The debate as to whether sociology is a science or art is old as sociology itself. This debate is still raging, though in recent years the claim that it is art is gaining upper hand.
This is partly due to two impart reasons. One, sociology as a discipline has become more self-confident enough to move away from the shadow of science. Les us dwell on this point a bit more. In the early days of its inception, sociology grew in the shadow of grand success of science. For a fledging subject like sociology, the only way to gain wider acceptance and patronage was to model itself after natural sciences. It was quite natural to do so then. The age of reason and empiricism demanded a discipline that could become amenable to scientific reasoning. So, sociology willingly yielded to such a demand. But, all this has changed in the last few decades. Now sociology has gathered enough strength and practical wisdom to realize the limitation of its self-image as a scientific discipline.
The second reason is the strong criticism that science as a whole has received for its allegedly anti-human, anti-nature and anti-woman essence. The debates emanating from sociology of science and philosophy of science on the one hand and serious criticisms leveled against modernity itself (of which science is both a cause and effect) on the other hand, have unmasked the essentially exploitative, repressive and violent nature of science.
With many critics listing out the criminal track record of the abetting and aiding g role of science in causing undue violence, from atomic explosion, to gas chamber during holocaust, to global warming, science has lost its neutral stance and holy image. But the debate is far from settled.
There are still those who aspire to model sociology in the image of science and advocated the idea of transplanting the methods adopted in natural sciences onto social sciences. They are called positivists since they believed that just as natural world presents itself positively to the scientists for explanation and exploitation, the social too world presents itself positively to sociologists for study. There are others who claim that sociology can at best be an art form, aspiring only to interpret the world in manifold ways (in other words interpretivists as they are known). It looks like the interpretivists have come to occupy pride of place in the recent years. It would be interesting to see their claims and counter claims.
Inductive Vs. Deductive Logic/Method
The positivists strongly argued in favour of deploying inductive method in social sciences (sociology included). Inductive method refers to a process of using selectively chosen particulars to arrive at grand generalization or universalisation. For example to conclude that all crows are black in colour in the world, they will study selected crows in different part of the word and conclude that all crows are black. Or to conclude that water boils at 100 Degree Celsius, they will test samples of water in different places and time and apply conclusions to all the waters in the world. This is the most accepted method in science which unfolds in the form of observation – experiment – inference – application process.
When applying the same procedures in sociology (or social sciences), it would mean that they would study same select phenomenon and the conclusions arrived at, when everything being uniform, would be generalized for all phenomena of the same nature.
This is intensely opposed by interpretivists, who claim that social reality is not the same as natural reality, wherein the essential nature of objects do not vary from one place to another (for example H2 + O will always produce water on any part of the planet). But in the social universe any two self-conscious individuals will not always produce the same social formations or pattern of social relationships. Hence if any generalization can be made, it can occur only from the observed generalization to specific particulars. For example, the observation that joint family system tends breakdown in industrial society can be anticipated for specific families in industrial societies though it may became true in all situations. This way of moving from general to particular is called deductive logic. This deductive logic can at best only enable the sociologists to only understand why certain things happen in a particular way in society, but not help him / her to offer conclusive decisive universalistic explanations.
Thus sociologists should use more deductive processes for understanding, as is followed in philosophy to which sociology is closer than it is to science.
Facts Vs Meanings
One of the strong contentions of positivists is that social reality, as natural world, can be broken down to units of facts. The facticity of social reality is established by claiming that social reality exists outside of, in spite of and irrespective of individuals living in it.
This understanding is derived from the scientists’ view of the natural word, wherein things such matter, gas, liquid, etc. exist external to the individuals perceiving them. To make this clearer, let us illustrate: The stone or tree, or a cell in a body and all these natural world objects have existed even before humans began to exist in the world. Therefore the existence of these objects does not demand the presence of humans in the world. If anything, it is due to the existence of these that human existence itself is possible / dependent. This is fine.
But can the same be said about social reality? Interpretivists differ. The social reality such as family, caste, education, class, classrooms etc. though may seem external to individuals, they themselves cannot exist on their own, without the members reproducing that reality through their acts of living out the rules and regulations.
For example a classroom as a reality is not the outcome of merely blackboard, benches and chairs being placed in a room. It is rather thanks to the consensual agreement by the individuals occupying that place to confer a meaning of classroom upon that place. In other words, it is the intentionality of individuals that make it a classroom. If the same set of individuals decide to give a different meaning to the place (say the meaning of bed room), then the same classroom may became a place for sleeping and resting. In a similar vein, if those individuals have decided to accord a meaning of classroom to a place then any place even the place under tree can become a classroom. Thus, outside the individuals minds, a social reality has no or weak existence.
Thus, the best a sociologist can do to study, say education, is not to study buildings and benches, but the intentions and meanings of education residing in the minds of the individuals whose interaction affirms and reproduces education as an institutions.
Curiously, these meanings cannot be grasped scientifically. Only a person with artistic sensibilities can comprehend meanings existing in the deep recesses of human minds and relations.
In sum, instead of treating social reality as a sum of well-knit facts, it is demanded by interpretivists to regard social reality as the outcome of interplay of meanings intended by social actors.
Particular / Cotextual Vs Universal
The luxury that a natural scientist can afford is the unhazardous conviction that phenomena in the material or natural world do not have context specific behaviour. Given certain standard conditions all natural events occur in the same way across time and space. For example given certain uniform conditions the water will always boil at 100o Celsius. The atomic structure, the components of a plant cell will remain the same, wherever one studies them.
But such luxury is not available for sociologists, for they know very well that in social universe, events occur in a particular fashion contingent upon a variety of factors and intentions brought in by contexts and social actors respectively. For example in an MA classroom in GRI one cannot expect same set of social events in the year 2010, and the next year 2011, though in both years there may be same number of students, with same gender break-up, with same age, same syllabus, etc. Thus the conclusions arrived at by the teachers about the behavioural responses, interactional patterns, cannot be simply applied for the subsequent batches of students, though certain statistical details such as age, height, weight, etc. may be the same.
Though it is possible to anticipate certain trends and tendencies, social science cannot afford to universalize the conclusions of one situation on to different periods or for different societies. The understandings American sociologists have about families in USA, cannot be generalized on to families in India. The appreciation of these differences required artistic bent of mind, rather than scientific rigour.
Pluralism Vs Singularism
The foundational notions of science cannot bear to be divergent. For example the guiding vision of universe and the notion of space, the understanding about atomic structure, the principles governing digital technologies etc have to be unified in such a way that they became the bedrock upon which other inventions can be made. The scientific community agrees fundamentally on the foundational principles. They are what Thomas Kuhn calls paradigms that determine and guide the contours of scientific research. The singular vision is held true across every country and every era, until perhaps displaced by another paradigm in scientific community. We cannot imagine a time in which two parallel paradigms reigns supreme in science.
But in the case of social sciences, it is pluralism of paradigms that is the order. There are as many foundational notions about, say, society, social actors, nation, social structure, etc., as there are theorists. What is very interesting is that these vision can co-exist simultaneously, guiding social research in manifold ways. At any given point in time, there may be diametrically opposite visions of society, which may find its followers, institutional patronage and global votaries.
What is even more intriguing is that while in natural sciences a prevailing scientific paradigm will be displaced by another new paradigm, the vanguished paradigm cannot ever hope to come back to regain its lost preeminence. For example the Copernicus vision of universe was displaced by Newtonian notion, which itself was subsequently replaced by Einstein’s vision. No member in scientific community can ever hope to see the return of Copernican vision.
But in social science it may be the case that some vision of society may lose their prominence at some time only to become popular again. For example, the functionalist model of society, that was prominent in the first part of its may remerge as neo-functionalism later in history. This is what has prompted Tom Bottomore to declare, quite metaphorically that, the scientific theories die a natural death, whereas social theories only slip into coma only to be revived later. This diversity of paradigms and waxing and waning of visions give courage for interpretivists to reiterate the artistic character of social sciences, since only in art many different genres and perspectives can co-exist. This coexistence is even celebrated because it is accepted that they are merely different interpretation of the same phenomenon.
Uniformity and multiplicity of texts
Following from above, it is notable that because of singular paradigmatic influence, the scientific community follows single text book. The agreement on the ideas in the text book is the precondition for further research. As Nisbet argues, the inspiration and meaning one can draw from a science text book cannot be many. In other words, the reader of a scientific text book cannot bring his/her personal experience and history to bear upon the ideas of such text book and alter the meanings.
Whatever may be mood states, or cultural experiences, the understanding of the ideas found in science text books will not differ from the readings of another scientist occupying different continent, mood state and society. But in the case of social science the plurality of paradigms offer plurality of text books each vying with each other to offer different interpretations. Even more curiously, the same text book may give different meaning to different readers, and even for the same reader at different times. This is exactly what happens when one engages with a work of art, such as fiction, film, painting or music. This similarity between work and art and social science texts reaffirm the artistic character of sociology. Even classics such as Durkheim’s Suicide may offer different inspiration at different times, gives scope for divergent interpretations, something not possible when one reads ‘Principia Mathematica’ of Newton.
Transitory nature of truth
In conclusion to this discussion, let me talk about the impossibility of science within science. To put in more easily, if science is born of the desire to find truth, and if science claims to have captured the truth that all can see and experience, then the history of science belies that claim, as different eras of history of science foregrounds different truths about universe etc. These different truths can at best claim themselves to be only interpretations, since the truths are true only until further notice by another paradigm. If truths can be valid only for a particular period of time, then that truth can only be interpretations. It may be the case that the longevity of the interpretations may be longer in the case of science and shorter in the case of social sciences. But it does not that diminish or enhance their status as interpretations.
How sociology is science?
1-Sociology also uses scientific method- Sociology many scientific methods like experimental method, historical methods, comparative method and structural functional methods. With the help of all methods sociology studies abstract as well as concrete facts.
2-Impartial observation of phenomenon-Due to various available scientific methods, sociologist does Impartial observation of phenomenon. For sake of objectivity he takes help of questionnaire, schedule and case study. On the basis of these one can find reality of human behavior.
3- Classification and interpretation of data-The study of sociological research is not limited only to collect data . one has to interpret the data and than classify them according to common features, so that one can do comparative study .For example take the case of divorce. by making few groups we can classify and conclude the real causes of it.
4- Description of "What is" in sociology- there is no place of individual view in social research. For example we don't raise questions like "juvenile delinquency or suicides should committed" ?Sociologist just search what are causes of suicides?
5-Relatioship between cause and consequence-Every social phenomenon has reasons /causes ,why it occurs? Same way consequences are equally important. There is always relation between two .For example we to find out what are causes of corruption ? how corruption is influence to entire society?
6-Generalization- It is the assumption that what is true of a some cases is true in general. On the basis of Generalization, sociological rules are framed. These rules has capacity to predict the future things. For example.it is common rule that 'there is lower status of women in society' .Due to this family disorganization can be predicted.
To see above points one can say sociology has all the qualities called to be science.
Objections Against Scientific nature of Sociology-the following are objection against its nature.
1-Social phenomenon are abstract in nature, therefore scientific observation is not possible in it.
2- Social phenomenons are so complicated and changeable that the conclusion of particular phenomenon can not be applicable to all.
3-it is very difficult to conduct impartial study. In science there is no attachment with oxygen or hydrogen, but when he conduct on human being he feels prejudice and such feelings includes in study.
4- Social phenomenon's can not be measured like phenomenon of natural sciences.
5- Social phenomenon can not be tested in labortry.
6-Pridiction is not possible in Social phenomenon.
The above objections are not acceptable by social scientists. The complicated nature of Social phenomenon can be find out by our thorough knowledge of subject. As far as abstract nature is concerned, even subject matter of natural sciences are abstract .We can not see oxygen ,only we can feel it. If measurement is base of science than even shoe maker makes shoes as per measurement. As far as experiment in lab is concerned, Newton did not conduct his research of gravitation in lab. Even prediction done by natural sciences are not always true. Therefore nature of sociology is also scientific. Robert Biersteadt have solved the problem by giving some statements.
Robert Biersteadt has in his book, 'The Social Order' ,mentioned the following features of nature of sociology;
1-Sociology is social not a natural science.
2- Sociology is categorical or positive and not a normative science.
3- Sociology is pure or theoretical science and not an Applied science.
4- Sociology is an abstract science and not a concrete one.
5- Sociology is a generalizing and not particularizing science.
6- Sociology is both a rational and an empirical science.
No comments:
Post a Comment