founding fathers of sociology and their contributions pdf Friday, May 28, 2021 10:15:39 AM

Founding Fathers Of Sociology And Their Contributions Pdf

File Name: founding fathers of sociology and their contributions .zip
Size: 25520Kb
Published: 28.05.2021

To browse Academia. Skip to main content. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy. Log In Sign Up.

Top 8 Sociologist and their Contribution towards Sociology

In this article an attempt has been made to present briefly the seminal ideas of few pioneers who have contributed sociology. In his Course de philosophies positive, he propounded his positivist philosophy. Le reel meant that the scientific status of knowledge had to be guaranteed by the direct experience of an immediate reality. This required a particular conception of causality in which causal relations amounted to regular associations between phenomena.

The limitation of the terms of scientific explanation to the phenomenal level, therefore, meant that the positivist could not have recourse to any supernatural or abstract forces which were by definition outside his direct experience.

This rule of phenomenalism has to be complemented by la certitude which meant that the scientific status of knowledge had to be guaranteed by the common experience of reality, a mode of apprehension which was accessible to all scientists and which ensured the replicability of their observations—in other words, the unity of the scientific method.

If followed from this that disciplines were to be distinguished by their object of study, and not by their method. Value- judgements were immediately excluded from scientific inquiry because they were ethical assertions rather than empirical predictions, incapable of verification. His scientific method was intended to reveal the laws of co-existence and succession which governed society, and he maintained that these allowed no variation. Once man realised this, then the battalions and barricades would be removed from the map of Europe.

If the scientist was obliged, however, to accept society as these laws dictated it to be, he did not have to accept society as it was, particularly when he looked out on a continent disrupted and corrupted by politicians who evidently did not recognise the inexorable force of these social laws.

This impulse was regarded as non-ideological in so far as the positivist was not required to assume any ethical position in order to demonstrate the truth of his statements or the invincibility of the social laws which they embodied.

From this fundamental correlation there also results the general explanation of the three natural ages of humanity. Its long infancy, which fills the whole of antiquity, had to be essentially theological and military; its adolescence, in the middle Ages, was metaphysical and feudal; finally, its maturity, which has only begun to be appreciated in the last few centuries, is necessarily positive and industrial. Comte was neither the first nor the last to devise a tripartite history of civilization, but his proposals show that he saw positivism very much as a child of the nineteenth century.

In its present state of development, sociology is an attempt to describe impartially, to measure exactly, and to connect by means of scientific generalisations the diver s phenomena of social life.

Seen in this perspective, Marxism is more than a system of sociology. It is, on the contrary, a philosophy of man and society as well as political doctrine. Rubel points out, however, that this dual commitment—to scholarly understanding and to political action—created constant difficulty for Marx. Many other topics, such as religion, family, bureaucracy, etc. We propose not to go over those themes again, but to concentrate exclusively on Dialectic Materialism or Materialistic Interpretation of History.

Dialectic Materialism is the philosophy sketched out in the philosophical writings of Marx and Engels. The existence of any object does not depend upon its being perceived or experienced in any way. Although some characters of existence may depend upon the mode in which it is experienced, existence itself cannot be deduced from psychological or logical considerations alone. Dialectic Materialism took over the dialectical interpretation of reality developed by Hegel.

The term dialectic, as originally used in Greece, meant the process of getting at the truth through a debate carried on by opposing sides. For Hegel, the movement of experience itself represents a sort of logical debate carried on by reality, with a logical thesis being opposed by logical antithesis and yielding thereby an endless movement toward higher synthesis. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

Although there are chance elements in the world, the methodological assumption of science presupposes that all objects of enquiry in different fields are subject to law.

There can be no dispute about this, and where there is dispute the real problem is whether some subject matter can be treated scientifically. Dialectic Materialism holds that no limits can be drawn to the progress of science and although many things will probably remain unknown, none of them is inherently unknowable.

Dialectic materialism, applied to the realm of culture, i. As its name suggests, historical materialism differs from all other materialistic interpretation of history on the ground that it does not explain the rise and fall of social systems in terms of factors which are non-social. While admitting that climate, topography, soil, race, etc. The reason is two-fold: first, in any given area these factors are relatively constant while social life is more variable; second, there can be no intelligible reduction of the specific qualities of human behaviour—exhibited in a social context—to categories of physics and biology.

Not the slightest evidence has been produced, for example, to show that the climate of Greece from the 6th century B. The positive principles underlying the theory of historical materialism may be summed up as follows:. Consequently, any aspect of that whole—its legal code, educational practices, religion, art or the like—cannot be understood by itself,. The independent variable in the developing social whole will be the explanatory key not only to the causes of change from one society to another but to the dominant culture pattern existing at any time.

According to historical materialism, the independent variable is the mode of economic production. The view that the independent variable is the mode of economic production does not deny that the cultural products of economic development react upon that development. But they all react upon one another and upon the economic base. It is not the case that the economic situation is the sole active cause and everything else is merely a passive effect, rather there is reciprocity within a field of economic necessity which in the last instance always asserts itself.

Similarly, historical materialism does not deny the role played by social tradition in modifying the rate of change in the non-material aspects of culture. Family relationships, religion, art and philosophy, although they reflect the new social equilibrium produced by changes in the economic order, lag behind both in time and structural form.

From the vantage point of a long time perspective, the phenomenon of cultural lag may not appear significant; but from the point of view of short-term political operation they are of great importance. Property relations are the formal expressions or signs of these social relations of production.

These, in turn, constitute a whole of which technique is only one of the parts. More important still is the assertion of the historical materialist that the very development of techniques is not independent but is guided by the needs of a larger social productive whole, of which it is a part.

Man is born into a society in which property relations have already taken form. These property relations define the different social classes, such as feudal lord and serf, employer and employee.

The conflicting interests of these classes flow not merely from the consciousness or lack of it of individual antagonisms but from the different objective roles played by them n the processes of production.

The absence of class conflicts, which may often be the consequence of the activity of professional social pacifiers, no more eliminates the real opposition of class interests than the willingness of Negro slaves to serve their masters proves that they were not enslaved:.

A struggle for survival goes on in the realm of ideas. Since those who control the means of production also control, directly or indirectly, the means of publication, the prevailing ideology is a support to the existing order. Sometimes, as in early societies, this change is produced by some natural phenomenon, such as the drying up of rivers or exhaustion of the soil.

At a certain point in their development, the changed relations in the forces of production come into conflict with existing property relations. It no longer becomes possible on the basis of the existing methods of distribution of income to permit the productive processes to function to full capacity. Property relations are now recognized as a fetter upon further social development.

The class that stands to gain by the modification of property relations becomes revolutionary. It asserts itself as a political force and develops revolutionary ideology to aid it in its struggle for state power. Every class struggle is a political struggle, because the state is an organ of class repression and is never really neutral in class conflict. The abolition of private property in the means of production actually means the abolition of all classes.

This can be accomplished only by a victory of the proletariat. Political power is to be consolidated in a transitional period of revolutionary dictatorship after which the state dies out. That is, its repressive functions disappear and its administrative functions become part and parcel of the productive process. The theory of historical materialism raises certain questions of a basic nature.

To begin with, what are the specific mechanisms by which economic conditions influence the habits and motives of classes, granted that individual are actuated by motives that are not always a function of the individual self-interest? Since classes are composed of individuals, how are class interests furthered by the non-economic motives of individuals?

For example, the workers, who fulfill the objective conditions of a class in the Marxian sense, may be actuated by narrow ethnic or religious interests and get involved among themselves in ethnic or religious disputes.

Such disputes do not obviously further their economic interests nor can such disputes be explained in economic terms. So far, however, no theory of measurement for the social discipline has been evolved. Thirdly, if it is true, as Marx states in Das Kapital, that in changing his external environment man changes his own nature, then human nature under ancient slavery must have been different in some respects from human nature under modern capitalism.

If this is so, how is it possible to understand past historical experience in the same way as we understand present experience, since understanding presupposes an unvarying explanatory pattern? This is a problem which is not peculiar to historical materialism. Such a problem confronts all philosophies of history. This is, however, no valid reason for avoiding it. In a letter to Kugelmann on the Paris Commune April 17, Marx goes so far as to claim that for some specific and local issues chance may be a decisive factor.

Engels with his eye on long-range tendencies admits the presence of chance phenomena, but holds that their influence is compensatory with the result that in the final account they cancel one another. It is instructive, in this connection, to compare the views of H.

Fisher who writes in History of Europe:. These harmonies are concealed from me. I can see only one emergency following upon another as wave follows wave, only one great fact with respect to which, since it is unique, there can be no generalizations, only one safe rule for the historian that he should recognize in the development of human destinies the play of the contingent and the unforeseen.

This is not a doctrine of cynicism and despair. The fact of progress is written plain and large on the page of history; but progress is not a law of nature. The ground gained by one generation may be lost by the next.

Fifthly, is the truth of historical materialism itself historically determined? Or, is it valid for all history, past and present? Both Marx and Engels declared that its truth was relevant only for class societies and that consciousness of the conditions of its truth would lead to action which would abolish class society.

There is no warrant for the belief that historical materialism justifies any such historical apocalypse. Sixthly, although the theoretical scheme of historical materialism was intended to have a universal character, Marx actually employed it in a partial manner. His own researches were limited almost entirely to the nineteenth century capitalist societies and he gave only fragmentary accounts of the other types of society. Furthermore, some of his most important theoretical ideas were derived immediately from the observation of modern societies, and they fit closely those particular societies.

His theory of social classes applies, in the main, to the formation and development of the modern bourgeoisie and proletariat; it is not so helpful when applied to the phenomenon of a caste system. Clearly, the theory of social conflict originated in an interpretation of the French Revolution, the materials for which had been prepared by earlier historians and it was developed further by observation of the class struggle which accompanied the growth of the labour movement in Western Europe.

Seventhly, Raymond Aron, C. They draw attention, in particular, to the alternative bases of political power in societies where private ownership of industrial wealth is non-existent. In this context, the views of Polish sociologist, Stanislaw Ossowski, may be considered.

Founding Fathers of Sociology With Their Various Contribution to the Study

Sociology was involved in the world of empire from the start. Making the canon more inclusive, in gender, race, and even global terms, is not an adequate correction. Important types of social knowledge, including movement-based and indigenous knowledges, resist canonization. The turn towards decolonial and Southern perspectives, now happening across the social sciences, opens up new perspectives on the history of knowledge. These can be linked with a more sophisticated view of the collective production of knowledge by the workforces that are increasingly, though unequally, interacting. Potentials for a more effectively engaged sociology emerge.

In this article an attempt has been made to present briefly the seminal ideas of few pioneers who have contributed sociology. In his Course de philosophies positive, he propounded his positivist philosophy. Le reel meant that the scientific status of knowledge had to be guaranteed by the direct experience of an immediate reality. This required a particular conception of causality in which causal relations amounted to regular associations between phenomena. The limitation of the terms of scientific explanation to the phenomenal level, therefore, meant that the positivist could not have recourse to any supernatural or abstract forces which were by definition outside his direct experience. This rule of phenomenalism has to be complemented by la certitude which meant that the scientific status of knowledge had to be guaranteed by the common experience of reality, a mode of apprehension which was accessible to all scientists and which ensured the replicability of their observations—in other words, the unity of the scientific method. If followed from this that disciplines were to be distinguished by their object of study, and not by their method.

Ideas of the Sociological “Founders”

Sociology have founding fathers and have different social views, lets us discuss about them and their contribution:. Auguste Comte — was a French positivist thinker and came up with the term of sociology to name the new science made by Saint Simon. One universal law that Comte saw at work in all sciences he called the law of three phases. It is by his statement of this law that he is best known in the English speaking world namely, that society has gone through three phases:. Comte formulated the law of three stages, one of the first theories of the social evolution-ism, that human development social progress progresses from the theological stage, in which nature was mythic-ally conceived and man sought the explanation of natural phenomena from supernatural beings, through metaphysical stage.

Founding Fathers of Sociology With Their Various Contribution to the Study

Ideas of the Sociological “Founders”

Since ancient times, people have been fascinated by the relationship between individuals and the societies to which they belong. Many topics studied in modern sociology were also studied by ancient philosophers in their desire to describe an ideal society, including theories of social conflict, economics, social cohesion, and power Hannoum In the thirteenth century, Ma Tuan-Lin, a Chinese historian, first recognized social dynamics as an underlying component of historical development in his seminal encyclopedia, General Study of Literary Remains.

Sociology is the study of society , human social behaviour , patterns of social and relationships, social interaction , and culture that surrounds everyday life. While some sociologists conduct research that may be applied directly to social policy and welfare , others focus primarily on refining the theoretical understanding of social processes. Subject matter can range from micro -level analyses of society i.

Top 8 Sociologist and their Contribution towards Sociology

Creating a Discipline

He is the first social theorist in the twentieth century, but he is also known as the principal architect of the modern social sciences, not only Max Weber is the principal architect of modern social science but also Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx. Karl Marx. He is the commonly known as the publisher of 'The Communist Manifesto' in , and the book was very popular in the history of the socialist movement. Emile Durkheim. August Comte.

Terminology

3 Comments

JГјrgen B. 31.05.2021 at 12:40

Other sociologist who can also be called the founding fathers of sociology include Weber, Marx, Engels and. Durkheim. Page 1/7. Page 2. File Type PDF Founding.

ZoГ© P. 02.06.2021 at 08:39

tury social reformers whose contributions to the field have been largely forgotten, works and his founding and editing of the first journal of sociology, L'Année.

Kristin L. 06.06.2021 at 14:36

Ccsp all in one exam guide pdf the professional pastry chef pdf free

LEAVE A COMMENT