Chapter 3
Making It Up as They Went Along:
The History of Sociology
In This Chapter
Developing sociology
Understanding the three big names in sociology
Defining sociology in the 20th century
Exploring sociology today
Yes, this is the requisite history chapter — the flashback section, if you will. It’s here not just because it “has to be,” but because it actually has to be: Understanding how sociology was developed will help you understand
how sociologists go about doing their thing today.
In this chapter, I start by covering the genesis of sociology; why people needed a new way of looking at the social world. I briefly tell you about the lives of the three most famous and influential sociologists — Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber — and tell the story of how sociology traveled across the Atlantic, becoming more “down to earth” in the process. Finally, I chronicle the rise and fall of Talcott Parsons (the sociologist who almost figured it all out) and bring you up to the present day.
So . . . Who Cares about History?
I can hear you groan. Isn’t it enough to understand what sociologists do today? Why bother with learning what people used to think about society? Well, the following list gives you a few good reasons to learn at least a little bit about the history of sociology:
Understanding why sociologists think the way they do and ask the questions they do: Even if sociologists today know a lot more than their predecessors did, they have the same essential concerns about society and social organization. The new approach to looking at the social
40 |
Part I: The Basic Basics |
world — a scientific, systematic approach — developed by the first sociologists continues to provide the foundation of all sociology. The new science of sociology helped thinkers in 1830 cast aside their personal biases and come up with new solutions to social problems; it does the same today.
Understanding “old” arguments and ideas that are still useful today:
Over the course of sociology’s history there have been some pretty smart people who have come up with ideas and arguments that are still very useful today. Even though Karl Marx, for example, died over a hundred years ago, his work still inspires sociologists — and social activists — to be mindful of the conflict and exploitation that can take place in capitalist societies. Emile Durkheim’s argument that cultural values change as a society grows and roles differentiate has become all the more important as societies around the world have become bigger
and more diverse. Max Weber’s discussion of “the iron cage” of modern life can seem eerily appropriate when you’re doing your taxes or waiting in line at a government bureau. The concepts developed by Marx, Durkheim, and Weber are a common vocabulary that sociologists use as they discuss society today.
Understanding which important ideas didn’t work out so well: If you have to reinvent the wheel, you might as well reinvent the round one instead of the square one! The name “Parsons” is almost a dirty word among many sociologists today, but Talcott Parsons’s work is still widely read. It’s a brilliant articulation of an idea about society — that everything is there for a reason, which was a very compelling idea that many of the world’s best sociologists were studying for years. It didn’t turn out to be the most accurate way to think about society, but learning why can help you avoid Parsons’s mistakes.
Thinking about Society before
There Was Sociology
Sociology as we know it was developed in the 19th century, but it’s not like it took people all those centuries just to notice that there is such a thing as society! For all of human history, people have talked about society and debated its organization. Sociology was invented as a powerful tool for answering the questions that people had been wondering about for ages.
In this section, I explain how people first started thinking about society and describe the seismic social changes that inspired the development of sociology in the 19th century.
Chapter 3: Making It Up as They Went Along: The History of Sociology |
41 |
People are the same everywhere you go . . . except when they aren’t
When I say that people have long been aware of society, I don’t just mean that they noticed there were folks hanging around together in large groups — I mean that long ago, people noticed that there seems to be an organization to society. Whether you were a tribesman on the African savannah, a citizen of ancient Athens, or a serf in medieval France, you might have looked around and noticed that your group and the next group over and the group beyond that had all managed to get themselves in some sort of order. You might notice certain constants among all groups: the haves and the havenots, the family, religion and spirituality, and organized production and trade of food and tools.
But just because these constants are always present in society doesn’t mean that they’re the same everywhere — there’s wide variation across social groups. Here’s what I mean:
There are “haves” and “have-nots” in every society, but in some societies there are vast discrepancies between the fabulously wealthy and the dirt-poor, and in others the differences are not nearly as great.
Every society has families of some sort, but in some societies those families are small and in others they are large and multi-generational. Some societies are patriarchal (the male lineage is most important) and some are matriarchal (the female lineage is most important).
Every society has some form of religion. In some cases this means strict laws enforced by powerful clerics whereas in other cases it means a free sense of spirituality with religious leaders who serve only as helpful guides.
Food and tools are produced and traded in all societies, but think about the difference between traditional Native American cultures (many of which had little concept of “property” in the modern sense of the word) and capitalist society with its elaborate financial system.
Besides this variation in stable societies, there is sometimes outright social breakdown — with leaders toppled and civil wars raging for years or
decades. People have always been curious about social organization: Why is society organized the way it is? Is it just random, or is there a method behind the madness? If people could understand how society works, they thought, maybe they could solve social problems like war and poverty.
42 |
Part I: The Basic Basics |
Pre-sociologists: People with ideas about society
For many centuries, people tended to focus on the similarities rather than the differences in social organization. If societies were different from one another, people thought, it must be because some were “right” and some were “wrong.” But who was to decide right from wrong? What follows is a list of people who have tried:
Theologians: They argued that God (or the gods) had a plan for the world, and sacred scriptures might reveal that plan as God (or, again, the gods) intended it to be manifest. Feudal society in Europe and elsewhere was run jointly by church and state leaders who believed they were running things the way God wanted them to be run.
Philosophers: Many philosophers believed that the key to successful social organization lay in an accurate understanding of human nature. If philosophers could figure out, by means of reflection, observation, and discussion, what the essence of human nature was, they could design a perfect society. Plato’s Republic, one of the greatest works of classical philosophy, lays out Plato’s vision of an ideal society.
Historians: Historians looked to the past to understand the present. Many historians were almost sociological in their comparison of past societies with present societies — in fact, the first sociologists were very interested in historical change — whereas others looked to the past for ideals to be emulated in the present. For example, many historians were convinced that when it came to an effective legal system, the ancient Romans had it figured out and that any successful legal system would have to be based on Roman law.
These theological, philosophical, and historical approaches were interesting and, in some cases, quite useful — but by the late 1700s it became clear that a new way of understanding society would be necessary. Society changed more and more quickly, and people became less and less convinced that the answers to society’s problems could be found in a 2,000-year-old book of scripture, philosophy, or law.
Political and industrial revolution:
Ready or not, here it comes
There’s no shortage of tragic conflict, shocking social upheaval, and stunning technological transformation in the 21st century — but even so, it’s difficult for people today to understand just how profound and disorienting were the changes that shook Western society in the 18th and 19th centuries. These changes were so shocking that they caused people to question their
Chapter 3: Making It Up as They Went Along: The History of Sociology |
43 |
long-held assumptions about human nature and social organization, and to wonder whether the scientific method — which had been so useful in understanding the natural world — might not also be useful for understanding the scary and exciting new social world they were living in.
This is a topic that’s often in the news today: Is it possible to design a political system to be stable, or are some countries or social situations just naturally unstable? Turn to Chapter 13 for more information on government and political revolutions, as well as information about social movements.
Political revolutions
The American Revolution of 1776 was certainly a wake-up call to the entrenched European powers, but it was nothing compared to the French Revolution and its associated conflicts, which tore across Europe from 1789 to 1814. What was especially shocking about the French Revolution was the idea behind it: the idea that society needed to be fundamentally reorganized, with the hereditary monarchy stripped of their powers in favor of a democratically elected government.
And the French and Americans weren’t alone. In one country after another, traditional forms of government and social organization were violently challenged. More and more, people believed — and acted on their belief — that things should be different, that just because the kings and dukes and bishops had been in charge for centuries didn’t mean it had to be that way forever. For leadership to be something you were born into rather than chosen for, the revolutionaries believed, wasn’t right and it wasn’t fair.
Of course, the tricky thing about overthrowing one system of social organization is that you have to replace it with something — and that is no easy task. Storming the Bastille and stuffing grass in aristocrats’ mouths was very liberating, but what, exactly, was the next step? Who should be put in charge, and with what powers, and for how long? It took decades to create the relatively stable democratic institutions we know today, and along the way things got pretty messy. Complicating the whole process was the fact that technology was also changing rapidly.
The Industrial Revolution
From the late 18th century into the 19th century, quickly developing technology revolutionized (hence the name) life in Europe and its colonies. Previously, life for most people had been fairly straightforward: you were born into a particular family in a particular place, and you were more or less destined to do a particular job — probably not a very exciting one, something along the order of planting and harvesting. Maybe, if you were born in a town, you could have a career in the dynamic field of blacksmithing or go to work as a servant for the local royalty, who had themselves been born into their positions. You’d probably do some trading, but you’d likely build your own house and grow much of your own food. You were fundamentally tied to your place, your family, and your job. They defined you.