Sociology and Society

The character, contents and methods of social knowledge have been sub­jected to numerous radical changes during five thousand years of human histo­ry. This knowledge was initially born as a simple fixation of events, but it has been radically transformed since the appearance of philosophic thought, shift­ing from pure factual forms to more complex analytic generalizations. The rise of analytical level in society cognition was connected with Chinese philoso­phers and more recent antique culture.

However, the appearance of social analytics did not set the process of social cognition free from several considerable restrictions and disadvantages. The most important of them were, in particular, the following:

• Omnipotence of ideology, which prescribed certain a priori parameters to this process essential for preservation of the ruling classes domination. One can observe this tendency since Babylonian culture up to the rise of capitalism in Europe.

• Frequent appeal to the magic and other indemonstrable elements is the example of still another restriction of social cognition on occasions, when there were not enough either empirical facts or logical arguments.

• Methodologically, the weakest point of social theories, which had existed before sociology, was sheer absence of dialectics. The society was looked upon either as established once and forever unchangeable phenomenon, or as an easy object to the slightest whims of the ruling sovereigns.

Probably, Niccolo Machiavelli has made the first attempt in European tradi­tion to find objective societal regularities and formulate social laws that exist in any society, independent of any human will. In advice to Sovereign, given in his famous treatise "To the Prince", actual and desirable realities were coordinated and reunited perhaps for the first time in the social thought. Though, in fact, pre-socio-logical knowledge as a whole had abstract and speculative character.

The sociology was born as an independent science due to some epistemologi-cal and social factors. In the middle of the 19th century the need to overcome the restrictions, some of which has been mentioned earlier, came to become clear and evident, - and this, in fact, constituted epistemological roots of the sociology appearance. Besides, the social relations changed radically, at least in Europe. Social rights and liberties had been fixed in the constitutions and other official acts, rapid increase of industrial production was followed by great concentration of workers and gave birth to unprecedented forms of mass social behavior.

503

T he principally new quality of sociological knowledge stemmed from the three of its characteristics:

First, sociology started to look at society as universal multi-factor process. This process is objective, contains trends of change and submitted to objective social laws.

Such definition contains implicitly the most important principle of science: independence from particularistic values. Social knowledge independence from values of social classes has been established and stressed as a norm for the first time in history of social cognition.

Second, the subject-matter in sociology is not what society ought to be, bur primarily what society actually is.

This principle distinguished sociology from Utopia on one side, and on the other side there has been formulated the necessity to study social pathology, delinquency and deviations as one of major tasks of social cognition.

Third, sociology admits as scientific truth only those statements and con­clusions, which are proved by empirical data.

Theory and empirical proofs are bound together by that approach, whereas logic and experience became the exclusive instruments of social knowledge.

On the basis of this principle there appears totally new quality of social knowledge for the first time - its quantification, id est intention to present all object' attributes in numerical forms. Quantification demonstrates advanced, sophisticated level of social knowledge, its expanding opportunities.

Summing up all these we may conclude that springing of sociology did not only expand borders and deepened traditional subject-matter of social knowledge. In fact it signified revolution in study of society which may be compared with the rise of Chinese analytics on the backgrounds of the previous pure factology.

The Arabian scientists had made the most important contribution in the development of social knowledge since the works of Chinese and antique ana­lytics. The unique outstanding figure in the medieval scholastic Arab World was Ibn Haldun. While working on his famous work "Mukaddima" dedicated to the history of the Arab people, he formulated essential methodological prin­ciples of social cognition. He was the first scholar who proved that history is continuous regular process, influenced by complex configuration of many social factors. He also proved convincingly that this process is universal: social laws are the same everywhere, be it Africa, Europe or Asia.

The Renaissance movement initiated actual return to social analytics in Europe. The first precursor of sociology in Europe was Giam-Battista Vico (Italy) who formulated some of its ideas more than a century in advance. In his main work "Fundamentals of New Science upon General Nature of Nations" he did not only reaffirm Ibn Huldun' conclusions with his own methods, but also worked out the theory of social knowledge verification and used methods of quantitative analysis for social knowledge. Vico was a pioneer in making some social and scientific forecasts that were successfully realized further on.

The intellectual movement of Enlightenment had played an important role in preparing sociology' knowledge. The main features of the New Times men­tality formulated and legitimatized by the Enlightenment had become:

504

Universalism of personality, that meant the equality of people to each other.

Scientific skepticism, i. e. creating picture of the World (Weltanschauung) without applying to either mysticism or occultism.

Eudetism (gedonism), i. e. acceptance of personality welfare and happiness as the highest values and major task of society.

The first principle was born within the world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) through notion of all people' equality before God. The sec­ond principle became consequence of the science development. The third prin­ciple is one of the main achievements of the Enlightenment since C. L. Montesquieu, J.-J. Rousseau e. a.

The immediate sources for the rise of sociological science at the middle of the 19th century became:

• Scotch political economy (A. Smith, R. Fergusson, A. Turenne, e. a.);

• French Utopian socialism (C. A. Saint-Simon, G. Babeuf, encyclopaedi-ans, e. a.);

• German classical philosophy (I. Kant, J.G. Fichte, F. W. Schelling; G. W. F.Hegel);

- finally, English utilitarianism created by J. S. Mill and J. Bentam. Namely these currents of social thought had formed methodological foun­ dation of new scientific discipline.

The history of sociology is usually divided into two periods: classical and modern ones. Each of these periods in their turn is also subdivided in two sub-periods: the classical consists of early classical stage and mature classical stage; modern period is subdivided in postwar sociology and contemporary sociology.

The time limits of the early classics start from publication of A. Comte's work "The Course of Positive Philosophy" (1838-1842) and finish with World War I and the October revolution of 1917 in Russia. Essential principles of soci­ology have been formed, and empirical social research was launched on wide, sometimes nation-wide, scale during this period. Methodologically this period may be called the age of "one factor" schools.

The following period of mature classics is characterized by pluralistic approach, proposed by M.M. Kovalevsky. This approach meant that sociology had to study social processes taking into account the whole complex of all social factors influencing society. Sociologists must not search for a unique mono-factor that is responsible for everything.

Mature classics embrace the period between the two World Wars. Sophisticated network system of essential sociological concepts was developed successfully during this period, various techniques and research procedures were being worked out. Application of mathematics and statistical methods in processing the empirical data became common practice at this stage.

The post-war period of modern sociology starts from the end of World War II. Stormy events of the youth social protest in 1968 that strongly impressed the whole world mark the end of this stage.

During this period there has been ultimately institutionalized not only gen­eral and theoretical sociology but also many other sociological fields (for exam-

505

p ie, sociology of science, industrial sociology, military sociology etc.). International ties of sociologists have acquired mass, regular and systematic character. Socio-engineering function of sociology becomes more and more demanded.

The contemporary period stage of sociology, has begun since the end of sixties, and lasts up to the present day. Its main feature is a wide spreading of an academic and applied sociology not just in countries of North and West but also in countries of South and East. Methodologically most of sociologists agree with the approach of methodological pluralism that was initially proposed by J. Alexander. The major assessment of it rests on the opinion that nowadays it is impossible to create the universal sociological theory adequately applicable for research of any social phenomena. Such mission is insoluble by many reasons.

Hence each of approaches, that exists and is applied at present, gives an opportunity to investigate and solve its own field of problems. Therefore the major goal of explorer and at the same time essence of his/her professional skills is focused on the task: how to choose those approach, procedure and methods that allow to solve the investigated problem more adequately and effectively.

French Classical Sociology

Sociology as an independent science had been forming in the 19th century in Europe. At the starting stage the main contribution to this process was made by scientists who wrote in French, German, and English. Remarkable role belonged in particular to scientists who wrote in French. The French sociologi­cal thought of this stage may be divided into three sub-periods:

Pre-sociological period which prepared the appearance of sociology. This period is associated mostly with the name of A. Quetelet, French-Belgian sci­entist who was the founder of the social statistics theory.

Initial period when the term "sociology" was introduced by A. Comte and when the main principles of the new science were formulated. The schools of the one factor, that gave such names as G. Le Bon, G. Tarde, R. Worms, F. Le Play, E. Reclus, e. a. dominated at that time.

Finally, institutional period. The key figure of this period in France was undoubtedly E. Durkheim. Sociology at that time worked out and took into practice specific sociological methods and procedures, found classical types of the exclusively sociological approach in the analysis of social phenomena. The grounds for the new science as academic discipline had been created, some influential sociological schools had appeared.

Classical German Sociology

It is obvious that development of each science is universal international process, and picking out national trends out of this mainstream flood inevitably bears rather conventional character. Nevertheless national peculiarities of defi­nite socio-economic situation, habits, mores and traits of culture, level of the scientific discipline' institutionalization in the country - all these aspects exert their own specific impact. Sometimes they have quite strong influence not just

506

on the choice of main problems and orientations in the work of scientists in the country, but also on the contribution of these scientists to the world develop­ment of this academic discipline.

One must also take into account that when speaking about the development of sociology in particular country, we mean, first of all, scientific literature which is being published in this country's language. Hence scientific culture of the country include scientific works that are written in the language of that country by scientists of other countries. So, Belgian Adolph Quetelet and Russian Jacob Novicoff, who wrote mainly in French, published their works in French scientific publishing houses and magazines, and were in closest con­nections with French scientists, may be quite fairly treated as representatives of the French sociological tradition.

Just the same way, when speaking of German sociology, one means socio­logical literature that is being published in German, and includes not only German authors' works but also works, for example, of Austrian, some Swiss authors etc. That is why, when analyzing classical German sociology, one has to apply to these authors, and sometimes to authors from other countries (e. g. The Netherlands), who publish their works in German.

Like each national branch of the social science, German sociology has passed main stages of the world sociology development, although with their national methodological, conceptual, organizational specific traits. In Germany there were also scientists who had prepared grounds for the rise of sociology within framework of the national culture and who can be considered as pre-sociologists. They had done much for appearance of the new discipline though their works does not completely meet all standards of scientific sociology.

For instance, schools of "one factor", each of whom tried to find its own main, dominant factor of society functioning and development worked success­fully in Germany applying deterministic methodology. Some of them studied different social strata; others ran important surveys and applied empirical research.

There also exist influential academic schools and world-known classics of the sociological science like Karl Marks and Max Weber in Germany.

British Sociology

Britain was one of the first countries scientists of which had turned to the empirical analysis of social phenomena. This tradition had appeared in Cromwell times and gained wide recognition in social research in the middle of the 19th century. Of special interest are numerous research led by B. Seebohm Rowntree and C. Booth.

Although academic sociology was developing quite slowly in Great Britain in comparison with other leading European countries, its functions were partly realized by social anthropology. Successfully investigating various social processes and phenomena social anthropology was represented by constellation of bright names that includes Radcliff-Brown, Malinowski, Westermarck.

Many historians of sociology, while explaining reasons of obstructing soci­ology from the side of the academic elite, find their lack of will to discuss urgent actual problems. It may be definitely stated that the greatest interest in

507

d eveloping social knowledge was demonstrated not by the elite but by educat­ed democratic lower classes.

Evident pragmatism was seen in development of the new science that always characterized Britishers. Social research undertaken by British researchers has been oriented towards the settlement of certain social aims. This trend became evi­dently obvious in British sociology of the 19th century when the analysis of social phenomena and tendencies had gained wide popularity. Let us apply to experts evaluation of the social research in Great Britain between World Wars.

The UK historian of sociology Martin Bulmer picked out six fundamental tendencies that have characterized the development of British sociology from 1914 to the 1930s [Bulmer M. Development of sociology and of empirical social research in Britain // Essays on the history of British sociological research. Cambridge, 1985. P. 8-15].

1. The tendency of conducting the social observation that had been started by Booth and Rowntree was the strongest. The most characteristic in this respect was "New Observation of Life and Work in London" undertaken by London school of economics in 1927-1932. It was continuation of local surveys with special atten­tion to social consequences of structural unemployment and great depression.

2. One more noticeable trend was contribution of statisticians, especially of A. Bowley works, into planning and realization of observations. He was the first, who drew attention to opportunities of "representative" method, as he named it. Bowley has applied method of casual sampling while studying prob­ lems of poverty. In his work "Measurement of Social Phenomena" (1915) he emphasized the necessity of strict and standard definitions of social variables, such as income, household, etc.

Because he was university scientist, he introduced empirical research into practice of academic science. His ideas of casual sampling were further widely used by governmental analysts and market researchers in the USA.

3. Amateurs-enthusiasts carried out number of social surveys. Patrick Geddes was the most talented of them. Together with Victor Branford they were among founders of London sociological society in 1903, that had established "The Sociological Review" in which Geddes had very strong influence since 1911. He was ardent proponent of municipal self-observations as means of studying family and community in their natural ecological environment.

One more type of amateur research was the movement of mass observa­tions. The movement founder Tom Harrison was ornithologist and some of this science approaches were noticeable in mass social phenomena observations.

4. Eugenics had turned to be the outstanding current in the British sociolo­gy. The movement of eugenicists was based on works of Galton, Pearson and Fisher. They established the national laboratory of eugenics, which started to publish its magazine "Biometrics" that became the center of statistical research in the field of genetic biology.

5. Social anthropology had also been developed within the framework of academic science. Ascending to works Tylor and Frazer, social anthropology had deep roots at the British universities.

Being more integrated into the national scientific elite, social anthropolo­gists and their research subject-matter as a whole were more acceptable in Britain than sociologists.

508

There existed two tendencies within the framework of social anthropology. One was concentrated upon direct and careful observation of primitive soci­eties. Another tendency combined direct observation with exquisite developing of general theory. Malinowski and Radcliff-Brown were the brightest figures within this trend.

It is possible to say that social anthropology in Britain had occupied place of sociology but had transferred its subject-matter in the colonial sphere.

6. Pure academic sociology had been developed, by expression of M. Bulmer, like a deceased child. Its rather narrow base was limited by the chair of sociology created in 1907 at London School of economics. Its first chairman L. Hobhouse was not a scientist of H. Spencer or M. Weber caliber.

P. Abrams, historian of British sociology, summarizing development of this science in Great Britain, considers that, in order to prosper, it requires the corresponding social structure within framework of which it would become possible to receive simple and applicable offers concerning political decisions of social problems.