Sociology is a relatively new academic discipline. It is an attempt to understand the social world by situating social events in their corresponding environment (i.e., social structure, culture, history) and trying to understand social phenomena by collecting and analyzing empirical data.

• The term sociology was coined by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) in 1838 from the Latin term socius (companion, associate) and the Greek term logia (study of, speech).
• Comte hoped to unify all the sciences under sociology; he believed sociology held the potential to improve society and direct human activity, including the other sciences.
• Sociology is being defined differently by our sociologists and other’s each one of course, has its own news about the nature and scope of the subject, as he conceives it.

Definitions to Sociology

• According to Ward “Sociology is science of society”.
• George Simmel opines that it is a subject which studies human inter- relationship.
• Giddins is of the view that “Sociology is scientific study of society”.
• Max Weber has viewed sociology as “Science which attempts imperative understanding of social actions”.
• Sorokin is of the opinion that sociology is a study first of all the relationship and correlations between various classes… second between the social and non social aspects of life and third it studies general characteristics common to all classes of society.
• Ogburn has said that, “Sociology is concerned with the study of social life and its relations to the factors of culture, natural environment, heredity and group.”
• Durkheim while defining sociology has said that, “It is the science of collective representation.”
• E.S. Bogardus says that, “Sociology may be defined as the study of the ways in which social experiences function in developing, maturing and repressing human beings through inter-personal stimulations.”

Sociology is one of the newer of the academic disciplines, tracing its origins no further back than the middle of the nineteenth century. It has a short history. Sociology, the science of society, is the youngest and it came to be established only in the nineteenth century. The French philosopher, August Comte gave sociology and a programme for its development. For thousands of years, society has been a subject for speculation and enquiry. Yet sociology is a modern science which originated only within last hundred fifty years or so.

The study of society, however, can be traced to the Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. The philosophical basis of Plat o and Aristotle characterised the observations of man for a very long period of time. The literature concerning society and its problems found place in the Republic of Plato (427-347 B.C.) and in the Politic and Ethics of Aristotle (388-327 B.C.).

Plato was the first Western philosopher who attempted a systematic study of society. In the Ethics and Politics of Aristotle we find the first major attempts of systematic dealing of law, the society and State. In his book Cicero, the Roman thinker, brought the great Greek ideas in philosophy, politics and law in the West.

In the sixteenth century, a precise distinction was made between State and society. Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli were the outstanding contributors of the realistic approach to social problems. Hobbes in his Levithan and Machiavelli in his Prince analyses the system of statecraft and also put forward conditions for success of State.

Notable among those who made contribution towards the specific investigation of social phenomena are the Italian writer Vico and French writer Baron de Montesquieu. Montesquieu explained in his The Spirit of Laws that many external factors, particularly climate, play significant role in the life of society.

The eighteenth-century Europe witnessed the publication of a number of great works of observation, for example, Rousseau’s social contract and Montesquieu’s De l’espirit des louis. These writings were still in the philosophical tradition, but they contained sufficient analysis to lay foundation for a separate social science.

Various social sciences gradually evolved in response to the varied needs of human living. The writings in philosophical tradition laid foundation for development of social sciences. With the passage of time various social sciences developed one after another and began to pursue separate and independent path of their own. Political philosophers inquired into the evolution of State, the growth and nature of State authority and various other problems of political nature.

Similarly, economics as separate and independent science inquired into the problems concerning production and distribution of commodities as well as the larger question of economic growth. Thus, study carried on by man about different aspects of society gave rise to different social sciences like History, Political Science, Economics, Anthropology and Psychology etc. August Comte created the new science of society and coined the name sociology in 1839.

Emergency of Sociology

Sociology has a long past, but only a short history. The study of human society in scientific way is said to have begun with August Comte. The emergence of sociology as a discipline of academic interest is of recent origin. Its emergence as a discipline can be attributed to the vast changes that took place in the nineteenth century.

Various strains and tendencies, some intellectual and some social, combined to-form the science of sociology. To quote Bottom ore, “The conditions which gave rise to sociology were both intellectual and social”.

The chief intellectual antecedents of sociology are summed up by Ginsberg in the following words: Broadly it may be said that sociology has had a fourfold origin in political philosophy, the philosophy of history, biological theories of evolution and the movements for social and political reform which found it necessary to undertake survey of social conditions.

Over the time, there had grown the intellectual tradition described as the historical tradition or the philosophy of history, which believed the general idea of progress. To combat the influence of theology on history, the thinkers of the Enlightenments introduced the idea of causality into history of philosophy, elaborated the theory of progress. But philosophy of history as a distinct branch of speculation is a creation eighteenth century.

The philosophical historians introduced the new conception of society as something more than the political society’ or the State. They were concerned with the whole range of social institution and made a distinction between the State and what they called ‘civil society’.

They were concerned with discussions of the nature of society, classification of societies into types, population, family, Government, morality and law etc. In the early part of the nineteenth century the philosophy of history became an important intellectual influence through the writings of Hegel and Saint-Simon. The features of writings of philosophical historian reappeared in the nineteenth century, in the works of Comte and Spencer.

“A second important element in modern sociology” to quote Bottom ore is provided by social survey which itself has two sources. The first was the growing conviction of the applicability of the methods of natural sciences to the study of human affairs.

The second was the movement for social and political reforms which made it necessary to undertake surveys of social problems like poverty which arose in the industrial societies of Western Europe. The social survey came to occupy an important place in the new science of society and it was one of the principal methods of sociological enquiry.

These intellectual movements, the philosophy of history, and the social survey were themselves the product of social settings of the eighteenth and nineteenth-century Western Europe. The Philosophy of history was not merely a child of thought. It was born of two revolutions, the Industrial Revolution and the Political Revolutions in France. Similarly, the social survey emerged from a new conception of evils of industrial society.

All intellectual fields are profoundly shaped by their social setting. This is particularly true of sociology, which is not only derived from that setting but takes the social setting as its basic subject matter. We will focus briefly on few of the most important social conditions of nineteenth and early twentieth century that were of type utmost significant in the development of sociology.

The long series of revolutions ushered in by French Revolution in 1789 and carrying over through the nineteenth century, and the Industrial Revolution were the important factors in the development of sociology. The upheaval of French revolution was a turning point in the history of thinking about society. It was also largely responsible for the development of Sociology.

According to Berger and Berger, So is one of the intellectual products of the French Revolution. The impact of these revolutions on many societies was enormous and many changes were resulted which were positive in nature. But these revolutions have also brought about social changes which had negative effects.

The negative effects of social change brought by French Revolution manifested in forms of chaos and disorder. Similarly, Industrial Revolution brought many social problems and evils such as labour-capital dispute, the problem of housing, increasing concentrations of people in urban areas etc.

The chaos and disorder resulted by political revolutions in France and the problems unleashed by tremendous changes brought by the industrialisation led to the study of social problems and to find new bases of order in societies. The interest in the issue of social order was one of the major concern of August Comte who created sociology as a separate science.

He felt a need for a social science which is concerned with society as a whole or with total social structure because all other social sciences deal with particular aspect of the society. He was the first man to create a new science of society and to distinguish the subject-matter of sociology from all other social sciences. Comte developed -the first complete approach to the scientific study of society.

Other social sciences may give a snapshot view of society from various angles but never a view of society in its comprehensive totality. Sociology appeared when it was felt that the other fields of human knowledge do not fully explain main’s social behaviour.

Comte decided to study the whole series of theoretical sciences which he identified with positive philosophy. From the result of such study Comte sought to formulate a system of laws governing society so that he could postulate a cure for society on the basis of these laws.

From 1817 to 1823 Comte and Saint-Simon collaborated and this collaboration was specially marked in the work ‘plan of the scientific operations necessary for the reorganisation of the Society’. In the latter years Comte called this work “the great discovery of the year 1822”. In 1822 when he (with Saint -Simon) conceived the necessity of the new science, he intended to name the new science social physics.

He wrote, “I understand by social physics the science which has for its subject the study of social phenomena considered in the same spirit as astronomical, physical, chemical or physiological phenomena that is subject to natural invariable laws the discovery of which is the special object of investigation”. Thus, the programme of a new science (latter to be renamed sociology) was clearly stated.

Soon after the publication of their work, Comte and Saint – Simon dissolved their partnership and began bitterly to attack each other. Comte’s lecture notes were gradually published between 1830 and 1842, forming his voluminous master work, Course of Positive Philosophy in six volumes. Very reluctantly Comte changed the name of the new science from social physics to sociology.

In the latter part of his Positive Philosophy he explained that he had invented a new name because the old one had been usurped by Belgian scientist who chose it as the title for a work. The work has referred to was Quetelet’s An Essay on Social Physics.

In Positive Politics, Comte attempted to give more flesh and blood to rather formal definition of sociology implied in Positive Philosophy. Between the years 1851 and 1854, he wrote a treaties entitled System of Positive Politics in which he applied the findings of theoretical sociology to the solution of social problems of his time. Thus, accomplished his initial goal, the improvement of society.

Development of Sociology

Sociology as a science of society originated with August Comte in the nineteenth century. He worked out a general approach to the study of society. He called sociology the “queen of all sciences” and recommended that as the highest of all sciences, it would use the ‘positivist’ method of observation, experimentation and comparison to understand order and promote progress. Sociology as a separate discipline originated with Comte in the middle of nineteenth century. Since then a galaxy of thinkers and scholars have contributed for the development of sociology.

There are four men, however, whom everyone in sociology regardless of his special emphasis, bias, or bent will probably accept as the central figures in the development of modern sociology. They are: August Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.

Together, they span the whole of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, during which modern sociology was formed. They represent the main national centres France, England and Germany in which sociology first flourished and in which the modern tradition began. Each exerted a profound personal influence on the conception of sociology as an intellectual discipline.

The theory of scientific evolution was brought into sociology by Herbert Spencer (1820- 1903) in his book Principles of Sociology (1876). Spencer observed that the study of sociology was, the study of evolution in its most complex form”.

The nineteenth century sociology was evolutionary because it attempted to identify and account for the principal stages in the social evolution. At the same time that evolutionism blossomed, a new analytical approach to sociology emerged.

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, four men made outstanding contributions to this trend. The three pioneers of analytical sociology were Ferdinand Tonnies, George Simmel, and Gabriel Trade. Durkheim was one among them. Each of them has contributed significantly to modern sociological theory. Tonnies inaugurated the study of basic types of social groups and suggested a system for their classification. Simmel initiated the study of types of social processes.

Trade was the first to provide what, according to many thinkers, is a sound basis for a theory of social and cultural change. Efforts of these pioneers prepared the way for systematic sociological theory based on empirical investigation.

The writings of Herbert Spencer had a remarkable impact on the psychologists who had displaced his biological interpretation of social phenomenon to psychological interpretation. The notable among them were Graham Wallace and Mc Dougol (England); Wars, Codings, Mead and Deway (America)

In the early twentieth century, Durkheim made valuable contributions to sociological theory and method. His theory was fairly systematic and has been highly suggestive for his successor in France and elsewhere. Durkheim was aware that most of the earlier social theorists had neglected the problems of the appropriate method to be used in analysing social phenomena.

The Rules of Sociological Method, one of the Durkheim’s principal work is specifically concerned with methodological problems.

Further, sociology was enriched by the contribution of Max Weber. The development of sociological theory was advanced by Weber’s use of the comparative method, for he contributed more to comparative sociology than almost any other scholar. Weber gave a new start with his work on important subjects such as bureaucracy, sociology of law and religion.

It is a fact that the European classical scientists, particularly Marx, Max Weber and Durkheim sought to establish the scope and methods of sociology to show its value by investigation and explanation of major social phenomena.

Karl Marx sought to discover the objective laws of history and society and attempted to show that the development of society is natural historical process in which various social systems succeed each other.

But Marx introduced an entirely new attitude and orientation in the study of society. It is this attitude and orientation that has made significant contribution to the development of sociology, for it has compelled thinkers to give their attention on social (including economic) relationships than the social thought.

In the early twentieth century, important contributions have been made by the giants-Cooley, Thomas and Pareto. Many of their formulations guide sociological work today.

In the mid of the twentieth century, sociological theories were developed by the representatives of systematic sociology. Most important among them are Sorokin, Parsons, Florian Znaniecki, Maclver, Gerge C. Homans, Charles P. Loomis and others. All the major representatives of present-day systematic sociology are concerned, though in varying degrees, with both social structure and function.

All the proponents of systematic sociology agree that abstract theory must be tested by empirical research. In contrast to Spencer who accepted the significance of individuals and Durkheim who stressed emphasis on the significance on the group, the systematic sociologists seem to be in fundamental agreement about the relationship of society and individual.

It is noteworthy that systematic sociologists including Maclver were in basic agreement about the interdependence of individual and society. The systematic sociologists mainly developed elaborate conceptual schemes.

Sociological studies acquired a system at the hands of Talcott Parsons. He laid emphasis on conceptional schemes such as social system, cultural system, personality and such other in sociological theory and for their relevance to modern life.

On the other side there developed modern empirical sociology based on the social survey tradition. Sociological research developed rapidly after World War-I and even more so during and after World War-II, especially in USA.

Theoretically, sociology emerged historically as a kind of speculation about general laws, as illustrated in the broad theoretical schemes of August Comte, Herbert Spencer and other pioneers. In the twentieth century, most sociologists shifted their attention to much less ambitious problems and particularly to the gathering of empirical data about social life.

In recent years, however, the sociological quest once more has become focused upon broader generalisations and theoretical systems. Since the 1960’s an unmistakable sign of a renaissance of the classical tradition in sociology, as it was fashioned by Max Weber and Durkheim, is discernible not only in advanced industrial societies but also in developing countries of Third World .

On the one side the growing interest in social change in the industrially advanced societies is encouraging the wider acceptance of Weber’s method in the formation of problems, in the ideal-type of definition of concepts .On the other side, there has been a resurgence of Marxism as a general theory of society.

Initially concerned primarily with the problem of industrial society, sociology continued to expand its scope, making its concern comprehensive enough to include not only the sociology of politics, but also those of many other branches such as law, education, religion, family, art, science, medicine, leisure and knowledge, says R.K. Merton.

The recent changes in world situation have altered the attitude to the study of society. There is a change-over from the encyclopedic conception of society to a segmental interest of societies. Instead of studying the entire social structure, sociological knowledge is directed to a specific approach of the types of society of microscopic and macroscopic phenomena.

The origin of sociology and social anthropology in India can be traced to the days when the British officials realized the need to understand the native society and its culture in the interest of smooth administration. However, it was only during the twenties of the last century that steps were taken to introduce sociology and social anthropology as academic disciplines in Indian universities.

The popularity that these subjects enjoy today and their professionalization is, however, a post-independence phenomenon. Attempts have been made by scholars from time to time to outline the historical developments, to highlight the salient trends and to identify the crucial problems of these subjects.

Sociology and social/cultural anthropology are cognate disciplines and are in fact indissoluble. However, the two disciplines have existed and functioned in a compartmentalized manner in the European continent as well as in the United States. This separation bears the indelible impress of western colonialism and Euro-centrism.

However, Indian sociologists and anthropologists have made an attempt to integrate sociology and anthropology in research, teaching and recruitment. They have made a prominent contribution to the development of indigenous studies of Indian society and have set an enviable example before the Asian and African scholars.

Another significant contribution of Indian sociology and social/cultural anthropology lies in their endeavor to synthesize the text and the context. This synthesis between the text and the context has provided valuable insights into the dialectic of continuity and change to contemporary Indian society (Momin, 1997).

It is difficult to understand the origin and development of sociology in India without reference to its colonial history. By the second half of the 19th century, the colonial state in India was about to undergo several major transformations.

Land, and the revenue and authority that accrued from the relationship between it and the state, had been fundamental to the formation of the early colonial state, eclipsing the formation of Company rule in that combination of formal and private trade that itself marked the formidable state-like functions of the country.

The important event that took place was the revolt of 1857, which showed that the British did not have any idea about folkways and customs of the large masses of people. If they had knowledge about Indian society, the rebellion of 1857 would not have taken place. This meant that a new science had to come to understand the roots of Indian society. The aftermath of 1857 gave rise to ethnographic studies. It was with the rise of ethnography, anthropology and sociology which began to provide empirical data of the colonial rule.

Herbert Risley was the pioneer of ethnographic studies in India. He entered the Indian Civil Services in 1857 with a posting in Bengal. It was in his book Caste and Tribes of Bengal (1891) that Risley discussed Brahminical sociology, talked about ethnography of the castes along with others that the importance of caste was brought to colonial rulers. Nicholas Dirks {In Post Colonial Passages, Sourabh Dube, Oxford, 2004) observes:

Risley’s final ethnographic contribution to colonial knowledge thus ritualed the divineness of caste, as well as its fundamental compati­bility with politics only in the two registers of ancient Indian monarchy or modern Britain’s ‘benevolent despotism’.

Thus, the ethnographic studies came into prominence under the influence of Risley. He argued that to rule India caste should be discouraged. This whole period of 19th century gave rise to ethnographic studies, i.e., studies of caste, religion, rituals, customs, which provided a foundation to colonial rule for establishing dominance over India. It is in this context that the development of sociology in India has to be analysed.

Sociology and social anthropology developed in India in the colonial interests and intellectual curiosity of the western scholars on the one hand, and the reactions of the Indian scholars on the other. British administrators had to acquire the knowledge of customs, manners and institutions of their subjects.

Christian missionaries were interested in understanding local languages, folklore and culture to carry out their activities. These overlapping interests led to a series of tribal, caste, village and religious community studies and ethnological and linguistic surveys. Another source of interest in Indian studies was more intellectual.

While some western scholars were attracted by the Sanskrit language, Vedic and Aryan civilization, others were attracted by the nature of its ancient political economy, law and religion. Beginning from William Jones, Max Muller and others, there was a growth of Indo logical studies. Karl Marx and Frederic Engels were attracted by the nature of oriental disposition in India to build their theory of evolution of capitalism.

Similarly, Henry Maine was interested in the Hindu legal system and village communities to formulate the theory of status to contract. Again, Max Weber got interested in Hinduism and other oriental religions in the context of developing the theory, namely, the spirit of capitalism and the principle of rationality developed only in the West.

Thus, Indian society and culture became the testing ground of various theories, and a field to study such problems as growth of town, poverty, religion, land tenure, village social organization and other native social institutions. All these diverse interests – academic, missionary, administrative and political – are reflected in teaching of sociology.

According to Srinivas and Panini (1973: 181), the growth of the two disciplines in India falls into three phases:

The first, covering the period between 1773-1900 AD, when their foundations were laid;

The second, 1901-1950 AD, when they become profession­alized;

and finally, the post-independence years, when a complex of forces, including the undertaking of planned development by the government, the increased exposure of Indian scholars to the work of their foreign colleagues, and the availability of funds, resulted in considerable research activity.

Here, three major phases in the introspection in sociology, which have been discussed by Rege (1997) in her thematic paper on ‘Sociology in Post-Independent India’, may also be mentioned. Phase one is characterized by the interrogations of the colonial impact on the discipline and nationalist responses to the same, phase second is marked by explo­rations into the initiative nature of the theoretical paradigms of the discipline and debates on strategies of indigenization.

This phase also saw critical reflections on the deductive positivistic base of sociology and the need for Marxist paradigms and the more recent phase of post-structuralism, feminist and post-modern explorations of the discipline and the field. Lakshmanna also (1974: 1) tries to trace the development of sociology in three distinctive phases. The first phase corresponds to the period 1917-1946, while the second and the third to 1947-1966 and 1967 onwards respectively.

Sociology in the Pre-Independence Period

As is clear by now that sociology had its formal beginning in 1917 at Calcutta University owing to the active interest and efforts of B.N. Seal. Later on, the subject was handled by Radhakamal Mukerjee and B.N. Sarkar. However, sociology could not make any headway in its birthplace at Calcutta.

On the other hand, anthropology flourished in Calcutta with the establishment of a department and later on the Anthropological Survey of India (ASI). Thus, sociology drew a blank in the eastern parts of the country. But, the story had been different in Bombay. Bombay University started teaching of sociology by a grant of Government of India in 1914.

The Department of Sociology was established in 1919 with Patrick Geddes at the helm of affair. He was joined by G.S. Ghurye and N.A. Toothi. This was indeed a concrete step in the growth of sociology in India. Another centre of influence in sociological theory and research was at Lucknow that it introduced sociology in the Department of Economics and Sociology in 1921 with Radhakamal Mukerjee as its head.

Later, he was ably assisted by D.P. Mukerji and D.N. Majumdar. In South India, sociology made its appearance at Mysore University by the efforts of B.N. Seal and A.F. Wadia in 1928. In the same year sociology was introduced in Osmania University at the undergraduate level. Jafar Hasan joined the department after he completed his training in Germany.

Another university that started teaching of sociology and social anthropology before 1947 was Poona in the late 1930s with Irawati Karve as the head. Between 1917 and 1946, the development of the discipline was uneven and in any case not very encouraging. During this period, Bombay alone was the main centre of activity in sociology. Bombay attempted a synthesis between the Indo-logical and ethnological trends and thus initiated a distinctive line of departments.

During this period, Bombay produced many scholars who richly contributed to the promotion of sociological studies and research in the country. K.M. Kapadia, Irawati Karve, S.V. Karandikar, M.N. Srinivas, A.R. Desai, I.P. Desai, M.S. Gore and Y.B. Damle are some of the outstanding scholars who shaped the destiny of the discipline. The products of this university slowly diffused during this period in the hinterland universities and helped in the establishment of the departments of sociology.

Certain trends of development of sociology may be identified in the pre-independence period. Sociology was taught along with economics, both in Bombay and Lucknow. However, in Calcutta, it was taught along with anthropology, and in Mysore it was part of social philosophy.

Teachers had freedom to design the course according to their interests. No rigid distinction was made between sociology on the one hand and social psychology, social philosophy, social anthropology, social work, and other social sciences such as economics and history, on the other. The courses included such topics as social biology, social problems (such as crime, prostitution and beggary), social psychology, civilization and pre-history. They covered tribal, rural and urban situations.

At the general theoretical level, one could discern the influence of the British social anthropological traditions with emphasis on diffusionism and functionalism. In the case of teaching of Indian social institutions the orientation showed more Indo-logical emphasis on the one hand and a concern for the social pathological problems and ethnological description on the other. Strong scien­tific empirical traditions had not emerged before independence. Sociology was considered a mixed bag without a proper identity of its own.

Sociology in the Post-Independence Period

The next phase, as mentioned by Lakshmanna (1974: 45), in the growth of the subject, corresponds to the period between the attainment of independence and the acceptance of the regional language as the medium of instruction in most states of the country. Towards the end of this period, we also witnessed the interest on the part of the Central Government to promote social science research through a formal organization established for the purpose.

This phase alone experienced tremendous amount of interaction within the profession as two parallel organizations started functioning for the promotion of the profession. In Bombay, Indian Sociological Society was established and Sociological Bulletin was issued as the official organ of the society. This helped to a large extent in creating a forum for publication of sociological literature.

Lucknow school, on the other hand, started the All India Annual Sociological Conference for professional interaction. Lakshmanna identifies that the research efforts mainly progress on three lines. First, there was large-scale doctoral research in the university. Second, the growing needs of the planners and adminis­trators on the one hand and the realization of increasing importance of sociological thinking and research in the planning process on the other, opened up opportunities for research projects.

Third, during this period, the growing importance of social science research also resulted in the establishment of research institutes. The development of research activity also meant the enlargement of the employment opportunities at all levels.

Correspondingly, there was also an increase in the number of universities and college departments. This period also noticed considerable vertical and horizontal mobility in the profession. Teaching of sociology got well established in the fifties. This period reflected three things as marked by Rao (1982).

First, sociology achieved greater academic status. Not only many more universities and colleges began to teach at the postgraduate and graduate levels but the discipline itself became more focused in theoretical orien­tation and highly diversified in its specialization. Secondly, sociology established its identity as discipline by separating itself from psychology, anthropology, social philosophy and social work.

Although, in some universities, still social pathology and social psychology are taught as a part of sociology courses. In many others, a highly diversified curriculum structure in proper sociology exists including such specialization as rural and urban sociology, sociology of kinship, sociology of religion, sociology of stratification, sociology of education, political sociology, medical sociology, social demography and sociology of economic devel­opment.

Thirdly, diversification followed the lines of extension of sociological approach to different areas of social life. It was related to the growing needs of development in independent India. Colonial legacy became a thing of the past and democratic processes were introduced at all levels.

Sociologists soon become sensitive to problems of development in the contexts of tribal, rural and urban situations. Problems of rural development, industrialization, and expansion of education, control of population, new political processes and institutions, social and political movements attracted their areas of social life. They started conducting empirical research with a view to understand the structure, dynamics and problems of development. All these concerns had a feedback on the teaching of sociology at various levels.

Another important change in the teaching of sociology, which came after independence, has been in regard to the external intel­lectual influences. Before independence the teaching of sociology and social anthropology was mainly, if not wholly, influenced by the then current theoretical concerns in Great Britain.

We have already mentioned the influence of diffusionism and functionalism (of Malinowski). The syllabi also reflected traditions of ethnology, evolutionism and Indology. After independence, however, American sociological traditions had a major impact on the teaching of sociology in India. This is evident from such topics in the syllabi as structural-functional theory (Parsons and Merton) and research methodology.

Besides the American, the French, German and Marxian intellectual influences also had an impact. In the midst of such diverse intellectual stimuli, Indian sociologists began to criticize, modify and develop diverse sociological approaches in the study of Indian society and culture, and these are reflected in the course of study of different universities.

Developments in the Seventies:

There have been a few reviews of developments in sociology and social anthropology since earlier times till 1970s and onwards (see, for example, the collection of essays in Unnithan, Singh et al., 1965; ICSSR, 1971, 1974, 1985; Rao, 1974; Mukherjee, 1977; Mukherjee, 1979; Singh, 1986; UGC, 1978, 1979, 1982; Lele, 1981; Oommen and Mukherjee, 1986; Dhanagare, 1993; Singhi, 1996). Of these, Ram Krishan Mukherjee’s review has been more exhaustive and substantial for the discipline as a whole.

The ICSSR trend reports covered in detail the developments in each of specializations. Rao (1982: 16-23) reviewed the developments in the seventies under three heads:

(i) areas of the interests and specialization which got crystallized;

(ii) areas of interest which has developed but not got crystallized; and

(iii) emergence of new approaches in the estab­lished areas.

The seventies of the last century saw a further continued diver­sification of interests and specialization in substantive areas of research and teaching in the sixties. While, earlier, village community studies dominated researches, but the interests in the areas of agrarian relations, land reforms, peasants, agricultural labourers, and scheduled castes and tribes began to attract greater attention of sociologists and social anthropologists in the seventies.

The problems of rural society were formulated in the Marxian framework of analysis emphasizing conflicts and contradictions. The other areas of interests that were crystallized in the seventies were industrial sociology, urban sociology and social stratification. Secondly, there were six areas of interest that started getting some attention in the seventies but have not really got off the mark.

These were: sociology of profession, sociology of organization, medical sociology, social demography and studies on women, Muslims and Hindu-Muslim relations. Thirdly, it is significant to note that the seventies saw new approaches and foci in the large areas of research and teaching such as caste, kinship, religion, politics and tribal studies.

Perspectives in the Eighties:

Many of the areas of specialization mentioned in the foregoing account, no doubt, gained strength in the eighties of the last century. Some areas of enquiry, such as social demography and medical sociology, were crystallized. A few other areas of investigation opened up and more research in the established areas was undertaken on new lines. Some of the new areas have been introduced.

These were: sociology of deviance, sociology of knowledge, sociology of science and technology, and historical sociology. Rao (1982) anticipated these areas for research in the eighties. There was an indication that interest in sociology of science and technology might get more widespread (Uberoi, 1978; Vishwanathan, 1977). The growing interest in historical sociology was reflected in Fox (1977).

Damle (1982: 57-58) anticipated the task of sociology for the eighties in India, which was to analyse (1) the transformation of Indian society, (2) the limits of such transfor­mation, and (3) the impact of these limits to such transformation, which was reflected either in the frustrations of the efforts to surmount the obstacles. In this context, new ideologies and protest movements acquired a special significance.

In many of the newly developing branches of sociology, scholars have made notable but isolated contributions. There has been thinking that research should be promoted in the nineties in the areas of sociology of planning and development, sociology of professions, sociology of organizations, social dimensions of poverty, law and social change, sociology of national integration etc.

Imperatives in the Nineties:

The country during the nineties of the last century was passing through radical political, economical and socio-cultural changes as a result of which the scope and focus of Indian sociology has expanded. Under the influence of such developments, the Indian government that adored the policy of mixed economy ever since independence and cherished the ideals of welfarism proceeded to allow the market-oriented policy to prevail.

To achieve this goal, the government adopted a new policy of economic reforms in the year 1991 with a view to globalize its economy (Singh, 1997). Globalization is a move prompted by the leaders of the developed world. Liberalization policy, including the freedom accorded to the foreign companies and capital to enter into Indian market, is the two major steps of the government in this direction.

The impact of globalization on Indian cultural heritage and general life situation of the people of the country has generated new areas that deserve the attention of Indian sociologists who do seem to be attentive to such relevant areas as civic society (Gupta, 1997), crisis and resil­ience in the process of social change (Singh, 1993) and secularism and national integration 0oshi, 1997) but specific social impli­cation of the new economic policy is yet to be analysed.

A few courses have been introduced recently on global themes in some of the universities. They are as follows: ecology and society, issues of human rights, sociology of management, human resource devel­opment, media and society, action sociology etc. There is also need to start some more new courses like sociology of public order; peace, security and development; security management and infor­mation technology etc. These courses are not only important for teaching but also for research in the construction of society and useful for the modern occupation and profession.

Teaching of Sociology in India

The origin of sociology in India as a distinct discipline can be traced back to the period around 1920s. Teaching of sociology started in Bombay University as early as 1914 but the birth of current academic sociology took place only with the establishment of departments of sociology in Bombay and Lucknow.

As for teaching and research, nothing such happened except nominal teaching of the discipline wherever it was introduced for almost a quarter of a century. What Parvathamma states about Mysore University remains true for the entire country and for the discipline of sociology as a whole. “The undergraduate syllabi in sociology as framed by Wadia continued almost for a quarter of a century.

Only in the late 1950’s, it was changed (Parvathamma, 1978). Though one finds a nominal beginning, nothing of any consequence happened in the realm of sociology. It remained more or less static during the 1920-47 periods. This was the last phase of the colonial rule in India when the national leaders were preoccupied with the liberation movement.

Pre-independence scholars have contributed to the foundation of sociology by providing a tradition in which sociology in India could grow and evolve (Unnithan et al., 1967). Their contributions, however, began to make an impact only after independence, though the number of universities increased from 11 in 1920 to 16 in 1945. However, the number of sociology depart­ments remained just two and of these, only one was concerned for independent degree in sociology (Unnithan, 1982).

The percentage of universities, having sociology department, had been falling during 1920-50. It began to show a trend towards regular increase after 1950. By 1960, 23.8 per cent of universities in India had sociology departments. By 1965, this number rose to 29.6 per cent. Now, there are 95 universities including institutions that are deemed to be universities. Fifty-one of them or about 54 per cent accommodate departments of sociology.

In spite of their relatively greater growth in sociology departments, it is interesting that 44 (46.3%) out of 95 universities do not have any sociology teaching at all. Of the 51 universities that teach sociology, only 32 have separate departments, whereas 14 conduct undergraduate and postgraduate programmes including PhD.

There are 16 universities where sociology is combined with other social science departments but an independent degree is awarded; in three departments no degree is awarded though the subject is taught (Unnithan, 1982: 64). Besides these, according to the Universities Handbook of India, 1973, the 16 Agricultural Universities, the five All India Institutes of Technology, the three Institutes of Technology, the three Institutes of Management, the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, and the Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Ahmedabad also offered sociology as a subject of study and/or research.

Sociology is very popular subject in the universities and colleges of India today. Currently, out of 133 traditional univer­sities, about 85 have departments of sociology apart from other departments of social sciences related to sociology like population studies and women studies.

A majority of students opt for sociology as one of their subjects at graduation level. It is considered as an easy subject to get through in examination. It is usually preferred by girls particularly those who are not much career conscious. Similarly, at the postgraduate level too, sociology receives a large number of students.

The rank of sociology comes fifth in terms of the number of the universities offering social sciences and allied subjects. This shows that from the quantitative point of view, the position of sociology as an academic discipline is not very low in spite of the fact that it entered the university curriculum only very recently.

It is also seen that at the postgraduate level, sociology has established itself as a subject of major importance, attracting the largest number of students next only to economics, history and political science. Postgraduate enrolment in the year 1969-70 was alone 4,918 – taking sociology (4,442) and anthropology (476) together which contributed 11.57 per cent of the total enrolment (42,479) for postgraduate education in social sciences.

However, the percentage was a little higher for PhD (16.34%). Of the 2,153 students enrolled for PhD in social sciences, 352 were in the field of sociology alone. According to the UGC report, out of total 2,582 faculty members of the postgraduate departments in social sciences in the universities and colleges, 243 were sociologists and 119 anthropologists. Until 1971, the country has produced a total of 485 PhD scholars in the fields of sociology, social anthropology, criminology and social work.

Since 1968, the average rate of PhDs in sociology was 46 per year. This is an impressive figure, indeed, compared to the figures for previous periods. Thus, 34 PhDs were submitted during the decade 1931-40 and 79 in the subsequent two decades of 1941-60.

There were more than a hundred PhDs from the universities of Uttar Pradesh and of Maharashtra up to 1970 whereas the position in other states was as follows: Bihar (43), Delhi (42), Madhya Pradesh (23), Gujarat (15), West Bengal (14), Rajasthan (12), Punjab (9), Karnataka (7) and others (13).

The courses and the syllabi in sociology of the various univer­sities reveal yet another dimension of development of the discipline in India. Sociology is being taught at all levels in the universities – from graduation to MPhil/MLitt level. Some courses give special emphasis to research methodology.

As regards the subject matter taught at the graduate and postgraduate levels, there seems to be some rough similarity between universities in the course. Principles of Sociology, Indian Social Institutions and Social Change are offered at both the BA and MA levels in most universities while Research Methods, Rural and Urban Sociology, Social Anthro­pology and Social Psychology are among the other subjects included in the core courses at MA level.

The rest of the subjects cover a wide range of special areas in the discipline, namely, political sociology, educational sociology, industrial sociology, sociology of kinship, religion, marriage and family, and so on. It seems that from the national point of view, there is a wider choice of optional subjects for the students of sociology than is available to students of other disciplines.

An analysis of the courses reveals several deficiencies. At present, there is a lack of integration of syllabi at all levels that could ensure a standard of uniform minimal knowledge in sociology along with possibilities for specialization and advance training in sociology. Hardly any effort is noticed to introduce new courses on the basis of rationale societal consider­ations.

Largely, the old courses continue. The gravity of problem is accentuated by the contents of the courses and the textbooks prescribed. The contents of the courses are often irrelevant to the students of sociology in India as instruction is based mostly on books written by foreign scholars for students elsewhere. All these points reflect to the overall underdeveloped nature of sociology in India (Unnithan, 1982: 68).

Overall, the quantitative expansion of sociology is increasing but the quality aspect of the development of sociology as an academic discipline in colleges and universities is appalling. Except a few prestigious universities, the status of sociology in most of the universities in the country is really degraded.

Hence, the quality research and teaching in sociology has considerably slumped. Singh (1997) writes: “Professional anxiety, achievement, motivation, entrepreneurial aspiration and changing mode of consumption have immensely affected the standard of sociology.”

Therefore, the teachers and other scholars of sociology will have to take care and pains for its revival. Importantly, and specifically, we need to be academically and politically active to influence the development of a ‘new’ sociological curriculum.

Sociological Research in India

Since independence, with the rapid development of the teaching of sociology in Indian universities and colleges, there has been a concomitant increase in the number of research studies on different aspects of sociology, resulting in doctoral dissertations and in the publication of many volumes and articles in various professional journals. Several previous surveys of the development of sociology in India present the process in different phases and trends, notably those by Becker and Barnes (1961), Saran (1958), Bottomore (1962), Clinard and Elder (1965), Vidhyarthi (1972), and the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research (ICSSR) (1972).

Despite these attempts, little attention has so far been paid in the direction of proper research taking steps of methods of data collection, techniques, degree of quantity and quality, arial unit of study, and theoretical orientations in specific substantive areas of sociology.

Usually, it is seen that while at the university department level, there are facilities of doing research which do not exist at the college level. Even at the department level there is no system of sabbatical leave where the teacher can take time off for the research. Fieldwork is an essential aspect of research in sociology and unless a teacher has a year or nine months off, he cannot conduct research.

The ICSSR and the UGC have suitable schemes for providing these facilities. There is thus now no dearth of money to conduct research. The problem is to control spurious research. The ICSSR, which is the main agency for promoting research in sociology and social anthropology, has laid down priorities in keeping with social goals. It is necessary to initiate research to teach new courses as research and teaching are intimately related in the development of the discipline.

Research in sociology got a considerable boost in the country since independence. Several studies conducted by sociologists were financed, sponsored and supported by several agencies. There was another welcome trend in the introduction of the courses on methods of social research as part of the MA syllabus. In fact, this was also emphasized by the UGC Review Committee on Sociology (1960).

Significant sophistication in research methodology is an urgent desideratum for present assessment of the rapidly changing and complex social organization to which we belong. In the field of doctoral research, the progress in sociology has been remarkable.

In spite of the fact that almost till the middle of the fifties, a much less number of recognized supervisors were available for the guidance of the doctoral research students in the departments of the univer­sities. Besides these limitations, sociology and other allied fields granted as many as 438 doctoral degrees up to 1970 and economics and political science exceeded these figures.

The personnel position in sociology is still on the lower side. There are only 243 sociology teachers as compared to larger number in economics and political science, psychology and geography. This has to be further viewed in the light of the numbers of the university and college departments.

In terms of the number of departments at the university level, sociology (51) is behind only from economics (72), political science (59) and commerce (56). The position at the college level is roughly the same. When we try to match the spread of the discipline and its manpower requirements, it becomes clear that there had been some defect in the recruitment pattern as revealed by the existence of a large number of unfilled professorial posts in several universities.

Senior members of the profession should take note of this unsatis­factory situation. In spite of the limitation of personnel, a very large number of research projects (50), constituting the highest share (25.5%) of the ICSSR grants, were undertaken by the scholars belonging to the sociology discipline.

A total of 19 theses were published in sociology. The position is still brighter if we add in it social anthropology. In fact, the acceptance of the largest number of projects (above 20%) in sociology was a matter of satisfaction because the formulations of the problems were realistic and sound.

There has been a realization that diverse research methods were complimentary rather than conflicting. The early seventies saw a bitter debate between the surveyors and participant observers. But, both realized that the two could be complementary. There has been more researches using statistical surveys methods.

There were a number of training courses in quantitative methods including computer programming. Besides quantitative techniques, other techniques such as historical analysis, case studies and partic­ipant observation are also increasingly used by sociologists and social anthropologists depending on the nature of the problem of investigation and its aim.

Sociological Research in India: The State of Crisis

The recent years have seen the publications in EPW of a number of articles discussing and for the most part deploring the current state of research and teaching in sociology. Speaking especially of the situation in western India, they support the view that sociology in India has become a rather lacklustre disci­pline, its leading concepts presented through outdated mass-market American texts, and notably devoid of engagement with the social world outside the classroom.

The 1990s have seen engaged debate on the crisis in the discipline. This debate saw a series of responses from the scholars in the field assessing the ‘tiredness of the disci­pline’ (Deshpande, 1995), the possibilities of ‘a community of discourse’ , the dangers of ‘uncritical metropolitanism’ (Murthy, 1993) and the relevance of gender and feminist pedagogues as strategies to confront the crisis (Rege, 1994; Uberoi, 1994).

The discussion has been made on the construction of socio­logical discipline (Thappan, 1991; Hegde, 1992) and teaching of sociology in Indian universities (Uberoi, 1989-90; Deb 1997). In the recent years, a new dimension has been reflected in the debate taking the issue of gender studies (Dube, 1986, 1996, 1997; Desai, 1997; Bhagwat and Rege, 1991; Patel 1994; Uberoi, 1994) and women’s movement (Niranjana, 1992; John, 1996).

Veena Das (1993) tries to locate the crisis in sociological research in India in three institutional structures – the universities, the UGC and the professional bodies such as the Indian Socio­logical Society. At the level of the universities, the proliferation of the subject has simply not been matched by the will to ensure competence in teaching and research. In several universities, textbooks such as that of MacIver and Page, written almost 50 years ago, continue to be taught.

Second, where teaching and research are conducted in regional languages, students do not acquire profi­ciency even in reading in the English language. This is in fact that rhetorical statements about national self-respect notwithstanding, neither the translations of competent sociological works in the regional languages nor original contributions add up to a sufficient body of literature that may be available in these languages.

Thus, a student fails to acquire competence in his subject on the basis of this literature. Third, the policies for recruitment and promotion of teachers increasingly sacrifice academic competence for political expediency. Fourth, the examination of PhD dissertations is managed within small coterie of scholars.

If the universities are to take a share of the blame for the falling standards for research, the UGC cannot escape its major responsi­bility either. The decision-making bodies in the UGC seem to have completely misguided notions about the state of social science research in the country. Finally, the professional bodies have done little to salvage the situations. The interests of the profession lie not only in producing greater number of jobs for sociologists but in ensuring that ethical practices in the discipline are maintained.

Possible Sociological Discourses

We need to concentrate on some of the essentials of sociological discourses to develop sociology in India. They are:

(1) The development of sociology in India may be viewed in terms of the historicity of social conditions that have shaped the sociological perspectives from time to time. The theoretical and cognitive systems of sociology are socially conditioned (Singh, 1986).

It is to be hoped that thinking in this direction will result in the concentration of contested themes and in the recovery of key Indian socio-cultural realities and textual tradi­tions, traditions that have remained or continue to remain as an excluded part of hegemonic sociology or its margin (Nadarajah, 1996). Perhaps, this is the right time to resume the ‘Indian sociology’ by recognizing context and culture of the society and to overcome from the identification of sociology as solely a western.

(2) The production of sociological knowledge can be qualitatively changed with a sociological curriculum helping the multi- faceted contestation of western sociological knowledge. There is a need to consider not only the content of social science education in our universities but also the methodology used in the production of such knowledge (Nadarajah, 1996).

(3) Institutionalization of research requires a proper fit between the growing needs of theory and the increasing demands of society. Generally, public funds are made available by the government, UGC, ICSSR and other agencies in terms of the criteria set out for priorities. The question of priorities has to be answered in the context of the relevance of research.

(4) While paying attention to research priorities, the needs of individual scholars pursuing a promising but out-of-the- way enquiry should not be neglected. Research efforts involving interdisciplinary approach or bold methodological innovation should, on principle, be encouraged. The ICSSR standing committee has also recommended these suggestions in the eighties.

To conclude, the history of the development of sociology has not been much encouraging. At its beginning anthropology and ethnology helped the colonial rule to establish its foundation. In other words, the discipline of sociology was partly responsible for the survival of colonialism and feudalism in princely states. The feudal mentality of Indian people is thus due to sociology, anthro­pology and ethnology. It must be said that this discipline has not been worth its salt in India.

If we make a survey of the sociological literature which has cropped up during the last about 100 years does not take into account any massive event which took place in India. India’s freedom struggle was a long struggle and it sought the participation of the masses. All the people participated in the movement notwithstanding the plural character of the Indian society.

It was a great event in the history of India. The sociologists did nothing to analyse the freedom struggle. It is difficult to find any book on sociology written by our so-called sociologists. When the masses were busy fighting for their freedom, our sociologists such as N.K. Bose and G.S. Ghurye were writing on caste and ethnicity. Such a record of sociology can easily be called ungrateful to the nation. How can we be proud of such sociologists?

Another memorable event in India’s history has been the mass exodus of people from Pakistan after the division of country between India and Pakistan. Burning trains from Pakistan were coming to India and the blood-stained trains were leaving India for Pakistan. Lakhs of refugees crossed the borders. It never happened earlier but the sociologists who claimed to be the analysts of Indian society did not mention anything about this tragic event.

Besides, an event, which is a remarkable in the building of our nation-state, is the era of building modern India. Nehruji and his generation of national leaders started Five-Year Plans for the devel­opment of industry and village agriculture. The sociologists again turned their eyes to this era of development.

It is discouraging to learn that the sociologists observed silence on this process of devel­opment. However, the sociologists made some village studies. Actually, there was a flood of such studies. These studies made some contributions. But, these contributions have false theoretical claims. Dominant caste, sanskritization, westernization, parochialization and universalization are some of the contributions which have not proved to be of any help for the development of villages. They have proved to be Utopian for the nation.

There are several problems for the country. The problems are multi-ethnic, multi-caste, multi-religion, multi-region and multi-linguistic. Economic problems coupled with unemployment are disasters. It is expected of sociology to analyse the social ills and bring out some solutions. In the present work, we are discussing social thinkers of contemporary India. They are also responsible to relax-in comfortable armchairs and enjoy the academic status.

BRIEF BIOGRAPHIC SKETCH OF AUGUSTE COMTE

• Auguste Comte [1798-1857] was a renowned French philosopher, regarded as the first sociologist and the “father of sociology.”
• He laid the foundations of sociology, advocating that it should be treated on par with other sciences.
• Comte was born in Montpellier, France, in 1798, to humble and highly religious parents.
• Known for his extraordinary mental ability, strong character, and a tendency to challenge authority, Comte was described as “brilliant and recalcitrant.”
• He excelled in his studies, earning prizes and being called “the philosopher” by his peers.
• Comte attended the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, where he studied physics and mathematics but developed an interest in social affairs.
• Initially critical of Napoleon’s administration and both parental and religious authority, he led a student group demanding the resignation of an instructor.
• Despite being a bright student, he never received a college degree, affecting his later teaching career.
• In 1818, he became secretary to Saint Simon, a prominent socialist philosopher, and the two co-authored works, including “Plan of the Scientific Operations Necessary for the Reorganisation of Society” (1822).
• Comte’s partnership with Saint Simon ended in 1824 due to a lack of credit for Comte’s contributions.
• Comte married in 1825, but his wife deserted him in 1842, leading to a period of isolation and personal disappointments.
• He faced economic crises and was invited to deliver private lectures on positive philosophy, which were later published in the six-volume “Course of Positive Philosophy” (1830-42).
• The work garnered international admiration, including from J.S. Mill.
• In 1826, Comte began a series of 72 lectures on his philosophy, but a nervous breakdown halted the series after three lectures.
• Comte attempted suicide in 1827 due to personal struggles.
• He worked at the Ecole Polytechnique while composing his influential six-volume work, Positive Philosophy, which introduced the term “sociology” and declared sociology as the ultimate science.
• By 1851, he completed “System of Positive Politics” in four volumes, proposing a plan for the reorganization of society using sociology’s findings.
• Comte promoted “cerebral hygiene”, avoiding the works of others to preserve his mental health and proposed a “religion of humanity”, where he claimed to be its high priest.
• His life was filled with stresses, conflicts, poverty, and isolation, and he passed away on 5th September 1857.
• Comte’s religion of humanity died with him, but his scientific contributions to sociology continue to influence the field.
• Main works:
  1. “The Prospectus of the Scientific Works Required for the Reorganisation of Society” (1822)
  2. “Positive Philosophy” (1830-1842) – six volumes
  3. “Positive Polity” (1851-1854) – four volumes

• Positivism is a philosophy of science founded by Auguste Comte, rooted in the empiricist tradition, rejecting metaphysical speculation in favor of positive knowledge based on observation and experimentation.
• Comte was influenced by David Hume and Claude H. Saint-Simon in developing his ideas on positivism.
• Positivism asserts that true knowledge is scientific knowledge, describing and explaining observable phenomena, both physical and social.
• It advocates for using the methods of physical sciences (e.g., measurement, search for laws) in the social sciences to study society.
• Positivism has two aspects: (i) as a doctrine and (ii) as a method.

Positivism as a Doctrine

• Positivism, as a way of thinking, assumes that social life can be observed, and reliable, valid knowledge can be derived about it, which can improve society.
• It insists that knowledge can only be derived from sensory experience, rejecting metaphysical speculation, subjective insight, and logical analysis as outside the realm of true knowledge.
• Social sciences should use scientific methods like physical sciences to derive knowledge.

Positivism as a Method

• Positivism involves the use of scientific methods to understand society and its changes, emphasizing observationand statistical measures.
• Comte believed social life is governed by underlying laws that can be discovered using methods from the physical sciences.
• Positivism rejects earlier reliance on religious or metaphysical knowledge, focusing on empirical observation of societal phenomena.
• Comte argued that science cannot reveal the inner essence of things but can establish laws of succession and coexistence of phenomena.
• Positivism deifies observation and classification of data, rejecting theological and metaphysical speculations, which are seen as fiction.
• Comte believed it was futile to assign causes to phenomena; instead, uniformities or laws should be observed and classified.
• Comte’s work was admired by John Stuart Mill and positivism became a popular movement in the late 19th century.
• Later in life, under the influence of Clotilde de Vaux, Comte shifted his views, arguing that science alone could not provide social cohesion, leading him to propose a Religion of Humanity.

Impact of Positivism on Social Thinking

• Positivism influences social thinking by promoting an empiricist view of science and applying scientific methods to study social life.
• It aims to discover social laws like the law-like regularities in natural sciences and insists on the separation of facts and values in sociological studies.

Criticisms Against Positivism

1. Limited Influence Today: Positivism is less influential in contemporary sociology, with criticisms focusing on its superficial focus on observable facts without considering underlying mechanisms or human motives.
2. Methodological Gulf: Critics argue that natural-scientific methods are inappropriate for social sciences, as human attributes like consciousness, culture, and intentionality cannot be studied using the same methods.
3. Problem of Verification: The verification principle of positivism is itself criticized as unverifiable, raising issues with empiricism and inductive logic.

• Despite criticisms, positivism still influences modern sociological thought, particularly in its logical positivismform, introduced by the Vienna Circle in the early 20th century.

LAW OF THREE STAGES

• Law of Three Stages is one of Comte’s main contributions to sociological thought, influenced by Charles Darwinand his theory of organic evolution.
• Comte classified social thought before his time and introduced a methodology for studying knowledge and its evolution.
• The Law of Three Stages outlines the development of human thought through three stages: theological, metaphysical, and positive.
• Comte believed that the evolution of human knowledge and society follow parallel stages, from military to legal, and finally to industrial.
• Human knowledge progresses from childhood (theological), adolescence (metaphysical), to manhood (positive).

Theological Stage

• In the theological stage, early humans viewed phenomena in supernatural terms, believing in supernatural beings controlling events.
• The practice of fetishism (belief in objects inhabited by spirits) was widespread, with no priesthood.
• As the mind became more organized, polytheism (belief in many gods) emerged, followed by the establishment of priesthoods to gain the favor of gods.
• Monotheism eventually developed, with belief in one supreme god, marking the climax of the theological stage.
• Theological thinking aligned with military society.

Metaphysical Stage

• Metaphysical thinking evolved from theological ideas, emphasizing rationalism over imagination.
• In this stage, rationalism posited that God was an abstract being and that natural phenomena followed principlesor powers.
• Metaphysical explanations attempted to find order in the natural world but were still unsatisfactory.
• This thinking corresponded to a legal society, focusing on principles and theories rather than emotions.

Positive Stage

• The positive stage represents a scientific way of thinking, where the focus is on laws (invariable relations) of phenomena rather than on absolute notions, origins, or causes.
• Comte’s positivism advocates for observation and classification of phenomena, rejecting the search for causes.
• Positivism emphasizes the observation of uniformities or laws and considers assigning causes as mere speculation.
• Positive thinking is aligned with the needs of an industrial society.

STAGES IN SOCIAL ORGANISATION AND PROGRESS

• Comte identified three stages in the development of human thinking and also observed three stages in the development of society or social organization.
• Each stage of thinking (theological, metaphysical, and positive) corresponds to a specific type of social organization.
• Theological thinking leads to a military and monarchical social organization, with God as the head of the hierarchy, symbolizing the King of Kings and a mighty warrior.
• In this society, divine sanction rules, and any challenges to it would be severely punished, fostering dogmatism.
• Metaphysical thinking produces a society governed by doctrines of abstract rights and corresponds to a feudalsocial organization.
• In this stage, natural rights replace divine rights, and a priesthood is supported, leading to a legalistic, formal, and structured society.
• The rise of nation-states in Europe during this stage is an example of the metaphysical social organization.
• Positive thinking leads to an industrial society dominated by industrialists, focused on utilizing natural resources and producing material inventions.
• In the positive or scientific stage, great thought blends with great power, and the focus shifts to practical material transformation for human benefit.
• Comte’s ideas on the law of three stages highlight the importance of intellectual evolution in human progress, but he also acknowledged the role of factors like population growth, division of labor, and other social factors.
• L.A. Coser suggests that Comte’s Law of Three Stages has a materialistic or idealistic bias.
• Prof. N.S. Timasheff criticizes Comte’s law, stating that neither the metaphysical nor scientific stages fully replace the religious approach, and that there has been an accumulation of all three stages.
• E.S. Bogardus points out that Comte failed to propose a fourth mode of thinking, namely socialized thinking, focusing on building constructive, just, and harmonious societies.
• Despite these critiques, Comte is credited with opening the way for the rise of socialized thinking.

Comte’s Three Stages of Thought and Society:

• Theological Stage:
  • Nature of Society: Military society
  • Unit of Society: Family
  • Basic Principle: Love of Family or Domestic Order
  • Prevailing Sentiment: Affection or Attachment
• Metaphysical Stage:
  • Nature of Society: Legal society
  • Unit of Society: Nation
  • Basic Principle: Mutual Co-Existence or Collective Order
  • Prevailing Sentiment: Mutual Respect or Veneration
• Positive Stage:
  • Nature of Society: Industrial society
  • Unit of Society: Entire Humanity
  • Basic Principle: Universality or Universal Order
  • Prevailing Sentiment: Kindness or Benevolence

CLASSIFICATION OF SCIENCES

• Comte’s theory of the “classification of sciences” is linked with his “Law of Three Stages”.
• Just as mankind progresses through determined stages, scientific knowledge also passes through similar stages of development.
• Scientific progress does not occur at the same rate across all sciences, prompting Comte to establish a hierarchy of sciences.
• Sociology, as the latest and greatest science, occupies the third phase in Comte’s system of thought.
• The classification of sciences existed before Comte, with earlier thinkers attempting to classify knowledge in various ways.
• Greek thinkers classified all knowledge under three headings: (1) physics, (2) ethics, and (3) politics.
• Bacon classified knowledge based on the faculties of man: (i) memory, (ii) imagination, and (iii) reason.
  • History is based on memory.
  • Poetry is based on imagination.
  • Physics, chemistry, etc., are based on reason.
• Comte’s classification of sciences has unique features and distinctions within it.

Special Features of Comtean Classification of Sciences

• Comte’s classification of sciences is linked with his “Law of Three Stages”.
• Like individuals and societies, sciences pass through similar stages of development.
• Main purpose of Comte’s classification was to lay the foundation for the study of sociology, the new science founded by him.
• The classification also helped Comte establish the methodology of sociology and the relationship between sociology and other sciences.
• Comte’s principle of “increasing dependence” was used to classify knowledge.
• Complex facts are dependent on simpler facts, and the sciences based on complex facts are built on simpler ones.
• Sociology is considered the most complex and dependent on the prior development of other sciences.
• Mathematics is the basic tool for understanding all sciences, and it occupies the first place in Comte’s hierarchy.
• Mathematics is not just a science, but the foundation for all sciences, and is essential for scientific thinking.
• Comte’s hierarchy of sciences is: Mathematics → Astronomy → Physics → Chemistry → Biology → Sociology.
• Sociology is at the top of the hierarchy, being the most complex and dependent science.
• Comte’s view stresses that sociology is the “crowning glory” of all sciences, and it involves a holistic approach.
• Inorganic sciences (e.g., astronomy, physics, chemistry) follow an individualistic approach, whereas organic sciences(e.g., biology, sociology) follow a holistic approach.
• Organic unity is emphasized in sociology; society must be understood as a whole, not in parts.
• Comte stressed that social phenomena must be studied in the context of the total social context.
• Comte’s classification system, though limited, still holds importance today.
• Sociology as a positive science was established through Comte’s classification.
• Comte marked the onset of the positive stage with the development of sociology as a theoretical discipline.
• Organic unity and the primacy of the system over individual elements have important theoretical implications for sociology.
• Comte’s principle of increasing dependence is akin to the interdisciplinary approach popular today.
• Comte advocated for a general knowledge of all sciences, emphasizing that each science depends on the development of its predecessors.
• Comte believed that no science could progress beyond a certain point without prior stages being reached.

COMTE’S VIEWS REGARDING SOCIOLOGY

• Comte is hailed as the ‘father of sociology’.
• Initially, Comte named the science he aimed to establish “social physics”.
• The term “social physics” was already used by Adolf Quetelet, a Belgian statistician.
• In 1839, Comte replaced “social physics” with the term ‘sociology’.
• Sociology is derived from the Latin word ‘socius’ (society) and the Greek word ‘logos’ (science or study).
• Etymologically, sociology means “science of society”.
• Sociology represents the culmination of the development of science and is based on mathematics and dependent on biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy.
• Sociology, like other sciences, needs time to evolve into a fully developed positive science.
• Comte believed that sociology would be helped by his writings to attain scientific status.
• Social statics and social dynamics are two divisions of sociology.
• Social statics refers to the study of the laws of action and reaction of the different parts of social order.
• Social statics focuses on the balance of mutual relations within a social whole and studies major institutions like family, economy, and polity.
• Social statics emphasizes the harmony between the whole and parts of society; parts cannot be studied separately.
• Lack of harmony between the parts of society leads to a pathological situation.
• Social dynamics studies how whole societies develop and change over time.
• Social dynamics is associated with human progress and evolution.
• Comte believed in ever-increasing perfection in human civilization.
• Comte defined sociology as the science of social phenomena subject to natural and invariable laws.
• Sociology has the following features:
  • Objective analysis of social phenomena.
  • Abstract science.
  • Synthetic science that synthesizes knowledge from all other sciences.
  • Like other sciences, sociology can provide predictions about the future.
  • Sociology is not just a science, but also committed to social reconstruction and moral rejuvenation.

RELIGION OF HUMANITY

• Comte’s “theory of religion of humanity” is considered a minor contribution to sociology.
• After establishing positivism, Comte shifted his focus to moral and religious considerations in his later writings.
• Religion of humanity was a product of Comte’s idealistic imaginations, seen more in his “Positive Polity” (1852).
• Comte experienced a radical change in his thinking, from a staunch supporter of science to the advocate of a new religion.
• Personal struggles, like the desertion by his wife, Clotilde de Vaux’s death, and social isolation, influenced this shift.
• Comte evolved from being an atheist to advocating a scientific religion based on humanity.
• Salient features of Comtean religion include:
  • A religion without God: Focused on morality and humanity, not belief in a divine force.
  • Comte argued that God existed in ignorance, and worship should focus on mankind, not God.
  • Slogan of Comtean religion: “We should have religion but not God.”
  • Sociologist-priests: They would act as moral guides, directing society based on scientific knowledge.
  • These priests would hold authority in education and social duties, suppressing subversive ideas of individual rights.
  • Comte considered himself the high priest of this new religion, aiming to create a society based on harmony, justice, and altruism.
  • Comte’s central values: Love, Order, and Altruism.
  • The Comtean ideal was disinterested love for humanity.
  • Religion of humanity was a social religion, focused on morality and society, rather than divine worship.
  • Comte rejected traditional Christianity for its political and ecclesiastical nature.
  • He sought to create a social religion that made mankind its ultimate end.
  • Comte’s religion was seen as a religion of human unity, with a focus on shared love and conviction.
• Critical comments:
  • Christian scholars criticized the religion as a mix of science and Catholicism.
  • Some viewed it not as a religion but as a moral code, with Comte being “morally intoxicated”.
  • J.S. Mill remarked that Comte’s religious ideas led to mental isolation and strange thoughts.
  • Thomas Huxley called it “Catholicism minus Christianity”.
  • Some criticized it as egoistic and utopian.
  • L.A. Coser believed the normative aspects were important for historians of ideas but had little relevance for sociologists.

AN ESTIMATE OF COMTE’S ACHIEVEMENTS

• Comte’s contributions to sociology are often criticised, but his achievements are significant and should not be underestimated.
• John Stuart Mill referred to Comte as one of the first European thinkers and credited him with creating a new social science.
• George Henry Lewis called Comte the greatest modern thinker.
• John Morley praised Comte for his tenacity in pursuing his ideal despite numerous obstacles.
• Comte’s achievements:
  • Coined the term sociology and laid the foundation for the new social science.
  • Emphasized a positive approach, objectivity, and scientific attitude that advanced social sciences.
  • Introduced the Law of Three Stages, showing the progression of human reasoning from theological to metaphysical to positive.
  • Demonstrated a close association between intellectual evolution and social progress.
  • While his classification of sciences was not perfect, Comte showed how sociology depends on other sciences.
  • Sociology’s scope and method were outlined in his writings, influencing modern definitions and divisions.
  • Division of sociology into social statics and social dynamics is still relevant today.
  • Stressed the scientific method and criticized armchair philosophers, promoting observation, classification, and experimentation.
  • Argued that sociology is an applied science, created to solve social problems and promote social reform.
  • Despite criticisms, Comte’s focus on morality inspired thinkers like Arnold Toynbee and Pitirim A. Sorokin.
  • Contributed significantly to theoretical sociology through descriptive work.
• Criticisms of Comte:
  • Comte has been accused of making few original contributions, merely elaborating a sociology programme without a coherent theory.
  • Though a proponent of positivism, Comte was not fully committed to it.
  • Faith in evolution towards progress and belief in ideas as a prepotent factor in social change is seen as flawed.
  • Sociological theories were criticized for prematurely jumping from observation to theory without sufficient evidence.
  • In his later years, Comte abandoned his role as a scientist and became a social reformer and prophet, claiming to be the high priest of a new religion.
  • His religious ideas were critiqued for lacking rationality, with some calling his religion a product of “moral intoxication.”
  • Instead of focusing on building a science of social phenomena, Comte was seen to promote his own utopian projects for social reorganization.
• In conclusion, Chambliss described two versions of Comte: the brilliant scientist and the ordinary saint, with the focus on Comte the scientist being most important today.

BRIEF BIOGRAPHIC SKETCH OF HERBERT SPENCER

• Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was a prominent British social thinker and is often called “the second founding father of sociology.”
• Spencer was a philosopher, evolutionist, and strong defender of individualism.
• Spencer aimed to create what Comte had envisioned, making sociology an all-encompassing science.
• He was a self-taught man, with highly selective learning.
• Born on April 27, 1820, in Derby, England, in a middle-class family.
• The oldest of nine children, Spencer was the only survivor of his family.
• Due to ill-health, he could not attend conventional school, receiving education from his father and later his uncle, both of whom imparted scientific knowledge.
• At 13, he went to live with his uncle, who further educated him.
• Spencer worked briefly as an engineer for the London and Birmingham Railway but returned home due to health issues.
• He shifted to journalism, becoming an editor of the Economist, one of England’s greatest publications.
• During his time at the Economist, Spencer developed relationships with advanced journalists and wrote his first book, “Social Statics” (1851), which was well-received by the radical public.
• In 1853, he resigned from his post to become an independent writer and used money inherited from his uncle to support his new career.
• Spencer remained a private scholar with no regular job or institutional attachment and lived as a lifelong bachelor.
• By 1850, Spencer completed his first major work, “Social Statics”.
• Spencer began to suffer from insomnia and mental health issues, leading to nervous breakdowns for the rest of his life.
• Despite no university degree or academic position, Spencer’s scholarly productivity increased.
• In 1855, Spencer published “The Principles of Psychology”, though it was not as popular as his earlier work.
• He continued to produce scholarly works despite his health issues, using opium to manage his condition and only being able to read and write for a few hours daily.
• Spencer’s major works include “First Principles”, “Principles of Biology”, “Principles of Ethics”, “Principles of Sociology”, and “The Study of Sociology”.
• Spencer earned an international reputation, and leading thinkers such as J.S. Mill, Thomas Huxley, Tyndall, and Charles Darwin admired his writings.
• Charles Darwin stated Spencer could have been “a wonderful man” if he had focused more on observation.
• Spencer also wrote on political issues, such as his opposition to the Boer War and support for the introduction of the metric system in England.
• Due to declining mental health, Spencer lived in isolation in his later years and died on December 8, 1903, at age 83.
• Main works of Spencer:
  • On Philosophy and Religion: “The Nature and Reality of Religion” (1885, withdrawn from publication).
  • Series of Books on Synthetic Philosophy: “First Principles” (1862), “The Principles of Biology” (2 volumes, 1864-67), “The Principles of Psychology” (1855), “The Principles of Sociology” (3 volumes, 1876-96), “The Principles of Ethics” (2 volumes, 1892-93).
  • Descriptive Sociology (2 volumes).
  • On Political and Social Matters: “The Proper Sphere of Government” (1843), “Social Statics” (1851), “Education: Intellectual, Moral, Physical” (1861), “The Study of Sociology” (1872), “The Man Versus The State” (1884), “Data of Ethics” (1893), “Facts and Comments” (1902).
  • Other Works: “Essay: Scientific, Political, and Speculative” (3 volumes, 1891), “Autobiography” (1904, intellectual rather than personal).

SPENCER’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION

• Herbert Spencer’s contribution to sociology is often considered to be his “Evolutionary Theory” or “Laws of Evolution”, regarded as his greatest contribution to social thought.
• Spencer’s ideas created significant controversy, but they also played a crucial role in enriching the field of social thought.
• “Evolution” was one of the most exciting concepts of the 19th century, with Charles Darwin being its most influential sponsor, especially in his work “Origin of Species” (1859).
• Spencer was deeply influenced by the idea of evolution and applied it to the social world, calling it “social evolution”.
• Spencer viewed social evolution as a set of stages through which societies move, progressing from simple to complexand from homogeneous to heterogeneous.
• The term “evolution” comes from the Latin word “evolvere”, meaning to develop or unfold, closely resembling the Sanskrit word “Vikas”.
• Evolution implies gradual, internal, spontaneous change, and indicates change from within rather than from without.
• In biological science, “organic evolution” refers to the evolution of organisms, while in sociology, “social evolution”refers to the evolution of human society.
• The concept of social evolution seeks to explain the origin and development of human society, focusing on how social relations evolve.
• Spencer’s theory of social evolution was seen as a way to apply organic evolution to human societies.
• Spencer made the concepts of evolution and social evolution central to his sociological theories.
• L.A. Coser pointed out that the “evolutionary principle” or “law of evolution” is the foundation of Spencerism.
• Spencer’s interpretations of evolution can be divided into two parts: (A) General Theory of Evolution, and (B) Theory of Social Evolution.
• His General Theory of Evolution is detailed in his book “First Principles” (1862), while his views on Social Evolution are found in works like “The Study of Sociology” and “The Principles of Sociology.”

GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION

• Spencer’s “Theory of Social Evolution” is based on his “General Theory of Evolution” and borrows the evolutionary perspective from Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Organic Evolution”.
• Spencer introduced “universal evolution” as a key concept, making evolution a universal principle in his work “First Principles”.
• Evolution is described as a change from a state of relatively indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity.
• Spencer believed that the law of evolution operates in every phenomenon or development, whether physical or social.
• Spencer viewed evolution as the master key to explain the earliest changes in the universe and to understand the riddles of the universe.
• Within universal evolution, Spencer developed three basic laws and four secondary propositions, each building upon the evolutionary doctrine.
• Three Basic Laws:
  1. Law of Persistence of Energy or Force: Force or energy persists in the world and underlies all phenomena, although the force itself is beyond human knowledge.
  2. Law of Indestructibility of Matter: The elements of matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, but conserved.
  3. Law of Continuity of Motion: Motion is continuous and cannot be stopped or destroyed; it changes form but always persists.
• Four Secondary Propositions:
  • Uniformity of Law: The world exhibits regularity in relationships among forces, elements, and motion.
  • Law of Transformation and Equivalence of Forces: Forces, elements of matter, and motion are not lost but transformed into other forms.
  • Law of Least Resistance and Great Attraction: Forces and elements tend to move along the path of least resistance and greatest attraction.
  • Principle of Alteration or Rhythm of Motion: All phenomena have a specific rate and rhythm of movement, development, and transformation.
• Spencer derived his “law of evolution” from these seven laws, emphasizing that the pattern of transformation in all phenomena is the same.
• The law of evolution states that evolution is the integration of matter and the dissipation of motion, leading from a state of indefinite incoherence to definite coherence.
• Spencer applied this universal pattern of change to nature, biological organisms, species development, and human societal processes.
• The theory of social evolution arose from Spencer’s application of these evolutionary laws to explain the development and evolution of human society.

SOCIAL EVOLUTION THEORY

• Spencer’s two main books, “The Study of Sociology” and “The Principles of Sociology”, provide detailed accounts of his theory of social evolution.
• Spencer believed that social evolution could be studied similarly to organic evolution, analyzing the genesis, development, evolution, and decay of societies.
• Spencer treated human society as an organism, suggesting that both societies and organisms grow from simple to complex and from homogeneous to heterogeneous.
• Abraham and Morgan identified two key trends in Spencer’s theory:
  1. Change from simplicity to complexity: Societies evolve through stages from simple to compound societies.
  2. Change from military society to industrial society: Evolution leads to the shift from military structures to industrial ones.
• Change from Simplicity to Complexity:
  • Spencer identified four types of societies:
    1. Simple Society: Primitive society with no complexity, consisting of several families.
    2. Compound Society: Multiple simple societies forming a clan-based structure.
    3. Doubly Compound Society: Clans combined into tribes.
    4. Trebly Compound Society: Tribes organized into nation-states.
  • The process of evolution involves increased differentiation of social structures, leading to better integration and adaptation to the environment.
• Change from Military Society to Industrial Society:
  • Spencer argued that evolution moves from military society to industrial society, with distinct characteristics:
    • Military society is based on compulsory co-operation, while industrial society is based on voluntary co-operation.
    • Military society has a centralized government, while industrial society has a decentralized government.
    • Military society has economic autonomy, which is absent in industrial society.
    • Military society is dominated by the state, whereas in industrial society, the state’s role is limited.
• Observations on Spencer’s Theory of Social Evolution:
  1. Spencer believed in unilinear evolution, meaning mankind progresses through rigid, predetermined stages, like an individual growing from childhood to maturity.
  2. Spencer initially believed that evolution was inevitably directed towards progress, but later acknowledged that evolution could lead to disintegration and death, making the process cyclical.
  3. Spencer viewed evolution as a process towards equilibrium, where societies adapt to environmental conditions through the struggle for existence.
• Critical Remarks:
  • Appreciation:
    1. Spencer emphasized the laws of evolution and natural causation, viewing social evolution as part of natural evolution.
    2. Spencer’s work inspired British social thought, with thinkers like Hobhouse, G.C. Wheeler, and Morris Ginsberg continuing his evolutionary tradition.
    3. Spencer’s ideas influenced American sociologists like W.G. Sumner, Ward, Cooley, Veblen, and others.
    4. Spencer is credited for developing the concept of social evolution as part of natural evolution and stressing the idea of natural sequences in society.
    5. Abraham and Morgan praised Spencer for his voluminous sociological writing and significant contributions to the science of society.
  • Criticism:
    1. No modern sociologist fully subscribes to Spencer’s theory of social evolution in its original form, as his idea of evolution as progress has been rejected. The modified form, Neo-Evolutionism, is advocated by anthropologists like Leslie A. White and V. Gordon Childe.
    2. Bogardus criticized Spencer for underestimating the importance of man in social evolution and neglecting the intellectual and creative capacities of primitive man.
    3. Spencer’s idea of uniformity in the evolutionary process is flawed because societies at the same stage do not necessarily share the same politics, ethics, art, and religion.
    4. Spencer believed that society exists for the whole, while modern perspectives argue that society exists for the welfare of individuals.

SPENCER’S THEORY OF ORGANIC ANALOGY

• Spencer is famously known for his treatment of the organic analogy, which played a vital role in his sociological theory.
• The evolutionary doctrine was the foundation of Spencer’s sociological theory, with the organic analogy serving as a secondary but significant doctrine.
• Spencer hypothesized that society is like a biological organism, defending this idea against objections with logical force.
• Spencer’s logic in defending the organic analogy ultimately led to his sociological downfall, as it undermined his scientific insight.
• Spencer came to sociology through biology, drawing parallels between society and a biological organism.
• He argued that the social structure is a living organism, applying the same definition of life to both biological and social organisms.
• Spencer viewed the recognition of the similarity between society and organisms as a major step towards a general theory of evolution.
• He focused on bringing out the parallels between organic and social evolution, highlighting the similarities in their structure and evolution.
• Biological analogies were central to Spencer’s sociological reasoning, influencing his overall framework.

Similarities Between Biological and Social Organism Spencer

• Spencer aimed to explain the nature of social structure using the organismic theory, highlighting similarities between biological and social organisms.
• Similarity in Visible Growth: Both society and organisms are distinguished from inorganic matter by their visible growth. Examples: A child grows into a man; a small community becomes a metropolitan area; a small state becomes an empire.
• Increase in the Complexity of Structure: As society and organisms grow in size, their structure also becomes more complex. Example: Primitive organisms like amoebas are simple, whereas mammals are complex. Similarly, primitive communities are simple compared to modern industrial societies.
• Differentiation of Structure Leading to Differentiation of Functions: As organisms and societies evolve, the differentiation of structure leads to a differentiation of functions. Example: A primitive unicellular organism evolves into complex organisms with specialized organs. Similarly, complex societies have many organizations, each performing a specific function.
• Change in Structure Leads to Change in Functions: When the structure of organs or societies changes, their functions also change and become more specialized. Example: Changes in the organs of an organism or in social structures result in specialized functions.
• Differentiation as well as Harmony of Organs: Evolution leads to greater differentiation in both organisms and societies, but also establishes harmony. The organs of the body or different societal organizations complement each other and are not opposed.
• Loss of an Organ does not Necessarily Result in the Loss of Organism: Loss of one organ in an organism or an organization in society does not necessarily lead to the death of the organism or society. Example: Loss of a leg does not lead to the death of an individual; disintegration of a political party does not necessarily result in the decay of society.
• Similar Process and Methods of Organisation:
  • Alimentary system in organisms is compared to the productive industries or sustaining systems in society.
  • Circulatory system in organisms parallels the distributing system in society, including transportation lines and commercial classes.
  • Both organisms and societies have regulating systems: Organisms have dominant centres, senses, and a neural apparatus; societies have social control mechanisms.
• While these parallels provide some insight into the nature of society, they become ridiculous when carried to extremes.

Differences Between Organism and Society As Visualised by Spencer

• Spencer recognized key differences between societies and organisms. He argued that while an organism forms a concrete, integrated whole, society is composed of discrete and dispersed elements.
• Organs are Organised, but Parts of Society are Independent: Organs of an organism cannot exist independently, while parts of society (such as family, school, army) are relatively independent and not organically fixed to society. The movement of parts in society is relatively free.
• Society does not have a Definite Form: Unlike organisms, societies do not have a specific external form (e.g., limbs, face) and are abstract. Societies are mental constructs and exist only as ideas in the mind.
• Manner of Difference in Dependence of Organs/Parts: In organisms, organs exist for the sake of the body, while in society, individuals (the parts) are more important than the society. Society exists for the benefit of its parts, particularly individuals.
• Difference Regarding the Centrality of “Consciousness”: In organisms, consciousness is concentrated in a small part of the body, while in society, consciousness is diffused throughout individual members.
• Differences in Structure and Functions: In organisms, each part has a fixed function, while in society, functions of parts (e.g., family, institutions) change over time. In contrast, organs like eyes, heart, and ears in organisms cannot change their functions.
• Spencer made efforts to establish similarities and differences between organic and social life. He initially defended the organic analogy as central in his “Principles of Sociology” but later distanced himself, claiming analogies were only scaffolding for building sociological theory.
• Critical Comments:
  • Spencer’s use of the organic analogy was ridiculous, comparing the King’s Council to the medulla oblongata and the House of Lords to the cerebellum.
  • He used the analogy in a dogmatic manner, later referring to it as a temporary scaffolding, but still used organicterminology throughout his work.
  • Though the organic analogy had been used before, Spencer was the first to give it the status of a scientific theorybut became too attached to it.
  • If society is like an organism, it would undergo a natural cycle of birth, maturity, and death, but society’s death is not inevitable.
  • Despite the criticism, Spencer popularized the concept of “system” in sociological discussions, which is still used today in modified form.

SOCIAL DARWINISM

• Social Darwinism is a 19th-century adaptation of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, explaining human social life and social inequality.
• The term refers to doctrines that use or misuse Darwin’s biological evolutionary principles to explain or justify human social organization.
• Herbert Spencer (Britain) and W.G. Sumner (America) were key advocates of Social Darwinism.
• Spencer’s Social Darwinism centered on two main principles:
  • Survival of the Fittest:
    • Nature eliminates the unfit to make room for the stronger.
    • Spencer believed the weak (such as the poor) should be eliminated naturally, and state assistance should not relieve their conditions.
    • Spencer opposed governmental aid to the “less fit” but did not oppose individual philanthropy.
    • He believed the economic system works best with minimal state intervention, allowing individuals to pursue private interests.
  • Principle of Non-Interference:
    • Spencer was a strong advocate of individualism and laissez-faire politics.
    • He opposed state interference in areas like education, health, sanitation, and poverty alleviation.
    • Spencer viewed the state as a joint-stock company, only responsible for protecting individual rights and defending citizens against external threats.
    • Spencer argued that sociologists should prevent state interference with natural selection in society, believing nature’s order was more intelligent than human intervention.
• Critical Remarks:
  • The theory gained widespread popularity in the late 19th century, especially in Europe and America, where it was used to justify politico-economic domination of whites over non-whites.
  • The theory had racial overtones, suggesting that superior races were destined to triumph over inferior ones.
  • The survival of the fittest principle indirectly supports the status quo, inactivity, and idleness, as nature plays the role of the selector, benefiting the fittest and leaving the unfit to decay.
  • The theory does not account for the rapid population increase in nations like India, China, or Bangladesh, where a large number of poor and labor-class people exist.
  • The poor and labor-class are often considered “less fit” not due to inherent incapacity but because of socially organized coercions.
  • Social Darwinism has been criticized as deeply flawed, with little credibility among contemporary social scientists. It can justify social oppression, imperialism, and the status quo.
  • The theory is now seen pejoratively among social theorists.
  • Some views of Social Darwinism persist in socio-biology today.

TYPES OF SOCIETY CLASSIFICATION AND COMPARISON

• Spencer developed models to classify and compare societies based on his clear conception of the nature of society.
• Two major models used by Spencer are:
  • Classification Based on Degree of Composition:
    • Spencer’s evolutionary law led to classifying societies based on their degree of composition.
    • Four types of societies based on this classification:
      1. Simple Society
      2. Compound Society
      3. Doubly Compound Society
      4. Trebly Compound Society
  • Classification Based on Method of Constructing Models:
    • According to Ronald Fletcher, Spencer also classified societies into:
      1. Military Society
      2. Industrial Society
    • This classification is based on the relative preponderance of one or the other of the “Regulating”, “Sustaining”, and “Distributive” systems.

Military Society and Industrial Society

The Militant Society

• Spencer classified societies into two “types” or “models”: militant societies and industrial societies.
• Military Society is characterised by the dominance of the “Regulating System” over other aspects of society, emphasizing military control.
• The main characteristics of a military society include:
  1. Organisation for Offensive and Defensive Military Action: The society is organised around the military, where the army is central and the entire nation functions like a military unit.
  2. Centralised Pattern of Authority and Social Control: The military head is also the political head, exercising absolute control over the life and property of subjects. Power is hierarchical, with subordinates strictly following orders.
  3. Rigid Social Classes: A strict hierarchy in social structure and economic life, with distribution of property and rewards linked to social rank.
  4. Religious Beliefs and Doctrines: The society reflects hierarchical power through religious doctrines, portraying gods and the ruling class as part of a power hierarchy. The head of the state often has military, political, and ecclesiastical control.
  5. Life Subject to Rigorous Discipline: Public and private lives are integrated, with the state having the authority to intervene in private matters. Individual rights are limited in this relationship.
  6. Human Relationships Based on Compulsory Co-operation: Relationships are forced to align with the state’s requirements, though Spencer did not elaborate much on this point.
• Spencer’s militant society model is useful for interpreting despotic societies from the ancient world to totalitarian societies in the contemporary world.
• This model is valuable for comparative sociology, applicable to both past and present societies.

The Industrial Society

• The concept of “Industrial society” refers to a society where industrialisation and modernisation have occurred.
• The term originated with Saint Simon, who used it to describe the rising prominence of manufacturing industry in 18th-century Europe, contrasting with pre-industrial and agrarian societies.
• In Spencer’s view, industrial society is characterised by peaceful social organisation, with military activity relegated to the periphery and a focus on human production and welfare.
• The characteristics of industrial society include:
  1. Recognition of Personal Rights: Members of industrial society uphold personal rights as citizens, emphasizing representative government and impartial resolution of disputes through institutional means.
  2. “Sustaining System” with Freedom: The sustaining system operates with substantial autonomy from the regulatory system, allowing individuals to manage their own economic activities without political interference.
  3. Opportunity for Free Associations: Peaceful conditions promote the growth of free associations and institutions, enabling activities like forming committees, laying rules, and conducting elections.
  4. Less Rigid Class Structure: Class structure in industrial society is less rigid and hierarchical. Human relationships become contractual and free, with disputes often resolved independently of central authority.
  5. Secularisation of Religion: Religious organisations lose their hierarchical structure and power, and individual faith replaces religious dominance as a means of social control.
  6. Well-being of Individuals as Supreme Objective: The society prioritises the well-being of individuals over the state’s interests. Governmental control exists solely to serve citizens’ needs.
  7. Duty to Resist Irresponsible Government: Citizens are aware of their duty to resist despotic or irresponsible governments, with a positive emphasis on critical thinking and disobedience when necessary.
  8. Free and Contractual Human Relationships: Human relationships in industrial society are characterised by voluntary cooperation and responsible contractual interactions, contrasting with the compulsory cooperation of militant societies.

A WORD ABOUT SPENCER’S CONTRIBUTIONS

• Spencer’s contributions to social thought are significant and recognisable, enjoying widespread acceptance during his lifetime, particularly between 1865 and 1895.
• His views influenced the leading thinkers and philosophers of the West during this period.
• Spencer’s theories appealed to the needs of the time by addressing:
  1. The desire for unifying knowledge.
  2. The need for scientific justification of the “laissez-faire” principle.
• He emphasised the laws of evolution and natural causation, describing social evolution as a phase of natural evolution.
• A strong advocate of individualism, Spencer opposed the idea of the state as a master machine demanding automatic submission from citizens.
• Spencer formulated an integral theory of all reality, describing evolution as a cosmic law, making his theory philosophical rather than purely sociological (L.A. Coser).
• His organismic theory influenced later sociologists like Paul Von Lilienfeld, Jacques Novicow, Ward, Sumner, and Giddings.
• In his organic analogy, Spencer highlighted likenesses and differences between biological organisms and human society.
• He distinctly emphasised the role of social structures and institutions.
• In conclusion, Spencer’s writings catered to the needs of his time, addressing enduring questions about balancing community living with individuality. His work continues to resonate as societies search for answers to these age-old challenges.