been called the mother of all social sciences. It is thus obvious that the different social sciences cannot have their existence independent of others.
As they all have a common subject—human social behaviour, it is but natural that they should be interrelated. As remarked by Simpson, “Social science is a unity but it is not a fictitious unity; it is a dynamic unity of operating parts, and each part is indispensable to each and all of the others.”
Sociology and other social sciences have much in common. Recently, there has been a “gradual coming together” of various disciplines. The old barriers are crumbling. The talk of inter-disciplinary approach is much in the air.
It is proposed to combine gains in “specialization” with gains in cross-fertilization. However, sociologists continue to emphasize the intellectual autonomy of the field of sociology.
Attempts shall be made to explain the connection and distinction between Sociology and some of the more important social sciences in what follows:
I. Sociology and History:
Sociology and History are so intimately related that writers like Von-Bulow have refused to acknowledge Sociology as a science distinct from History. History is the record of the life of societies of men, of the changes which the societies have gone through, of the ideas which have determined the actions of these societies and of the material conditions which have helped or hindered their development.
Sociology is concerned with the study of the historical development of the societies. It studies the various stages of life, modes of living, customs, manners and their expression in the form of social institutions. Sociology has thus to depend upon history for its material. Arnold Toynbee’s book, “A Study of History” is proving very valuable in Sociology.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
History supplies facts which are interpreted and co-ordinated by the sociologists. In the same way sociology gives the social background for the study of history. History is now being studied from the sociological point of view. It is rightly said that the Study of history would be meaningless without the appreciation of social significance.
If history is to be useful to understand the present and to serve as a guide for the future, sociological interpretation of facts is absolutely essential. It is because of their such mutual dependence upon each other that has led G. E. Howard to remark that History is past Sociology, and Sociology is present History.
But inspite of their close relationship the two subjects are distinct, (i) History is concrete and sociology is abstract. There is much in history that has no direct relation to Sociology, while there is much in Sociology which is not in history. According to Park, “history is the concrete, while sociology is the abstract science of human experience and human nature.” The primary interest of the sociologist is to find the general laws of the society, and that of the historian to narrate the historical events in their chronological order. The sociologist would try to find out the common aspects of the events recorded by historians and then to generalise, (ii) Sociology and History have different attitudes. History would deal with events in all their aspects while sociology would study them from the viewpoint of social relationship involved.
For example, the historians would describe a war, all the circumstances accompanied with it, while sociologists would try to understand a war as a social phenomenon. They will study its impact on the lives of the people, their social institutions, etc.
II. Sociology and Political Science:
Sociology and political science have been very closely related to each other till recently. According to Morris Ginsberg “Historically, Sociology has its main roots in politics and philosophy of history.” The main works on social subjects such as Plato’s Republic, the Politics of Aristotle and other classical works were meant to be complete treatise on political science.
The two subjects have even now much in common. Political science is a branch of social science dealing with the principles of organisation and government of human society. In other words, Political Science deals with the social groups organised under the sovereign of the state.
It is rightly said that without the sociological background the study of political science will be incomplete. The forms of government, the nature of governmental organs, the laws and sphere of the state activity are determined by the social process.
Barnes has written, “The most significant thing about sociology and modern political theory is that most of the changes which have taken place in the political theory in the last thirty years have been along the line of development suggested and marked out by sociology.”
The behavioural approach in politics has taught political scientists to draw heavily on the research methods of the sociologists. In the words of Giddings, “to teach the theory of the state to men who have not learnt the first principles of sociology is like teaching astronomy or thermodynamics to men who have not learnt Newton’s laws of motion.”
In the same way, sociology is also to depend on political science for its conclusions. The special study of political life of the society is indispensable for the complete study of the society as a whole. According to Comte and Spencer, there is no difference whatsoever between the two. G. E. G. Catlin has remarked that political science and sociology are two facets or aspects of the same figure.
In the opinion of F. G. Wilson, “It must be admitted, of course, that it is often difficult to determine, whether a particular writer should be considered as sociologist, political theorist or philosopher”.
Eminent sociologists like Durkheim, Malinowski, Parsons, Spencer, Mertons, Max Weber and Leryhaix made important contributions in the field of political science. Political Sociology is an inter-disciplinary science which seeks to combine sociological and political approaches.
The two subjects are, however, different from each other.
(i) Sociology is the science of society, political science is the science of state, Gilchrist says, “Sociology studies man as a social being and as political organisation is a special kind of social organisation; Political science is a more specialized science than Sociology.”
(ii) The Scope of Sociology is wider than that of Political Science. The scope of Sociology is much wider than that of Political Science. Political Science studies the state and government only, whereas sociology studies all the social institutions.
(iii) Sociology deals with social man, Political science deals with political man. Sociology being the science of society it deals with man in all his associated processes, while Political Science being the science of the political society is concerned with only one form of human association. Garner remarks, “Political science is concerned with only one form of human association – the state: sociology deals with all forms of association.”
(iv) Sociology is a general science. Political science is a special science. Political organisation is a special kind of social organisation and that is why political science is a special science while sociology is a general science.
(v) Sociology is the study of both organised and unorganised communities. Political Science deals with organised communities only. Sociology deals with both organised and unorganised communities whereas Political Science is concerned only with organised communities. As such sociology is prior to Political Science.
(vi) Sociology deals with unconscious activities also. Unlike Political Science which treats only conscious activities of man, sociology treats unconscious activities of man also.
(vii) Difference in approach. Political Science starts with the assumption that man is a political being; sociology goes behind this assumption and tries to explain how and why man became a political being.
III. Sociology and Anthropology:
Sociology and Anthropology lie so close together that they often appear as two names for the same field of enquiry.
Anthropology is derived from two Greek words ‘Anthropos’ meaning ‘man’ and ‘Logos’ is meaning ‘study’. Thus according to its etymological meaning, Anthropology is the study of man as such that is a study of the development of human race. Anthropology has thus a very wide field of study.
Anthropology has been divided into three divisions:
(i) Physical anthropology which deals with bodily characteristics of early man and our primitive contemporaries, (ii) Cultural Anthropology which investigates the cultural remains of early man and of the living cultures of some of the primitive contemporaries, (iii) Social Anthropology which deals with the institutions and human relationships of primitive, of the past and present.
Anthropology thus devotes its attention entirely to the study of man and his culture as they developed in times long past. Sociology, on the other hand, studies the same phenomena as they exist at present. According to Kluckhon, “The sociological attitude has tended towards the practical and present, the anthropological towards pure understanding and the past.”
Sociology depends very much on the material supplied by Anthropology. In fact the historical part of Sociology is identical with Cultural Anthropology. Anthropology has contributed substantially to the study of Sociology.
Sociology has to depend upon Anthropology to understand the present day social phenomena from our knowledge of the past. Sociology has borrowed cultural area, cultural traits, interdependent traits, cultural lag and other conceptions from social anthropology on whose basis cultural sociology has developed.
The discoveries of Linton and Kardiner have influenced sociology in no small degree. From their researches it is evident that each society has its own culture and the personality of its members is moulded according to it in their infancy. Likewise the research done by Malinowski has proved valuable to sociology.
He has given a functional view point to the study of culture. The researches of Franz Boas and Otto Kineberg have proved that there is no co-relation between anatomical characteristics and mental superiority. The concept of racial superiority has been disproved by anthropology.According to Hoebel, “Sociology and Social Anthropology are, in their broadest sense, one and the same.” A. L. Karoeber has called sociology and anthropology twin sisters. Evans Pritchard considers social anthropology to be a branch of sociology.
In the same way, some of the conclusions drawn by sociologists have also helped the anthropologists. For example, anthropologists like Morgan and his followers have come to the conclusion regarding the existence of primitive communism from the conception of private property in our modern society.
Robert Redfield writes, “Viewing the whole United States, one sees that the social relations between Sociology and Anthropology are closer than those between Anthropology and Political Science.”
In spite of the interdependence of these two sciences the field of the study of each is quite distinct. Keesing writes. “But the two academic disciplines have grown up independently, and handle quite different types of problems, using markedly different research methods.”
Firstly, anthropology is the study of the whole society. It studies its political and legal problems, family organisation, religion, art, industries and occupations etc. Sociology studies only its particular aspects.
The focus of sociologist is social interaction. Secondly, Anthropology studies cultures which are small and static while Sociology studies civilizations which are vast and dynamic. That is’ why Anthropology has developed faster and better than Sociology.
Thirdly, Anthropology and Sociology are separate sciences as the former is the study of man and his culture as they developed in times long past; while the latter studies the same phenomena as they are at present.
According to Kluckhohn “the sociological attitude has tended towards the practical and present, the anthropological towards pure understanding and the past.” Lastly, sociology is concerned with both social philosophy and social planning whereas anthropology is not concerned with social planning. It does not make any suggestions for the future.
IV. Sociology and Economics:
The fact that society is influenced by economic factors while economic processes are largely determined by the social environments clearly proves that the relation between Sociology and Economics is very intimate. Economics is defined as a study of mankind in ordinary business of life or to be more exact, it is the science of wealth in its three phases of production, distribution and consumption.
It is thus concerned with that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with use of material requisites of well being. Economics, in other words, is concerned with material welfare of the human beings.
But economic welfare is only a part of human welfare and it can be sought only with the proper knowledge of social laws. Economics cannot go far ahead without the help of sociology and other social sciences. For instance, in order to solve economic problems of unemployment, poverty, business cycle or inflation an economist has to take into consideration the social phenomena existing at the particular time.
Sociology is thus of considerable help to economics in providing specific data into which economic generalisations may be fitted. Economic and social order is inextricably interwoven. Many of the problems of sociology and economics are common.
The problems of population growth, environmental pollution, slum clearance, child and family welfare, and urbanisation are as much economic as sociological which cannot be solved unless and until the social attitudes of the people are given due consideration.
The theories of socialism, communism, democracy and welfare state are nothing but the theories of social reorganisation. According to Thomas, “Economics is, in fact, but one branch of the comprehensive science of sociology.” In the words of Silverman, “It may be regarded for ordinary purposes, as an offshoot of the parent science of sociology, which studies the general principles of all social relations.”
In the same way, sociology is influenced by economics. MacIver writes, “Thus economic phenomena is constantly determined by all kinds of social need and activity and in turn they are constantly redetermining, creating, shaping and transforming social need and activity of every kind.
Economic forces play a very important role in every aspect of our social life. It is for this reason that sociologists have been concerned with economic institutions. The earliest sociologists like Spencer have included the economic activity of man in their analysis of social relationships.
Sumner, Durkheim and Weber also approached the study of society through its economic institutions. Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels had gone to the extent of asserting that economic factor was the sole motive force of the society.
Since their times, economic determination (Economic conditions have a determining influence over the social) has found a significant place in the theories of many social scientists seeking to explain this vital phenomenon.
In spite of inter-dependence of these two sciences, as explained above they are quite distinct from each other, (i) the field of sociology is wider, firstly, the field of Economics is restricted only to the economic activities of man whereas Sociology is concerned with all the relationships which are not simply economic but social. The scope of Sociology is thus much wider than that of economics; (ii) Sociology has a comprehensive viewpoint. Secondly, an economist’s primary concern is with all that is directly or indirectly related to the increase of material happiness of man, with the methods and techniques of production, distribution and consumption. But a sociologist, on the other hand, is primarily interested in the social aspects of economic activities rather than in the mechanism of production and distribution, (iii) Economics is much older than Sociology. Thirdly, economics is much older a science than sociology.
Though philosophers like Comte would subordinate economics to, and include it in sociology. Sociology is a science of only recent growth whereas economics has attained an advanced degree of maturity.
V. Sociology and Geography:
It has been realised from ancient times that Geography has a great impact on human society, the influences of geographical conditions on human society are predominant and that there is a close relationship between physical conditions and social phonemena.
Geographical environment as defined by MacIver consists of those conditions that nature provides for man. It includes the earth surface with all its physical features and natural resources, the distribution of land and water, mountain and plains, minerals, plants and animals, the climate and all the cosmic forces, gravitational, electric, radiational that play upon the earth and affect the life of man.
There is no denying the fact that there is a correspondence between physical conditions and modes of living e.g., inhabitants of tropical regions exhibit characteristic differences from those of temperate or of Arctic regions: the sea-farer is typically distinct from the inlanders.
One can also observe the differences between the modes and exigencies of human life in mountains, in the plains and by the seaboard, in the desert and in the forest. Some of the thinkers have attributed a dominant role to Geography, regarding it as the primary determinant of wealth and health, the size or energy of populations, of their customs and social organisations, of their creeds and philosophies.
The relationship between man’s physical environment and his social life has led to a geographical school of Sociology. One of the pioneers of modern social geography was a Frenchman Le Play who in his important study of European workers had developed the thesis that locality determines work and thus has a great influence on the economic organisation of the family and this social institutions of the people.
The emphasis of Le Play and his successors upon the relationship between the characteristics of the physical environment and social development has influenced the sociologists at other places also. The Regional School of American Sociology under the leadership of Howard W. Odum and his colleagues has been seeking the interaction between man’s physical environment and man’s social life.
The writers of this school have thus added tremendously to our knowledge of the role of geography in man’s development. They have made us aware of the inter-play between climate and topography and the various aspects of the physical environment on the one side and the political and economic, technological and cultural phenomena on the other.
But we should not lay too much stress on geographical factors determining the social life in a particular region. It is not necessary that similar environments should produce similar cultures. We have even in primitive societies different occupations being followed by different people in the same regional setting.
The geographical environments alone never explain the rise of a civilization. The growth of civilization changes and minimises the direct influence of local geographical conditions. Many of the occupations of the modern man have no relation to the geographical environments.
As the social heritage grows the immediate geographical factors would assume a less determinant role in the interpretation of society. Man has assumed great control over natural factors so that the overall influence of geographical forces is no longer overpowering. The fact, however, remains that geography is a contributing, if not a determining, factor of human progress and, therefore, the relation between Sociology and Geography is intimate.
VI. Sociology and Ethics:
Ethics is the science of morality. It is concerned with the moral rightness and wrongness of human action. Ethics and Sociology are intimately related to each other. Man is a social being. He acquires moral standards notions of right and wrong as a member of a social group.
In other words, it is the society which influences the mental and moral development of the individual and it is the individual who in return seeks to conform his actions to the moral standards of his social group. Thus the real significance of moral life lies amidst a social group or in society.
Sociology is primarily concerned with the study of the social groups and it investigates into all aspects of human life – economic, political, religious, moral and cultural. Ethics throws light on the moral life of the primitive individuals and institutions.
This provides a background of human conduct and may thus serve a good purpose for contrasting and comparing the moral conduct of the modern life with that of the primitive man. Further, the personal good of the individual must at the same time be in harmony with the general good of the society as a whole.
It is here that both Sociology and Ethics come close to each other. This close relationship between the two has induced some ethical thinkers to regard Ethics as a branch of Sociology. Charles A. Ellwood rightly remarks, “It is the business of sociology to furnish a foundation for scientific ethics and on the other hand, it is the business of ethics to take the ethical implications which a scientific knowledge of human society affords, develop them, criticise and harmonize them. An ethics worked out upon the basis of the knowledge furnished by the sciences will make a larger use, therefore, of sociological knowledge than of any other form of scientific knowledge.”
But the two sciences also differ in some essential aspects. Firstly, Sociology is a positive science, while Ethics is a normative science. Sociology studies institutions, customs and manners as they are or have been while Ethics looks upon them as they ought to be.
Secondly, Sociology studies men and their social relations collectively while Ethics studies men individually as moral agents of the society. Thirdly, Sociology is merely speculative and has no practical bearing on any field of social life. Ethics, on the other hand, has some practical bearing on our conduct.
It seeks to formulate the rules of conduct which all people should observe. Fourthly, Sociology employs mainly historical method in the investigation of its problems. Ethics, on the other hand, seeks to explain human conduct with reference to an end or ideal.
Finally, while Sociology is concerned- with the study of progress of social groups from the point of view of time, Ethics is concerned with the progress of society from the point of view of morality.
VII. Sociology and Social Psychology:
Social Psychology deals with mental processes of man considered as a social being. It studies particularly the influence of group life on the mental development of individual, the effect of the individual mind on the group, and the development of the mental life of the groups within themselves and in their relations with one’ another. Sociology, on the other hand, studies the various kinds of groups which compose the society.
Social Psychology has to depend on Sociology to understand properly human nature and behaviour as it is Sociology which provides the necessary material regarding the structure, organisation and culture of societies to which individuals belong.
According to Kimball Young, “We might say that while our major emphasis is on the individual in interaction with others, such interaction can only be understood within the social life and cultural matrix in which it occurs.”
The sociologists in their turn also have to draw up Social Psychology. They recognise the importance among other things of psychological factors in understanding the changes in social structure. Lapiere and Farnsworth write that “Social Psychology is to sociology and psychology as Bio-chemistry is to Biology and Chemistry”. According to Motwani, “Social Psychology is a link between psychology and sociology.”
As a result of the close relation between the two Karl Pearson has not accepted the two as separate sciences. In the words of MacIver, “Sociology in special gives aid to psychology, just as psychology gives special aid to sociology.”
It is now generally assumed that a scientific study of social phenomenon must have a psychological basis; and the psychological facts regarding human nature should not be assumed but should be explored by direct observation as well as experimentally. The improved understanding of human behaviour will make the science of sociology more objective and realistic.
Mc Dougall and Freud were of the view that whole of the social life could be reduced finally to psychological forces. In that case Sociology would be reduced to a mere branch of Psychology. But this view cannot be accepted as the causes affecting social behaviour are other than psychological also like the economic, geographical, political etc.
Social life cannot, therefore, be studied exclusively with the methods of the Psychologists. The fact of mutual dependence of Social Psychology and Sociology should not be interpreted to mean that one is either identical with or the branch of the other.
As a matter of fact there are important points of distinction between these two related fields of investigation:
(i) Difference of subject-matter:
Firstly, Sociology is a study of the society as a whole while Social Psychology is merely the study of individuals in interaction as members of groups and of the effect of that interaction on them.
Sociology has been aptly compared to the science of mechanics which considers masses of matter and properties of matter in mass, and Social Psychology to Molecular Physics which deals with molecules and their invocation in view of the fact that Sociology studies the organisation of social groups, their central values and the various forms of institutional behaviour arising on account of them and Social Psychology is concerned with the individuals as members of the group.
The individual is the unit of analysis in Social Psychology. As remarked by Klineberg, “The primary concern of the sociologist is group behaviour, and that of the social psychologists is the behaviour of the individual in the group situation.” Bogardus writes, “As psychology analyses mental processes, so Sociology analyses social processes.”
(ii) Difference of attitudes:
Further, Sociology and Social Psychology deal with social life from different angles. The former studies society from the viewpoint of the community element while the latter from the viewpoint of psychological factors involved.
VIII. Sociology and Jurisprudence:
Jurisprudence is the science of law. It is concerned with the study of the entire body of legal principles. Jurisprudence and Sociology are intimately related to each other. Sociology is the study of man in society. Law controls and regulates actions of human beings in society and it is, therefore, a subject of great importance for the sociologists.
There is, however, difference of approach of a sociologist and of a lawyer to the subject of law. A lawyer is concerned with the rules that men ought to obey; he is not interested in knowing how and to what extent these rules govern the behaviour of ordinary citizens.
A sociologist, on the other hand, is interested in law as a social phenomenon. His chief concern is not with the rules themselves but with whether they are observed or not and in what way. A sociologist’s study of law from this angle has been given title of Sociology of Law or Sociological Jurisprudence.
Criminology and Penology are its important branches. Criminology is concerned with the systematic study of crime and criminal behaviour from the social point of view. Penology studies the effects of various penal systems of punishment and the efficacy of reform and rehabilitation schemes in changing criminal behaviour.
These branches of Legal Sociology have rendered great service to the law makers and law executors by adding to their knowledge how the laws actually work and how the crime can be effectively dealt with. Sociology has thus shed considerable light and understanding on the various problems that the society has to solve, particularly, from the point of view of Criminal Jurisprudence.
Consequently Jurisprudence has assumed a new meaning that laws are to be made for men and the law makers and its executors are to take into consideration the human and the social aspect while making or executing it.
IX. Sociology and Biology:
Biology is the science of man’s biological development, his sexual, anatomical and personal peculiarities. It tells us how man’s body and mind evolved, how his system reacts to the outside world and what part his physical constitution plays in the overall build up of his whole being.
Sociology is the study of human interaction and inter-relation. According to N. G. Muller, “Our ideas of what sort of progress is possible or desirable for man must depend in part at least upon our views of his nature, his manner of origination, the method by which changes have occurred and can occur in him and the relation which he bears with the rest of nature.”
It is not possible to determine the modes and limits of man’s social progress without being acquainted with his physical capacities and limitations. According to Mischa Titiev, “It is impossible to gain a full understanding of man’s culture without knowing something of his biology.”
Darwinian Theory of evolution has been very useful in sociology. Spencer, a leading sociologist, explained his theory of the evolution of society on the principle of natural evolution. Human ecology is based upon biological ecology. Genetics, which is of major importance in Sociology, is an important branch of biology.
In knowing the effects of heredity upon man’s behaviour much help is sought from biology. Knowledge of biology is also essential for understanding the problems concerned with marriage and family.
Sociology on its part inspires biology to search knowledge in new directions, for example, the need to limit the population has led to search for the means of birth control.
However, biological principles should not be indiscriminately applied to sociology. In this regard Ginsberg writes, “Biological factors are clearly of importance to the students of society, since the unit of society is a living organism. Great confusion has, however, resulted from the too facile application of biological categories to social facts, and in particular, a tendency to overemphasize the purely racial factors in social evolution or change.”