I spent quite a bit of time as an undergraduate in the late 70’s and early 80’s delving into the various sociological theories that had been in vogue across most of the 20th century. I left sociology behind when I graduated and until I was helping my 18 year old with a paper in his Sociology 100 class had not really delved into it from that time to this.
Surpisingly, in reviewing his Sociology intro book out of curiousity (which was pretty poor I will admit) not much seems to have changed and the “lots of stat with very CYA qualified interpretation” model emergent in the 70’s still seems to be in vogue. In truth I don’t know if sociology should even really be a degree granting entity unto itself or a subsidiary of something else.
Where does sociology stand currently as an useful paradigm for explaining social activity? Should it really even be called a “science”?
I was a grad student in sociology (didn’t get the doctorate). I had this sign posted on the door of the office I shared with 4 other grad students: “You are leaving the Center for Social Behavioral Science and Entering the Antisocial Misbehavioral Periphery of the Social Arts”.
Do they have a “method”? Yeah.
Does it serve any purpose aside from allowing sociology to claim that it is rigorous and disciplined and procedural and therefore sciencelike? :shrug: … it has some utility for predicting aggregate behavioral trends.
Do their prevailing main explanatory theories tie in with their methodology and/or are supported by the findings thereof? No, no more so than those of chiropractic medicine.
How do new perspectives, insights, and theories find their way into the body of such main explanatory theories then? Umm, they don’t, really. It’s a rather dusty shelf. And they hold to some axioms as gospel with an attitude akin to a small child with fingers in ear + “la la la la I can’t hear you”, starting with the axiom that ever single solitary aspect of human behavior is caused by socialization and not one jot of it is innate, biological, genetic, or even simply an outcome of being individually intelligent or that in combo with being part of a social communicative species. Nope, socialization caused it all.
Have they added to human understandings of the human condition? You tell me. Name some brilliant sociological contributions.
Sociology is equal parts: “pop-psychology” and “f-ing obvious”.
I did a undergrad sociology paper on online meeting places last year. My choiice ofc was the sdmb. I basically lied and praised the “high level of discourse due to shared goals.”
I have a degree in Sociology. It isn’t a science, much as I pretended it was when I was studying it.
My reasoning is that while an accomplished sociologist can reason with scientific methodology, and use quantitative data, the interpretation of all data will always be subjective.
A good example, although a bit fuzzy in my memory, is Durkheim and his study of suicide. He compiled a huge amount of data(taken from previous research) and interpreted it to suit his four ‘types of suicide’. I don’t think it’s scientific to come to subjective conclusions.
I suspect this question is more for IMHO, because I don’t think there is a definitive answer. The only way it’s divided up over in the UK is that when you study most universities will offer the subject as a Bachelor of Arts, some high-minded places will offer a Bachelor of Science. Mine is a BA, I agree.
There’s really no answer to your question. Lots of different people do lots of different things under the name of sociology. Some of those people are doing science and some aren’t. Some of the people not doing science will fully admit that and are indeed doing it consciously, while others actually think they are doing science.
I think sociology could be a science. It depends on what you’re doing, as others have noted above. As an example, look at the difference between astronomy and astrology. Both study the movement of the planets and the sun; the former has a rational core and does not generally tailor the objective data to fit subjective conclusions while the latter lacks such a core and its “conclusions” are vague enough to incorporate all sorts of objective data, including contradictory data.
Scientific and non-scientific sociology, both of which undoubtedly exist, would have the same dichotomy: rational vs non-rational core, manipulation vs explanation of objective data. The basis of study is the same - human society and the behaviors of individuals within it. But there is nothing inherent in sociology that renders it immune or a hostile environment to the scientific method.
OK point taken. I should have said “Has sociological research (the stuff that comes out of their systematic “scientific” methodology) added to human understandings of the human condition?” … sociological theory is a different thing.
a) That’s the dusty shelf. There are some great things on that shelf but the field does not encourage the making of contributions to that shelf. That was, in fact, my problem as a grad student. I was interested in theory. The attitude that I ran into was that sociological theory is just some window dressing to stick Research (capital “R”) into an existing niche, and Research is what we actually do here.
b) Sociological theory, like most theory, is art, not science.
c) I love Goffman, especially his stuff on institutionalization. I’ve used his model of the total institution several times in analyzing various organizations or practices that aren’t usually thought of in those terms. Including education
One could argue that an inherent (or THE inherent) limitation to sociology is that humans are both the interpreter and subject of the tests. Humans studying themselves makes it impossible for absolute objectivity.
Humans can study dogs, cats, insects with more objectivity because they are not those animals (obviously). This detachment seems necessary for an authentic “scientific method.”
So “rational” sociology can only be practiced by higher alien beings. Who knows… maybe those aliens are studying is right now and laughing their asses off at our futility.
There’s an old saying, “a physicist is the atom’s way of understanding itself.” However, I’m not sure you can reliably scale that up to say, “a sociologist is the humanoid’s way of understanding itself.” Sociologists get a bad rap from declaring subjective hypotheses and cherry-picking objective data to support their particular beliefs.
But that doesn’t mean a scientifically acceptable level of objectivity can’t be attained.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater here - it’s possible to reject sociological conclusions without rejecting sociology completely. Psychology has made great strides in understanding the individual (both in constructive and destructive ways) and there’s no reason sociology can’t do the same thing for society. We humans are quite capable of understanding ourselves as we are of understanding the world around us, and I believe rational sociology is well within our reach.
Can someone give examples of sociology theory? How is it distinct from psychology? (Psychology doesn’t strike me as very solid and scientific either. Is sociology really that much worse than that?)
In general, I don’t think subjectivity is what dooms a field. It’s having a dusty shelf of subjective ideas that you never challenge or try to improve.
Weird, because I was going to ask this very same question. Rather, I’ll ask a related one. What predictions can sociologists make about how people behave, and to what extent are these tested through blind studies? Are there any models in sociology, that make it possible to make predictions?
