ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about the relationship of sociology with other sciences.
1. Economics:
Economics is primarily concerned with the production and distribution of goods and commodities which are scarce in supply. It is also concerned with the larger questions of economic growth and distributive justice, its principal aim being furtherance of economic well-being of the people. For a long period, the economists attempted to develop the subject as an autonomous discipline.
This is evident from the fact that most of the economic laws were subject to the proviso “other things remaining the same”, that the concept of the “economic man” was visualised as someone who is governed in his economic pursuits solely by rational considerations of maximising productivity (or utility) and minimising cost (or disutility).
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In course of time, however, it was widely appreciated that in real life situation, ‘other things’ do not remain the same. As a result, economic laws suffer distortion. Similarly, it was found that economic rationality is very much affected by non- economic considerations. For example, the forces of tradition, patriotism, altruism, kinship loyalty, to name only a few, affect very much the economic rationality of man.
These limits, among many others, of ‘pure’ economics show that economics cannot be an entirely autonomous discipline. In this connection, reference may be made to very interesting findings of E.E. Hagen.
In course of his investigation into the cases that impede fast economic growth in Burma, Hagen noted that Burmese tradition and the type of education that an average Burmese receives since childhood do not encourage the growth of innovative personality which is the sine qua non of rapid economic advance.
Hagen, though a professional economist, goes beyond economic theory and examines how people of various cultures behave and relates the same to the backgrounds in which they live. Similarly, Max Weber in course of his investigation into the causes of the rise of capitalism in the 18th century England showed how religious orientation of the people deeply influences their economic motives.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Following the lead given by Max Weber many sociologists have sought to explain many aspects of economic behaviour which were previously neglected by professional economists. Moreover, sociologists have made significant contribution by analysing the structure of industrial society, the problems and promises of urbanization, division of labour and occupational structure, property system, etc.
Sociology ‘is also deeply influenced by Economics. “Thus economic phenomena are constantly determined by all kinds of social need and activity and in turn they are constantly re-determining, creating, shaping and transforming social need and activity of every kind”.
This explains the fact that many sociologists have approached the study of society through economic institutions. In many sociological writings the pride of place is enjoyed by economic activities of man.
Recent literature in both the disciplines shows clearly that both economics and sociology are coming closer together. The focus of interest of each, however, remains different. Economics gains in depth as a result of sociological investigations into the economic behaviour of men.
Likewise, Sociology, a comparatively younger entrant into the family of social sciences, gains considerably from the tools of analysis developed by Economics, comparatively a much older social science.
2. Political Science:
State and Government and all the issues associated with these two — such as, nature of authority and power, ends of the state, forms of government, grounds for political obligations, etc. constitute the concern of political science. Obviously, political science confines its study to the political motivations and political activities of men.
Sociology, on the other hand, has a much wider view and embraces the totality of life of man in society. Political Science sought to carve out its distinct field of Study by concentrating on the formal political structure. The study of the state meant analysis of articles of constitutions, legislations passed by governments, and the institutions for which the Constitution made provision.
After the end of the Second World War, the study of political science underwent a radical change. Doubts were expressed about the usefulness of such an approach on the ground that too little attention was given to the context within which institutions and constitutions operate.
It was argued that political institutions reflect something more substantial, viz., the structure of behaviour of men in a variety of fields, social, political and economic. Political institutions are, therefore, likely to be affected by changes in the structure of behaviour.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is pointed out that the danger for the student of politics who concerns himself mainly with institutions or constitutions lies in the fact that where political institutions might be outmoded because of changes in the behaviour structure of the people or where political institutions might be set up without sufficient regard for the social or political processes of a society, he might be studying, as it were, the shadow rather than the substance of politics.
The development of behaviourism in political science has been largely an outcome of sociological influence. The objects of research in political science during the last two decades have been largely sociological in kind — namely, political parties and pressure groups, the role of elites in the political process, bureaucracy, relation between class, caste and politics, etc.
As a matter of fact, it is often difficult to distinguish political science from political sociology. As in Economics, so also in the case of Political Science, one can clearly perceive a distinct tendency towards coming closer together of Political Science and Sociology. Nevertheless, the main focus of interest of Political Science remains essentially political in orientation while that of Sociology is distinctly social.
3. Psychology:
The question concerning determining the relation of psychology and sociology has evoked, among sociologists, a great deal of controversy. The controversy centres around two extreme views expressed by John Stuart Mill and Emile Durkheim.
According to Mill, human mind is active behind all that he does. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse his mental processes in order to understand meaningfully his overt actions and social relationships into which he enters. “Human beings in society have no properties but those which are derived from, and may be resolved into, the laws of the nature of individual man.”
In his view, a general science of society cannot be logically developed without taking into account “the laws of the nature of individual man”. Durkheim, on the other hand, dismisses psychological explanations of social behaviour as having no basis at all.
In his analysis of the prevalence of variations in suicide rates among different sections of the population, he distinguishes between an individual act and the social forces determining the same.
He admits that given certain circumstances a man with a psychological predisposition to suicide is more likely to kill himself. But Durkheim insists that the force which determines the suicide is not psychological but social. He thus makes a distinction between the phenomena studied by psychology and those studied by sociology. Sociology is to study the social facts.
The explanation of social facts can only be found in terms of other facts, not in terms of psychological facts. Durkheim goes further to say that “whenever a social phenomenon is directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, one can be sure the explanation is invalid.”
These two extreme views have their partisans among sociologists even today. But most of the sociologists are in favour of adopting positions which range between these two extremes. According to some (Morris Ginsberg, for example) there are behaviour patterns which are amenable to psychological analysis and there are some which are not. The latter may be explained in terms of sociological laws alone.
There are, again, some sociologists who argue that even where strictly sociological explanation of behaviour patterns is possible, it is desirable to probe the mental processes in order to get a better insight into the causes of social action.
Those who share this view hold that psychological and sociological explanations complement each other. Though the controversy about the relation of these two disciplines is not yet settled, there is a growing awareness about the complementary roles of the two.
Nevertheless, the distinctive focus of each discipline should not be ignored. Psychology is interested mainly in the individual, in his qualities of mind and temperament, in his nervous system, in his hopes and fears, and in the order and disorder of his mind. The primary interest of sociology, on the other hand, is not the individual or his personality or his behaviour.
The society in which the individual lives and the persisting interaction that takes place within a group or between groups constitute the basic concerns of sociology. These differences in approach will be evident from the fact that the psychological explanation of war is completely at variance with the sociological explanation.
There was a time when affinity between sociology and social psychology used to be emphasised, and the latter was looked upon as a bridge between psychology and sociology. Social psychology is that branch of general psychology which “deals with the psychological aspects of social life”.
The specific field of study of social psychology is the “interplay between individual character and social structure”.
Though it maintains, like psychology, a primary interest in the individual, social psychology “concerns itself with the way in which the individual behaves in his social groups, how he behaves collectively with other individuals, and how his personality is a function both of his basic physiological and temperamental equipment and of the social and cultural influences to which he is exposed”.
Thus, while social psychology is concerned with group orientation of the individual, sociology is interested in “the groups themselves and the larger social structures within which both individual and group processes occur”.
Apart from these differences in approach, the method of investigation of social psychology is different from that of sociology. Like general psychology, social psychology also emphasises quantitative studies, statistical analysis and experiments to the neglect of the social milieu in which investigations are carried out.
Though the focus of interest of psychology, social psychology and sociology remains distinct, it is not always easy to draw the line of separation. One discipline overlaps into the other, often making the boundary lines indistinguishable.
4. Social Anthropology:
The two disciplines originate from two different sources. Sociology has grown out of philosophy of history. European traditions of social and political philosophy and social survey.
Another root of sociology has been the American traditions of social concern with pressing social problems. Social Anthropology, on the other hand, has developed out of physical Anthropology. Subsequently, it drew sustenance and strength from biology.
Anthropology literally means the science of man. Its subject-matter is very wide and diverse. Archaeology is its concern; so also is linguistics. It also studies the physical characteristics of man classified in various groups. These studies are carried out by a separate branch of anthropology called Physical Anthropology. Anthropology is also concerned with the culture and social life of man.
The branch of anthropology which does this is known as Cultural or Social Anthropology. It appears, therefore, that anthropology, particularly social anthropology, covers more or less the same ground as is done by sociology. This statement is, however, subject to qualifications.
In the first place, anthropology in all its branches has been concerned all throughout with the study of pre-literate, aboriginal people who had little or no contact with the civilized society. Sociology, on the contrary, concerns itself with societies which are literate, advanced and exposed to all kinds of civilizational influences.
Secondly, since the pre-literate, aboriginal societies were small, both in terms of number and in terms of distribution over space, the social anthropologists were concerned with the “whole” of society, and not with any particular aspect of it.
Social anthropologists like Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski and a host of other scholars, including Margaret Mead, studied primitive ‘cultures’ in all their aspects — religion and magic, morals and social norms, sex and play, economic pursuits like hunting, fishing and gardening. In view of the complex and large societies sociologists are concerned with; it is not possible for them to investigate the “whole” of society.
They choose particular fields of study and relate their findings with those of other sociologists. The perspective of a sociologist is thus entirely different from that of a social anthropologist. Thirdly, the methods or investigation in social anthropology and sociology vary for obvious reasons. Field work and close observation of ‘cultures’ under study are considered to be indispensable for anthropological investigations.
A social anthropologist lives among the people he studies, sharing their lives, learning and speaking their language and observing societies as “functioning wholes“. A sociologist, for obvious reasons, cannot adopt this line of study.
He depends largely on questionnaire, and occasionally conducts interviews with a selected group of his unit of study. A sociologist observes from outside; an anthropologist observes from inside. The former is a non-participant observer, the latter a participant observer.
With the virtual disappearance of primitive pre-literate societies, thanks to media of mass communication and easy and quick means of transportation, the social anthropologists have been undertaking, of late, studies of particular aspects of present-day modern societies.
They have also been adapting their style of investigation to the requirements of their study. Both sociologists and anthropologists are found to adopt the same or nearly similar objects for their investigations.
For instance, the Indian caste system has been investigated equally competently both by anthropologists and sociologists. Often it is difficult to distinguish an anthropological study from a sociological one. If this trend continues, the distinction between the two disciplines might get obliterated in course of time in future.
5. History:
There are three dimensions of historical studies: First, the narrative aspect. A historian tells “the thing as it happened.” Second, the investigative and interpretative aspect. A historian is not only a story-teller; he is also an investigator and interpreter.
Historians speak of “cause” in history or of “explanation” or “interpretation” or of the “logic” of the situation or of “the inner logic of events”. Third, historian’s record is a guide to the understanding of the present and the future. “Good historians”, says E.H. Carr, “whether they think about it or not, have the future in their bones. Besides the question ‘Why?’ the historian also asks the question ‘Whither?’
It will be seen from the following discussion that historical studies are considerably enriched by sociological studies in all these three dimensions. In his role as a storyteller, a historian faces a difficulty inasmuch as an event includes the feelings and the spirit of the participants and the onlookers. Indeed, these non-factual ingredients are often the most significant in any historical recital.
The dictum ‘history is the biography of great men’ was a reputable dictum at the beginning of this century. Individuals were looked upon as decisive factors in history. Under the impact of sociological studies, however, the action of social forces rather than the behaviour of individuals have become the object of historians’ enquiry.
A historian is thus able to tell his story in a more convincing way. But the debate as to whether the object of the historians’ enquiry is the behaviour of individuals or the action of social forces has not yet died down.
There are historians who are sorry for the “mass murder of historical characters” by treating them as “puppets of social and economic forces”.
‘What is history?’ E.H. Carr, however, observes that the exaggerated importance that is given to the role of ‘great men’ in history “does not fit the more complex society of our times” and that “the birth in the nineteenth century of the new science of Sociology was a response to this growing complexity”.
The close relation of sociology and history may also be discussed with reference to the interpretation of a unique historical event, e.g., the industrial revolution in the eighteenth century England by Max Weber. The event becomes meaningful when it is looked at from a sociological point of view.
As a matter of fact, “the debate about the origins of modern capitalism which began with Max Weber’s revision of the Marxist account has been continued by historians and sociologists from Tawney up to the present time”.
Max. Weber’s analysis of the origin of capitalism holds lessons for the historian in assessing the prospective trend of events. It is often said that “history is an explanation of how we come to be doing what we usually do.” We are interested in what had occurred in the past chiefly because we want to understand what is occurring today. And we want this chiefly because we want to influence what will occur in future.
As in the case of Weber’s analysis of the origin of capitalism, historian draws upon sociology not simply to understand the past and the present but also to show how to change the present into a better future. In much contemporary historiography and sociology the same basic framework of reference is employed, specially where economic and social history are concerned.”
Sociology has also to draw heavily on history to get a wider perspective, i.e., a historian’s vision. At present, sociology faces two opposite dangers — the danger of becoming ultra-theoretical and the danger of becoming ultra-empirical. The first is the danger of losing itself in abstract and meaningless generalizations about society in general. Society with a capital ‘S’ is as misleading a fallacy as History with a capital ‘H’.
This danger is brought nearer by those who assign to sociology the exclusive task of generalizing from the unique events recorded by history. It has even been suggested by some that sociology is distinguished from history by having “laws”.
The second danger is of a sociology “split into a series of discrete technical problems of social readjustment.” Sociology is concerned with historical societies, every one of which is unique and moulded by specific historical antecedents and conditions.
But to attempt to avoid generalization and interpretation by confining oneself to so-called ‘technical’ problems of enumeration and analysis is merely to become the unconscious advocate of a static society. Sociology, if it is to become a fruitful field of study, must, like history, concern itself with the relation between the unique and the general.
That is, sociology must become dynamic — a study not of society at rest (because no such society exists) but of social change and development. We may, therefore, conclude by saying that the more sociological history becomes, and the more historical sociology becomes, the better for both the disciplines. The frontier between the two should be kept wide open for two-way traffic.
6. Philosophy:
While tracing the roots of sociology in the second half of the 18th century and the i first half of the 19th century, we noted that one such root was the then prevailing social and political philosophy in Europe. Sociology originated to explain the social crisis in Europe during that period and “to provide a social doctrine which would guide social policy.” Sociology was thus conceived in philosophical terms.
For a long period of time since then, sociological problems had been approached from a philosophical point of view. Thus, while analysing the direction of social change, many philosophical questions had been raised.
Does social change connote social progress?
Do some basic values or over-riding principles envelop the entire society?
In course of time, however, sociology ceased to raise such questions and there was a conscious attempt to develop sociology as a positive science, freed from all kinds of ideological trappings. Apparently, the contact between philosophy and sociology was snapped. But this absence or loss of contact was more apparent than real. There are some areas where the two disciplines overlap.
In the first place, sociology is concerned with the behaviour of men in society. Since such behaviour is deeply influenced, among others, by the value-orientation of the people, a sociologist has to reckon with values while analysing social behaviour.
He does not, of course, deal with values in the way a philosopher does. He treats values as “social facts”, as something given, and analyses their impact on the social behaviour of men.
A sociologist has, however, to keep himself abreast of the philosophical basis of values. In the absence of such acquaintance, he would not be able to assess properly the world-view, hopes, aspirations and dreams of the people.
If, for example, a’ sociologist is not broadly familiar with the philosophical basis of Indian culture, he would signally fail to interpret and analyse Indian society. Only by some training in social philosophy can a sociologist get an insight into the working of mind of the people and into their attitudes rooted in tradition.
Secondly, it is argued that sociological discourses sometimes lead to philosophical thought. While treating religion, Durkheim, for example, discusses first the social influences upon the categories of thought and proceeds to epistemological discussion — “a conception of social milieu as the determining cause of social facts”.
Durkheim expresses his views thus:
“I believe that sociology, more than any other science, has a contribution to make to the renewal of philosophical questions sociological reflection is bound to prolong itself by a natural progress in the form of philosophical reflection”.
That sociological reflection may eventually lead to philosophical reflection may be indicated with reference to a very simple example. It is the duty of every social being to abide by the norms prescribed by society in the interest of social stability.
But a question may legitimately be raised: what should an individual do if he cannot; persuade himself to conform to certain socially prescribed norms and he adduces very convincing arguments for not doing so? Should he follow his conscience and choose ‘ to go alone and expose himself to social strictures?
In such an event, what amount of relaxation can be made by society? How will problems of this nature be resolved? These questions have stirred the minds of men in the past and will continue, to do so in the years to come.
Various schools of philosophical thinking have arisen centering around these questions. Posterity has found that Socrates was right in the type of views he held and propagated and that his contemporaries were clearly in the wrong.
But Socrates had to pay the penalty for being a non-conformist. Socrates was not alone. Every age has produced non-conformists who were penalized for expressing their honest convictions that were not in conformity with prevailing socially accepted norms. Such cases raise questions which are the concerns of both sociologists and philosophers.