SOCIOLOGY (1.2. and 3chapters)

Course outline-FPSC
Individual: Sociability or the sociality of man.
Culture: Meaning and Characteristics (Culture is variable, learnt, social, shared, Tran missive, dynamic
and adaptive), types (Material, Non –material), functions (transfer of knowledge, define situation, provide
Behavior pattern, molds personality) and elements of culture (norms, values, beliefs, sanctions,
customs).Culture and Socialization; formal and non-formal socialization, transmission of culture, cultural
relativism. Sub-cultures. Ethnocentrism and Xenocentrism, Cultural lag, High culture and popular culture.
Multiculturalism, assimilation, and acculturation.
Society: Meaning and characteristics. Community; meaning and characteristics. Individual and society.
Relationship between individual and society. Two main theories regarding the relationship of man and
society (i) the social contact theory and (ii) the organismic theory. Social and cultural evolution of society
(Hunting and Gathering Society, Herding and Advance Herding Society, Horticultural Society, Agrarian
Society, Industrial Society, Postmodern Society).
Social Interaction: Caste and classes, Forms of social classes, Feudal system in Pakistan, Social
Mobility-nature of social mobility and its determinants in Pakistani society, Culture of poverty.
Social Control: Mechanisms of social control-formal and informal means of social control, Anomie,
Alienation and social Integration-Means of social integration in Pakistani Society.
Social and Cultural Change and Social Policy: Processes of Social and Cultural Change-discovery,
inhibitions to social and cultural change in Pakistan Social planning and directed social and cultural
change, effect of Industrialization, Urbanization, Modernization and Modern Means of Communication
on Social Change.
Public Opinion: Formation of Public, Opinion, Concept of opinion leader, characteristics of opinion
leadership
Community: The rural community, Traditional Characteristics of rural life, the urban community, Rural
– Urban convergence, Urbanism, Future of cities in Pakistan.
Social Institutions: The nature and genesis of institutions, the process of institutionalization, Functions
of Social Institutions: Family, Religion, Education, Economy and Politics.
Social Problems in Pakistan: Drug Addiction, Child Labour and Abuse Bonded Labour, Smuggling,
Social Customs and Traditions effecting Women in Pakistan, Prostitution, Violence against Women’s and
Domestics Violence, Issues concerning the Elderly’s in Pakistan, Deviance and street crime, High
population growth rate, Rural –urban migration, Issues of technical/vocational training, Unemployment,
illiteracy and School drop-out, Poverty,
Sociological Theory: Three sociological perspectives: Structural Functionalism, Symbolic interactions

and conflict. Theorists: Ibn-i-Khaldun Spencer, August Comte, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Kari Marx,
Parson.
Methods of Sociological Research: Scientific Method, Steps in research, Types of Questionnaire

Research Design, Surveys, Observation and Case Studies.
Fayaz A. Soomro Page 1

CHAPTER No.1
INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY:
Chapter Topics: History of sociology, Factors contributing to the Emergence of sociology, what
is sociology? How does ‘sociological thinking’ differ from commonsense?, Major School of
thoughts in Sociology, Applications of sociology in the society, Branches of Sociology,
Branches of Sociology, Scope and importance of sociology, the Roles of the Sociologist
History of Sociology:
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 2003).
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. The next century saw the emergence of the historian some consider to be
the world’s first sociologist: Ibn Khaldun (1332 –1406) of Tunisia. He wrote about many topics
of interest today, setting a foundation for both modern sociology and economics, including a
theory of social conflict, a comparison of nomadic and sedentary life, a description of political
economy, and a study connecting a tribe’s social cohesion to its capacity for power (Hannoum
2003).
In the eighteenth century, Age of Enlightenment philosophers developed general principles that
could be used to explain social life. Thinkers such as John Locke, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and
Thomas Hobbes responded to what they saw as social ills by writing on topics that they hoped
would lead to social reform. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) wrote about women’s conditions
in society. Her works were long ignored by the male academic structure, but since the 1970s,
Wollstonecraft has been widely considered the first feminist thinker of consequence.
The early nineteenth century saw great changes with the Industrial Revolution, increased
mobility, and new kinds of employment. It was also a time of great social and political upheaval

with the rise of empires that exposed many people—for the first time—to societies and cultures
other than their own. Millions of people moved into cities and many people turned away from
their traditional religious beliefs.
Factors contributing to the Emergence of sociology
1. Industrial revolution and Industrialization: Factory system of production and the

consequent mechanization and industrialization brought turmoil in society. New industries
and technologies change the face of the social and physical environment. The simple rural
life and small scale home industries were replaced by the complex urban and mass
production of goods. Industrialization changed the direction of civilization. It destroyed
radically altered, the medieval customs, beliefs and ideas. Industrialization led to
urbanization. Peasants left rural areas and flocked to the towns, where they worked as
industrial laborers. Cities grew at unprecedented rate providing an anonymous environment
for people. Social problems became rampant. Aristocracies and monarchies crumbled and
fell. Religion became to lose its forces as source of moral authority. For the first time in the
human history, social change became state of affairs
2. Inspiration from the Growth of Natural Sciences: 19th century was a period in which
natural sciences had made much progress. The success ascertained by the natural scientists
inspired and even tempted good number of social thinkers to follow their examples.
Inspiration provided by radically diverse societies and cultures of the colonial powers. The
colonial powers of Europe were exposed to different types of societies and cultures in the
colonial empires. Their exposure to such diversities in societies and cultures provided an
intellectual challenge for scientists of the day.
What is Sociology?
A dictionary defines sociology as the systematic study of society and social interaction. The
word sociology” is derived from the Latin word socials (companion) and the Greek word logos
(study of), meaning “the study of companionship.”
A general definition of sociology is the systematic study of human society, culture, and
relationships on a group level. Sociology is the study of human social relationships and
institutions. Sociology’s subject matter is diverse, ranging from crime to religion, from the
family to the state, from the divisions of race and social class to the shared beliefs of a common
culture, and from social stability to radical change in whole societies. Unifying the study of these
diverse subjects of study is sociology’s purpose of understanding how human action and
consciousness.
 Auguste Comte, the founding father of sociology, defines sociology as the science of
social phenomena "subject to natural and invariable laws, the discovery of which is the
object of investigation".
 Kingsley Davis says that "Sociology is a general science of society".

 Harry M. Johnson opines that "sociology is the science that deals with social groups".
 Emile Durkheim "Science of social institutions".
 Park regards sociology as "the science of collective behavior". Small defines sociology as
"the science of social relationships".
 Marshal Jones defines sociology as "the study of man-in-relationship-to-men".
 Ogburn and Nimkoff says that "Sociology is the scientific study of social life".
 Franklin Henry Giddings defines sociology as "the science of social phenomena".
 Henry Fairchild defines that "Sociology is the study of man and his human environment
in their relations to each other".
 Max Weber defines sociology as "the science which attempts the interpretative
understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a casual explanation of its
course and effects".
 Alex Inkeles says, "Sociology is the study of systems of social action and of their
inter-relations".
 Kimball Young and Raymond W. Mack say, "Sociology is the scientific study of social
aspects of human life".
 Morris Ginsberg defines sociology in the following way: "In the broadest sense,
sociology is the study of human interactions and inter-relations, their conditions and
consequences".
How does ‘sociological thinking’ differ from commonsense?
Many people mistakenly believe that sociology is the study of the obvious. They claim that
sociology is nothing but the application of common sense. But equating any science with simple
common sense could not be further from the truth! Common sense is not always “common,” nor
“sensible.” Statements like “Birds of a feather flock together” and “Opposites attract,” while
supposedly based on common knowledge, contradict each other. Because common sense does
not always accurately predict reality, people need something else.
 Not every sociological finding is revolutionary; many findings do appear consistent with
common sense. By systematically testing common sense beliefs against facts, sociologists
can sort out which popular beliefs hold true and which do not. To accomplish this,
sociologists use a variety of social science research designs and methods.
 Sociology as a discipline is more than common sense. Sociology is a method of inquiry
that requires the systematic testing of beliefs against evidence. Sociologists, therefore,
make determining whether specific ideas are fact or fiction their job.
 Sociology is a scientific study of society. It aims to make our lives easy by providing
OBJECTIVE understanding of social phenomenon which can be used to deal with social
problems. As sociologist Andre Beteille says it is based upon certain laws, research
methodology and data. It emergence was influenced by the methods of natural sciences
and in the belief that society can be studied through laws. It is coherent and the findings
can be generalized upto a certain extent if not universally.
 Common Sense on the other hand is based upon observation, casual knowledge and the
knowledge generated is fragmented, localized and particular. It is based upon tradition

thus it is resistant to change. It also tends to protect status quo as the held beliefs enforce
stereotypes. Common sense knowledge also lacks reliability and validity.
 Whereas Sociology findings are based upon empirical evidence. Peter Berger says that
the task of Sociology is to look beyond common sense knowledge. The concept of Latent
Function of R. K. Merton is a case in point. For example: It may be common sense
knowledge that cause of poverty is that people are not willing to work or it is the sins of
past life that has inflicted poverty in this life. But Sociological research says that poverty
is more due to structural inequality, inequality of opportunity, lack of skills etc.
 Weberian Sociologists, Phenomenologists like Alfred Schutz, Ethnomedologists like
Harold Garfinkel and Symbolic Integrationist's make use of common sense knowledge to
interpret the meanings individual attach in their construction of social reality. Thus
sociology has to maintain a thin line, as a subject, between common sense and completely
technical virtuosity.
Major School of thoughts in Sociology:
 Allam Ibn-e- Khuldoon (The Muqaddimah and Al Asibiyyah)

 Auguste Comte (Law of three stages, Religion of Humanity)
 Herbert Spencer (Social Evaluation, Organic Analogy, Militant /
Military Society vs Industrial Society)
 Émile Durkheim (The theory of suicide)
 Karl Marx (Conflict Theory, Labor Theory)
 Max Weber (The theory of Bureaucracy)
 Robert K. Merton (Social Strain)
 Charles Horton Cooley (Looking glass self)
Sociology therefore emerged as an extension of the new worldview of science; as a part of the
Enlightenment project and its appreciation of historical change, social injustice, and the
possibilities of social reform; and as a crucial response to the new and unprecedented types of
social problems that appeared in the 19th century. It did not emerge as a unified science,
however, as its founders brought distinctly different perspectives to its early formulations.
1. ALAMA IBN E KHALDOON
Early life: Ibn Khaldoon was born in Tunisia in 732 A.H. to a fairly well-to-do family who had
earlier migrated from Seville in Muslim Spain. His lineage goes to Yemen which land our hero's
family had left in the company of the army that conquered Spain.
Intellectual life: During his childhood in Tunis, Ibn Khaldoon must have had his share in his
family's active participation in the intellectual life of the city, and to a lesser degree, its political
life, the household in which Ibn Khaldoon was raised was frequented by the political and
intellectual leaders of Western Islam (i.e. North Africa and Spain), many of whom took refuge
there and were protected against angry rulers.
Active political life: Ibn Khaldoon led a very active political life before he decided to write his
well-known masterpiece on history. He worked for rulers in Tunis and Fez (in Morocco),
Granada (in Muslim Spain) and Baja (in Tunisia) successively. At the age of forty-three, Ibn

Khaldoon finally succeeded in crossing over once more to Muslim Spain, not with ambitious
designs of his youth, but as a tired and embittered man with no purpose save escaping the turmoil
of North Africa." Unfortunately, the ruler of Granada caused Ibn Khaldoon's friend, Ibn Al-
Khateeb, to flee to North Africa. When he learnt of Ibn Khaldoon's attempts to help his friend, he
was expelled from Granada. So he went back to North Africa to spend four years in seclusion to
do some thinking in peace.
Great Scholar: Intellectually, Ibn Khaldoon was well-educated, having studied (in Tunis first
and Fez later) the Quran, Hadeeth and other branches of Islamic studies such as dialectical
theology, Sharee'ah (Islamic Jurisprudence). He also studied Arabic literature, philosophy,
mathematics and astronomy. But we can safely say that Ibn Khaldoon learnt very much from the
school of life in which he actively participated, moving from place to place and from one royal
court to another, sometimes at his own will, but often forced to do so by plotting rivals or
despotic rulers.
Intellectual gatherings with other scholars: Ibn Khaldoon learnt much from his meetings with
all sorts of rulers, ambassadors, politicians and scholars, he came in contact with in North Africa,
Muslim Spain, Egypt and other parts of the Muslim World. All of these circumstances and
experiences seem to have contributed to the formation of his views on history, culture and
society, neatly expressed in his book on history and concisely summed up in his well-known
master-piece “Al-Muqaddimah (‘Prologue’).”
A) the Muqaddimah:
1) Chapter I: Human civilization in general
2) Chapter II: Bedouin civilization, savage nations and tribes and their conditions of life,
including several basic and explanatory statements
3) Chapter III: On dynasties, royal authority, the caliphate, government ranks, and all that goes
with these things. The chapter contains basic and supplementary propositions
4) Chapter IV: Countries and cities, and all other forms of sedentary civilization. The
conditions occurring there. Primary and secondary considerations in this connection
5) Chapter V: On the various aspects of making a living, such as profit and the crafts. The
conditions that occur in this connection. A number of problems are connected with this
subject
6) Chapter VI: The various kinds of sciences. The methods of instruction. The conditions that
obtain in these connections. The chapter includes a prefatory discussion and appendices
7) Concluding Remarks
Who Should Read “The Muqaddimah”? And Why?

 If you are history lover, or eager to study the process of evolution from another
standpoint, then this is the book for you.
 The ability of thinking.
 Teaching is a Craft
 The ability to plunge into a discussion, interact, and think of solutions distinguish us as
human beings from other species. That’s the basis of survival that aided the humankind
for centuries and continues in the same fashion.

 Introduction to history, he discussed historical method and provided the necessary criteria
for distinguishing historical truth from error
 Considered one of the most phenomenal works on the philosophy of history ever written
where he related the social impact of community or event
 An important role in providing conceptual and paradigmatic frameworks as well as an
epistemological foundation of the study of human society.
 This impressive document is a gist of his wisdom and hard earned experience.
 Use his political and first had knowledge of the people of Maghrib to formulate many of
his ideas.
 Discussion of Tribal societies and social forces would be the most interesting part of his
thesis.
 His theories of the science of Umran(sociology) are all pearls of wisdom
Ibn Khaldun starts the Muqaddimah with a thorough criticism of the mistakes regularly

committed by his fellow historians and the difficulties which await the historian in his work. He
notes seven critical issues:
"All records, by their very nature, are liable to error...
1. ...Partisanship towards a creed or opinion...

2. ...Over-confidence in one's sources...
3. ...The failure to understand what is intended...
4. ...A mistaken belief in the truth...
5. ...The inability to place an event in its real context
6. ...The common desire to gain favor of those of high ranks, by praising them, by
spreading their fame...
7. ...The most important is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformation of
human society."
Against the seventh point (the ignorance of social laws) Ibn Khaldun lays out his theory of
human society in the Muqaddimah.
Sati' al-Husri suggested that Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah is essentially a sociological work,

sketching over its six books a general sociology; a sociology of politics; a sociology of urban
life; a sociology of economics; and a sociology of knowledge.
Scientific method: Ibn Khaldun often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance
of historical data." As a result, he introduced the scientific method to the social sciences, which
was considered something "new to his age", and he often referred to it as his "new science" and
developed his own new terminology for it.

His historical method also laid the groundwork for the observation of the role of state ,
communication, propaganda and systematic bias in history, leading to his development
of historiography.
Historical method:
In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun warned ofseven mistakes that he thought that historians
regularly committed. In this criticism, he approached the past as strange and in need of
interpretation. The originality of Ibn Khaldun was to claim that the cultural difference of another
age must govern the evaluation of relevant historical material, to distinguish the principles
according to which it might be possible to attempt the evaluation, and lastly, to feel the need for
experience, in addition to rational principles, in order to assess a culture of the past. Ibn Khaldun
often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data.
"As a result, he introduced a scientific method to the study of history, which was
considered something "new to his age", and he often referred to it as his "new science",
now associated with historiography. His historical method also laid the groundwork for the
observation of the role of state, communication, propaganda and systematic bias in history, and
he is thus considered to be the "father of historiography or the "father of the philosophy of
history".
Ibn Khaldun' makes the following comments on his scientific historical method in
his Muqaddimah:
 "History is a science"
 "History has a content and the historian should account for it"
 "The historian should account for the elements that gather to make the human history"
 "He should also work according to the laws of history"
 "History is a philosophical science"
 "History is composed of news about the days, states and the previous centuries. It is a
theory, an analysis and justification about the creatures and their principles, and a science
of how the incidents happen and their reasons"
 "Myths have nothing to do with history and should be refuted"
 "To build strong historical records, the historian should rely on necessary rules for the
truth comparison"
The revolutionary views of Ibn Khaldoon have always attracted not only Arab scholars’
attention but the attention of many a Western thinker as well. In his study of history Ibn
Khaldoon was a pioneer in subjecting historical reports to the two basic criteria of (1) reason and
(2) social and physical laws. He considered the following four points worthy of consideration in
studying and analyzing historical reports:
1) Relating events to each other through cause and effect.

2) Drawing analogy between the past and the present.
3) Taking into consideration the effect of the environment.
4) Taking into consideration the effect of inherited and economic conditions.

But Ibn Khaldoon's work was more than a critical study of history. It was, in fact, a study of
human civilization in general, its beginning, factors contributing to its development, and the
causes of its decline. Thus, unwittingly, Ibn Khaldoon founded a new science: The science of
social development or sociology, as we call it today.
B) Asabiyyah:
Asabiyya or asabiyyah (Arabic: ‫بيّة‬HH‫ )عص‬refers to social solidarity with an emphasis on unity,
group consciousness and sense of shared purpose, and social cohesion, originally in a context of
"tribalism" and "clanism".
It was a familiar term in the pre-Islamic era, but became popularized in Khaldoon’s
Muqaddimah where it is described as the fundamental bond of human society and the basic
motive force of history.
Àsabiyya is neither necessarily nomadic nor based on blood relations; rather, it resembles
philosophy of classical republicanism.
In the modern period, the term is generally analogous to solidarity. However, it is often
negatively associated because it can sometimes suggest loyalty to one's group regardless of
circumstances, or partisanship.
Ibn Khaldun also argued that Àsabiyya is cyclical and directly related to the rise and fall of
civilizations: it is strongest at the start of a civilization, declines as the civilization advances, and
then another more compelling Asabiyyah eventually takes its place to help establish a different
civilization
 Ibn Khaldun uses the term Asabiyyah to describe the bond of cohesion among humans
in a group forming community. The bond, Asabiyyah, exists at any level of civilization,
from nomadic society to states and empires.
 Asabiyyah is most strong in the nomadic phase, and decreases as civilization
advances. As this Asabiyyah declines, another more compelling Asabiyyah may take its
place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of Asabiyyah as
they play out.
 Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its
own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of
great empires and use the much stronger Àsabiyya present in those areas to their
advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership.
 First barbarians but later on……This implies that the new rulers are at first considered
"barbarians" by comparison to the old ones. As they establish themselves at the center of
their empire, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful,
and more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle at the center of the
empire—i.e., their internal cohesion and ties to the original peripheral group, the
Àsabiyya, dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a
political unit. Thus, conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the
periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the
cycle anew.

Ibn Khaldun also further states in the Muqaddimah that "dynasties have a natural life span like
individuals", and that no dynasty generally lasts beyond three generations of about 40 years
each.
 In the first generation, the people who established the civilization are used to "privation
and to sharing their glory (with each other); they are brave and voracious. Therefore, the
strength of group feeling continues to be preserved among them".
 In the second generation, when the dynasty moves from "privation to luxury and plenty",
the people "become used to lowliness and obedience ... But many of the old virtues
remain" and they "live in hope that the conditions that existed in the first generation may
come back, or they live under the illusion that those conditions still exist."
 By the third generation, the people have forgotten the period of toughness "as if it had
never existed ... Luxury reaches its peak among them, because they are so much given to
a life of prosperity and ease. They become dependent on the dynasty ... Group feeling
disappears completely. People forget to protect and defend themselves and to press their
claims ... When someone comes and demands something from them, they cannot repel
him."
Examples
Nomadic invaders have on many occasions ended up adopting the religion and culture of the
civilizations they conquered, which was true for various Circassians, Berber, some of
the Crusades and Mongol invaders that invaded the medieval Islamic world and ended up
adopting Islamic religion and culture.
According to Khaldun, the Asabiyyah cycle was also true for every other pre-modern
civilization, whether in China whose dynastic cycles resemble the Asabiyyah cycles described by
Ibn Khaldun, in Europe where waves of barbarian invaders adopted Christianity and Greco-
Roman culture, or in India or Persia where nomadic invaders assimilated into those civilizations.
2. AUGUST COMETE:
The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857)—often called the “father of sociology”—
first used the term “sociology” in 1838 to refer to the scientific study of society. He believed that
all societies develop and progress through the following stages: religious, metaphysical, and
scientific. Comte argued that society needs scientific knowledge based on facts and evidence to
solve its problems—not speculation and superstition, which characterize the religious and
metaphysical stages of social development. Comte viewed the science of sociology as consisting
of two branches: dynamics, or the study of the processes by which societies change; and statics,
or the study of the processes by which societies endure. He also envisioned sociologists as
eventually developing a base of scientific social knowledge that would guide society into
positive directions.
A) Comtean Positivism
B) Law of Three Stages

C) Religion of humanity
Thinkers occupy a prime position in the development of any discipline, especially so in the social
sciences. Sociology 'is no exception to this rule, and in its emergence and develop a plethora of
social thinkers have made their contributions. Systematic study of sociology a science,
particularly, as a separate discipline, originated with Insider Auguste Francois M Xavier Comte
during nineteenth century. It is during this period modern sociology emerged the places like
France, Germany and England. Since then, galaxies of thinkers and writ have contributed to the
development of sociological thought. Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer Emile Durkheim and
Max Weber are the four men who are regarded as the central figures founding fathers and the
great masters of sociological thought in the. Development of mod sociology.'
Auguste Comte, a volatile Frenchman, philosopher, moralist and sociologist, traditionally

regarded as the father of sociology. He coined the term sociology and bee father of sociology. He
tried to create a new science of society, which would not only explain the past of mankind but
also predict its future course. Auguste Comate was born in France the year 1798. He invented a
new discipline which he called at first social physics and changed it to sociology thereafter.
"Auguste Comte may be considered as first and foremost, sociologist of human and social unity"
so writes the French sociologist Raymond Aron. Important works are:
(1) Positive Philosophy (1830-42).
(2) Systems of positive polity (1851 -54)
(3) Religion of Humanity (1856).
His contribution to sociology can be divided into four categories. They are namely: -
(1) Classification and ordering of social sciences.

(2) The nature, method and scope of sociology.
(3) The law of three stages.
(4) The plan for social reconstruction.
(5) Positivism.
LAW OF THREE STAGES:
Auguste Comte was the first person to proclaim Law of Three stages, which became the corner
stone of his thought. Of course, this famous law had been borrowed from R. J. Turgot, Y. B.Vico
and Saint-Simon. The law states that human thought has undergone three separate stages in its
evolution and development. According to him human thought as well as social progress pass
through three important stages. These three stages are the universal law of human progress.
These three stages are common in case of the development of human knowledge as well as social
evolution. Human individual is a staunch believer during childhood, then becomes a critical
metaphysician in adolescence and becomes a natural Philosopher during manhood. A similar
case of development takes place in case of human society. Law of Three Stages not only talks
about the progressive transformation of society but also explain the transformation in minds of

the people. The evolution of human mind goes hand in hand with a typical form of organization
of society. The period of growth and development in society is known as:
(1) Theological or Fictitious stage.

(2) Metaphysical' or Abstract stage.
(3) Positive or Scientific stage.
Comte stated that each succeeding stage is superior to the earlier stage.
1. Theological or Fictitious Stage:
During the primitive stage, the early man believed that all phenomena of nature are the creation
of the divine or supernatural. The primitive man and children do not have the scientific outlook,
therefore it is characterized by unscientific outlook. They failed to discover the natural causes of
various phenomena and hence attributed them to supernatural or divine power. For example,
primitive men saw God everywhere in nature. They supposed that excess or deficiency of rain
due to Godly wrath; such a casual explanation would be in terms of theological or fictitious
explanation. The theological stage of thinking may be divided into three sub-stages such as
a) Fetishism.
b) Anthropomorphism
c) Polytheism.
d) Monotheism.
a) Fetishism was the primary stage of theological stage of thinking. During this period
primitive people believed that there is a living spirit in the nonliving objects. This is
otherwise known as animism. People worshipped inanimate objects like tress, stones, a
piece of wood, etc. These objects are considered as Fetish.
b) Anthropomorphism: At certain stages, man thought that how all non-living objects
contain living objects. They got a doubt about the existence of gods in all non-living
organisms.
c) Polytheism means believing in many Gods. Primitive people believed that different
Gods control different natural forces. Each God had some definite function and his scope
and area of action was determined. For example, God of water, God of rain and God of
fire, God of air, etc.
d) Monotheism is the last and the most developed form of theological thinking.
Monotheism means believing in one God or God in one.
Book namely Homo Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is a book by Yuval Noah Harari first
published in Hebrew in Israel in 2011, and in English in 2014. The book surveys the history of
humankind from the evolution of archaic human species in the Stone Age up to the twenty-first
century, focusing on Homo sapiens. The account is situated within a framework provided by
the natural sciences, particularly evolutionary biology.
Harari's work situates its account of human history within a framework provided by the natural sciences,
particularly evolutionary biology: he sees biology as setting the limits of possibility for human activity,

and sees culture as shaping what happens within those bounds. The academic discipline of history is the
account of cultural change.
Harari surveys the history of humankind from the evolution of archaic human species in the Stone
Age up to the twenty-first century, focusing on Homo sapiens. He divides the history of Sapiens into
four major parts:
1. The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BC, when Sapiens evolved imagination).

2. The Agricultural Revolution (c. 10,000 BC, the development of agriculture).
3. The unification of humankind (the gradual consolidation of human political organizations
towards one global empire).
4. The Scientific Revolution (c. 1500 AD, the emergence of objective science).
2. Metaphysical or Abstract stage: -
Metaphysical stage is an extension of theological stage. During this period, reason and rationality
was growing. Reason replaced imagination. People tried to believe that God is an abstract being.
Soul is the spark of divine power i.e. inform of abstract forces. It is believed that an abstract
power or force guides and determines the events in the world. Metaphysical thinking discards
belief in concrete God. The nature of enquiry was legal and rational in nature. For example;
Classical Hindu Indian society where the principle of transmigration of soul, the conception of
rebirth, notions of pursuant has were largely governed by metaphysical uphill.
Metaphysical -- thought substitutes abstractions for a personal will. Here, causes and forces
replace desires. The world is one great entity in which Nature prevails. And finally Positive -- the
search for absolute knowledge, the first cause, is abandoned. In such a scheme, each stage
corresponds to a specific form of mental development. There is also a corresponding material
development.
Comte believed that historical development revealed a matching movement of ideas and
institutions. In the COURSE OF POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY, Comte attempted to demonstrate
that each science is necessarily dependent on the previous science, that is, science can only be
understood historically as the process of greater perfection. For example, before there can be an
effective physics, there must be astronomy. Furthermore, the history of the sciences reveals the
law that as the phenomenon become more complex, so to do the methods of those sciences. In
contrast to Descartes who saw only one right method of inquiry -- the geometrical method --
Comte believed that each science develops by logic proper to itself, a logic that is revealed only
by the historical study of that science. Comte, of course, claimed to go beyond Descartes -- after
all, hadn’t everybody else done the same thing? Like Vico, Herder, Hegel and Condorcet, Comte
studied the mind historically. The mind can only be explained in terms of what it has done in the
past.
3. Positive or Scientific Stage:

This positive stage is also known a scientific stage. The dawn of 19th century marked the
beginning of this stage. It is characterized by scientific knowledge. In this stage, human mind
gave up the taken for granted approach. At this stage, human mind tried to establish cause and
effect relationship. Scientific knowledge is based on facts. Facts are collected by observation and
classification of phenomena.
The final science which Comte claimed to have discovered and one which had not yet entered its
positive stage was sociology. It was sociology, he claimed, that would give ultimate meaning to
all the other sciences -- it was the one science which held the others together. Only sociology
would reveal that man is a developing creature who moves through three stages in each of his
sciences. With this profound assertion, Comte argued that we could finally understand the true
logic of mind. And in the 47th lesson of the fourth volume of the Course of Positive Philosophy,
Comte proposed the word sociology for this new science rather than the current
expression, physique sociale (or social physics).
Positivism is a purely intellectual way of looking at the world. Positivism emphasizes on

observation and classification of data and facts. One can observe uniformities or laws about
natural as well as social phenomena. Positivistic thinking is best suited to the need of industrial
society.
Criticisms:
The concept rational doesn't have universal meanings, what is rational to one society may not be
to society another.
Max Weber advocates that the nature of progress of society should not be studied by the
preconceived philosophical outlines rather they should be studied form objective and empirical
stand point.
C) RELIGION OF HUMANITY
Comte’s “theory of religion of humanity "though can considered one of his contribution to the
realm of social thought, it is only an insignificant place in the study of sociology or sociological
thought. Comte after successfully establishing the intellectual supremacy of positivism in his
earlier works, devoted his later writing to moral and religious consideration rather than to
scientific and sociological inquiries.
Religion of Humanity as a product of Comte’s Idealistic Imaginations.
Comte purported to establish a new religion a “Scientific Religion” or a “Religion of Humanity”.

Comte sincerely believed that he was to establish such a religion on a firm scientific foundation.
The “Theory of Religion of Humanity” Represent a Radical Change in the Development of

Comte’s Rational Thinking.

Comte a great champion if science or positivism could transform himself into an advocate of a
new religion, a religion of humanity. Comte says that a scientist requires the thirst for knowledge
and not the divine grace. Some biographical accidents did play an important role in this
transformation in his thinking
SOME SALIENT FEATURES OF COMTEAN RELIGION OF HUMANITY
 A Religion Without God: Comte’s “Religion of Humanity” is based on morality and

religion and upon a belief in a divine force. The main slogan of the Comtean Religion
thus reads “We should have religion but not God.
 New Religion Destined to a New Epoch: Comte claimed himself to be the high priest of
this new religion committed to “institute a reign of harmony, justice and equity
 A Social Religion Based Upon Morality: Comte considered himself primarily founder
of a new religion that promised salvation for all the ailment of mankind. Comte thus tried
to create a purely “social religion”.
 Comte Not in Favor of Traditional Christianity: Comte did not see in Christianity a
social keynote. Hence he attempted to create a purely social religion.
 Comtean Religion is virtually a Religion of Human Unity: Comte is the sociologist of

human unity and he wanted men to be united by common conviction and by a single
object of their love.
CRITICAL COMMENTS
1. Comte Religion of Humanity is widely criticized Christian Scholars say that the
religion of humanity is nothing more than a mixture of science and catholic
religion
2. Some have commented that it is not at all a religion but primarily a code of
morality.
3. J.S. Mill rightly remarked that Comtean ideas of religion, instead of protecting his
mental health made him lead an isolated life and develop strange thoughts
4. Thomas Huxley called Comte’s religion “Catholicism minus Christianity.
Conclusion:Overall it is concluded that comate religion is based on humanity. It means to say

that the main them is to combine and help each other on the basis of humanity. Therefore, it will
not be said that it more based on morality.
3. HERBERT SPENCER:

The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857)—often called the “father of sociology”—
first used the term “sociology” in 1838 to refer to the scientific study of society. He believed that
all societies develop and progress through the following stages: religious, metaphysical, and
scientific. Comte argued that society needs scientific knowledge based on facts and evidence to
solve its problems—not speculation and superstition, which characterize the religious and
metaphysical stages of social development. Comte viewed the science of sociology as consisting
of two branches: dynamics, or the study of the processes by which societies change; and statics,
or the study of the processes by which societies endure. He also envisioned sociologists as
eventually developing a base of scientific social knowledge that would guide society into
positive directions.
A) Social Evolution
Social Evolution Theory: Two of the main books written by Spencer namely, (i) “The Study of
Sociology “, (ii) “The Principles of Sociology”, provide us more details about his “theory of
social evolution.” Just as “the theory of organic evolution” analyses the birth, development,
evolution and finally death of the organism, in the same manner “the theory of social evolution”
analyses the genesis, development, evolution and finally the decay (?) of the society.
Spencer was of the opinion that the evolutionary principle could be applied to the human society
for he treated human society as an organism. Both the organism and the society grow from
simple to complex and from homogeneous to heterogeneous.
As Abraham and Morgan have pointed out “Spencer’s Theory of Evolution” involves two
essential but interrelated trends or strains of thought:
(i) Change from simplicity to complexity or movement from simple society to various levels of
compound societies; and
(ii) Change from military society to industrial society.
(i) Change from Simplicity to Complexity, or Movement from Simple Society to

Various Levels of Compound Society:
As Spencer repeatedly argued all phenomena in all fields proceed from simplicity to complexity.
Societies also undergo evolutionary stages of development. Spencer identified four types of
societies in terms of stages of their evolutionary development – simple, compound, doubly
compound and trebly compound.
a) Simple Society: This is the most primitive society without any complexities and
consisting of several families.
b) Compound Society: A large number of above mentioned simple societies make a
compound society. This is clan society.
c) Doubly Compound Society: These consist of several clans compounded into tribes or
tribal society.

d) Trebly Compound Society: Here the tribes are organized into nation states. This is the
present form of the world.
The master trend in this process of universal evolution is the increased differentiation of social
structures which leads inevitably to better integration and adaptation to environment.
(ii) Change from Military [Militant] Society to Industrial Society:

According to Spencer, evolution proceeds from military society to industrial society. The type of
social structure depends on the relation of a society to other societies in its significant
characteristics.
(i) Thus while the military society is characterized by compulsory co-operation, industrial soci-
ety is based on voluntary co-operation.
(ii) While the military society has a centralized government, the industrial society has a
decentralized government.
(iii) Military society has economic autonomy whereas it is not found in industrial society.
(iv) There is the domination of the state over all other social organizations in the military society
whereas in the industrial society the functions of the states are very much limited;
Some Observations Relating to Spencer’s “Theory of Social Evolution”:
1. No modern sociologist subscribes to the “theory of social evolution” in its original form as put
forward by Spencer. His attempt to equalize evolution with progress is totally rejected. But its
modified form known as “Theory of Neo-Evolutionism” advocated by the anthropologists like,
Leslie A. White, V. Gordon Childe and others, is getting some publicity in the anthropological
circles.
2. Bargardus is unhappy with Spencer’s theory of social evolution for it underestimates the
importance of man. He writes: “The emphasis upon ‘man’ as a primary unit neglects the
importance of the ‘group’ in the social evolutionary process. Moreover, Spencer underrated the
intellectual nature of primitive man; he denied to early man the qualities involving exclusiveness
of thought, imagination, and original ideas.”
3. Spencer had spoken of uniformity in the process of evolution. He “did not realize that societies
at the same stage of evolution do not necessarily possess identical politics, ethics, art and
religion.”
4. “While Spencer believed that social part exists for the social whole, today, society is believed
to exist for the welfare of the individuals.

B) Organic Analogy
Organic Analogy
Spencer is popularly known for his treatment of the organic analogy. The evolutionary doctrine
was no doubt the foundation of Spencer’s sociological theory. He, however, presented the
organic analogy, as a secondary doctrine which also played a vital role in his thought system.
“He established the hypothesis that society, is like a biological organism and then proceeded to
defend it against all objections with great logical force.” But his logic proved to be his
sociological downfall, for it spoiled his scientific insight.
Herbert Spencer came to sociology via biology. Therefore, he drew analogy between the society
and the biological organism. “So completely is society organized on the same system as an
individual that we may perceive something more than an analogy between them, the same
definition of life applied to both [biological and social organism]
Spencer believed that the social structure is a living organism. He took great pains to elaborate in
great detail the organic analogy which is the identification of society with a biological organism.
Indeed, he regarded the recognition of similarity between society and organism as a major step
towards a general theory of evolution.
He concentrated on bringing forth wonderful parallels between organic and social evolution,
between similarities in the structure and evolution of organic and social units. In fact, biological
analogies occupy an important role in all of Spencer’s sociological reasoning.
Similarities between Biological and Social Organism – As visualized by Spencer:
Spencer wanted to explain the nature of social structure by the help of the organismic theory. He
observed some similarities between biological and social organisms.
1. Similarity in Visible Growth: Both society and organism are distinguished from inorganic
matter by means of their visible growth. Thus both society and the organism are subject to
growth. Example: A child grows up to be a man; a tiny community becomes a metropolitan area;
a small state becomes an empire, and so on.
2. An Increase in the Complexity of Structure: As both society and organisms grow in size
they also increase in complexity of structure. Primitive organisms [like amoeba] are simple
whereas the highest organisms [like the mammals] are very complex. Primitive community was
very simple whereas the modern industrial society is highly complex.
3. Differentiation of Structure Leading to Differentiation of Functions: In societies and in
organism’s progressive differentiation of structure is accompanied by progressive differentiation
of functions. It is quite obvious. The primitive living organism was a unicellular creature; but
with the increase in the cells, differentiation of organs resulted, at the highest levels of evolution
the structure of the body is quite complex.
Similar is the case with society. In the case of an organism that has very complex organs, each
organ performs a specified function. Similarly, in the case of complex society subdivided into
many different organizations, each organization carries on a specified function.

4. Change in Structure Leads to Change in Functions: When change takes place in the struc-
ture of organs and communities, there results a change in their functions. The function becomes
more and more specialized. This applies to the body of a living creature as well as to the society.
5. Differentiation as well as Harmony of Organs: Evolution establishes for both societies and
organisms, differences in structure and function that make each other possible. Evolution leads to
development of greater differentiation of the organs of society as also that of an individual.
Along with this differentiation there is also the harmony between various organs. Each organ is
complementary to the other and not opposed. This holds true both in the body of a living
organism and society.
6. Loss of an Organ does not necessarily Result in the Loss of Organism: Both society and
the individual are organisms. It is common to both that a loss of one organ or the other does not
necessarily result in the death of an organism. For example, if an individual loses his leg he does
not necessarily meet with his death. Similarly, in society if some association or a political party
disintegrates it does not invariably lead to the decay of the society.
7. Similar Process and Methods of Organization: In discussing the organic analogy further
Spencer compared —
(i) The alimentary system of an organism to the productive industries, or the

sustaining system in the society.
(ii) There is a strong parallelism between the circulation system of an organism and
the distributing system in society with its transportation lines and with its
commercial classes and media of exchange.
(iii) In both the cases there are developed regulating systems. In society, there is the
social control mechanism to fulfill the regulative function. In an organism there
are dominant centers and subordinate centers, the senses, and a neural apparatus
to perform the tasks of the regulating system.
These parallelisms throw only a small measure of light upon the nature of society. But they
become ridiculous when carried to an extreme.
Differences between Organism and Society – As Visualized by Spencer:
Spencer had recognized important differences between societies and organisms. He said, “The
parts of an animal form a concrete whole, but the parts of society form a whole which is discrete.
While the living units, composing the one are bound together in close contact; the living units
composing the other, are free, are not in contact, and are more or less widely dispersed.” In
simple words, the organism is a concrete, integrated whole whereas society is a whole composed
of discrete and dispersed elements.

The main differences between the society and a living organism which cannot be overlooked
were noted by Spencer. They are listed below:
1. Organs are organized, but Parts of Society are Independent: As Spencer has observed
various organs of the body are incapable of independent existence, whereas various parts of
society can exist independently.
Example:
Limbs of the organism such as legs, hands, face, etc., cannot have existence outside the physical
body of the organism. But the parts of society such as family, school, army, police, political
parties, etc., are relatively independent and are not organically fixed to the society. The
movement of the parts is relatively free here.
2. Society does not have a Definite Form as does the Organism: Unlike organisms, societies
have no specific external form, such as a physical body with limbs or a face. Organisms have an
outward form or shape [for example, dog, donkey, monkey, deer and so on] whereas societies
such as Indian society or American society do not have any definite and externally identifiable
form. Society is only a mental construct. It is abstract and exists in our mind only in the form of
an idea.
3. Manner of Difference in the Dependence of Organs or Parts on the Organism or Society:

According to Spencer, parts or organs of the body [such as legs, hands, nose, eyes, head, etc.] of
the organism are dependent upon the body itself. They exist for the sake of the body. On the
other hand, in the case of society the parts [such as individuals, families, groups, etc.] are more
important than the society.
In fact, society exists for the benefit of its parts, that is, individuals. Spencer as a champion of the
philosophy of individualism very strongly felt that the state and society exist for the good of the
individual and not vice versa.
4. Difference Regarding the Centrality of “Consciousness”: In an organism, there exists what

is known as “consciousness” and it is concentrated in a small part of the aggregate. The parts of
the body do not have this. But in the case of the society consciousness is diffused throughout the
individual members.
5. Differences Regarding the Structure and Functions: In the case of organism each of its
parts performs a definite and fixed function. The parts perform their functions incessantly. This
certainty relating to the functions of the parts, we do not find in society. Functions of the parts of
society such as institutions often get changed. Some of the functions of family, for example, have
changed. On the contrary, the eyes, heart, nerves, ears, tongue and other organs of the organism
cannot change their functions.
It is quite interesting to note that Spencer made an elaborate effort to establish the similarities
and differences between organic and social life. He persistently endeavored to establish the

organic analogy as the central theme of the second part of his “Principles of Sociology.” But at
one stage he denied that he held to this doctrine of organic analogy.
Replying to critics he made statements such as the following: “I have used analogies, but only as
a scaffolding to help in building up a coherent body of sociological induction. Let us take away
the scaffolding: the induction will stand by themselves.”
Critical Comments:
a) Spencer used his organic analogy in a ridiculous manner when he compared the King’s
Council to the medulla oblongata, the House of Lords to the cerebellum, and the House
of Commons to the cerebrum He failed to understand the limitations of his analogy.
b) Spencer used his analogy in a very dogmatic manner, but later referred to it as merely
scaffolding for building a structure of deductions. He actually proceeded as if the
scaffolding were the real building. “Unfortunately, he consistently and conspicuously
used the terminology of organisms.
c) The organic analogy was used by thinkers in their discussions even prior to Spencer. But
Spencer was the first to give to that analogy the value of scientific theory. But he was
very definitely taken a prisoner by the ghost he had evoked.
d) If a society is like an organism, it experiences a natural cycle of birth, maturity, old age,
and death. But the death of a society does not come with organic inevitableness. A
society need not die.
e) Whether we accept or reject Spencer’s comparisons between the human society and the
organism, we are bound to acknowledge the fact that he popularized the concept of
“system” in our sociological discussion. Present-day sociology profusely uses Spencer’s
concept of “system”, of course, in a modified form.
C) Militant or Military Society Vs Industrial Society
Essay on Types of Society – Classification and Comparison – Spencer’s clear conception of the

nature of society helped him develop models to classify and compare societies. Two models
which he followed could be identified from this analysis.
A. Classification of Societies on the Basis of the “Degree of Composition”: Spencer’s

evolutionary law suggested that societies could be classified on the basis of their “degree of
composition.” On this basis he classified societies into four types.
1. Simple Society,
2. Compound Society,
3. Doubly Compound Society,
4. Trebly Compound Society.
B. Classification Based on the Method of constructing priests:
“Models” or “Types” of Society:

According to Ronald Fletcher, Spencer also classified societies into (i) Military Society, and (ii)
Industrial Society, on the basis of the relative preponderance of one or the other of the
“Regulating”, “Sustaining” and “Distributive” systems.
Military Society and Industrial Society: Spencer thought of constructing two extremely
dissimilar “types” or “models” to classify societies into two categories. He called the types as
“militant societies” and “industrial societies.” The first was a type in which the “Regulating
System” was dominant over all the other aspects of society.
The second was one in which the “Sustaining System” was emphasized, and all the other aspects
of society were subordinated to its service. Spencer developed the construction of “two polar
types” mainly for the sake of a clear understanding of societies which possessed a relative
preponderance of one or other of the two systems.
Spencer described his “two types” of society as follows:
A. The Militant [Military]
Society: Military Society is any form of society in which the military exerts a dominant or
pervasive role. Its main characteristics may be noted below:
1. Organization for Offensive and Defensive Military Action: The militant society is a type in
which organization for offensive and defensive military action is predominant. It is the society in
which the army is the nation mobilized and the whole nation is regarded as a silent army. Here,
the entire structure of society is molded into military structure. It reflects a military organization.
2. Centralized Pattern of Authority and Social Control: Here the military head is also the
political head. He has a despotic control over life and property of all his subjects. Absolute
control of the ruler makes necessary a clear, precise and rigid hierarchy of power throughout
society. The officials at each level are completely subservient to that above. Spencer wrote: “All
are slaves to those above and despots to those below.
3. Rigid Social Classes: This rigid hierarchy of power necessarily involves a rigid grading of
social statuses. Hence it gives rise to rigid social classes in economic life. The distribution of
property, and the distribution of material rewards in society, is meticulously linked with the order
of social ranks.
4. Religious Beliefs and Doctrines relating to the Hierarchical Power of Gods: This
authoritarian and hierarchical nature of the society is also reflected in the prevailing system of
ideas and beliefs. There exists a set of doctrines, myths, and rituals which portray a supernatural
authority and government. The gods are also pictured in terms of a hierarchy of power.
The religion itself is a hierarchical organization, and the Ecclesiastical Head himself possesses
supreme, despotic authority. In such a society, the despotic head is, at the same time, not only the

military and political head, but also the Ecclesiastical one. His central power over government,
army, and all civil and economic affairs, is sanctified and given justification by religion.
Here, the societies are normally in antagonism with other societies. Thus Spencer said: “Ever in
antagonism with other societies the life is a life of enmity and the religion a religion of enmity.”
Life is Subject to Rigorous Discipline: The whole tenor of life in a military society is
characterized by rigorous discipline. Virtually there is no difference between the public life and
the private life. No element of the private life of the citizen is closed to the state. The state can
invade and interfere in the private lives of citizens whenever it is felt necessary or desirable to do
so. There is the lack of individual rights in the relationship between individual and the state.
Thus the prevailing belief is – “that its members exist for the benefit of the whole and not the
whole for the benefit of its members. The loyalty of the individual to the state has to be
unquestioning.
Human Relationship Based on Compulsory Co-operation: Human relationships are

characterized in this kind of society by a state of “compulsory co-operation.” Spencer, however,
has not elaborated this point much.
It is clear from the above description that Spencer’s “Militant type” of society could be used as a
basis of interpretation not only to the despotic societies of the ancient world, but also to the
totalitarian societies in the contemporary world. As Ronald Fletcher says, as a “type”, the
“militant society” could be seen to be of wide use for the purpose of comparative societies. It is
relevant to the societies of both the past and the present.
B. The Industrial Society: The concept of “Industrial society” refers to “that form of society or
any particular society, in which industrialization and modernization have occurred. The general
term “industrial society” originates from Saint Simon who chose it to reflect the emerging central
role of manufacturing industry in 18th century Europe, in contrast with the previous pre-
industrial society and agrarian society.
Spencer’s “Industrial Society” is one in which military activity and organization exists but it is
carried on at a distance. It takes place in the periphery of the society and the greater part of the
social organization is peaceful. It concentrates upon the increase and improvement of all aspects
The characteristics of “industrial society” in this way contrast strongly with those of the “militant
type.” They are briefed below.
1. Recognition of Personal Rights: In the industrial society the members hold “personal rights”
as citizens of the community. There is also an active concern on the part of the members for the
maintenance of these rights. Hence they insist upon an effective means of representative
government. Any dispute or mutual claims and counter-claims relating to the rights are to be
resolved here through an impartial procedure or institutional arrangement.

2. “Sustaining System” Possessing a Large Degree of Freedom: In this society, the
“sustaining system” possesses a large degree of freedom from the “regulatory system.” Here the
control and governance of the economic affairs is deliberately separated from the political
government.
It is assumed here that the intelligent individuals concerned with their own economic activities
are more capable of making their own decisions than the administrative officials. They are not
only allowed, they are actively encouraged, to do so.
3. Opportunity for the Growth of Free Associations and Institutions: The growth of
agriculture, commerce and industrial manufacture within a fixed geographic territory is given
military security. The peaceful atmosphere leads to the growth of free associations and
institutions. In all such associations, forming committees, laying down rules and procedures,
conducting elections, etc. become a common practice.
4. A Less Rigid Class Structure: “These factors bring about a much less rigid and less
tyrannical class structure……….” [Ronald Fletcher – 285]. In this type of class structure human
relationships become contractual and free. Further, the gradations of status and rank are less
precisely marked. As Spencer puts it “There is a growth…………. of “combinations of workmen
and employers “to resolve, particular disputes, quite separately from central authority of law.”
5. In the Industrial Society, Religious Organizations and Religious Beliefs Lose their Hier-
archical Structure and Power: Individual faith and sectarian discrimination, enters into
religion. Religion instead of working as a means of social control remains only as a matter of
individual faith and commitment. Religious institutions and practices become more and more
secular in nature.
6. Here the Members of the Society do not exist for the Good of the State; but the Well-
being of the Individuals becomes the Supreme Objective of the Government: The doctrine
that the members of the society exist for the good of the state slowly disappearing. The idea that
the will and the well- being of the individual citizens which is of supreme importance in the
society, prevails upon the previous one. Hence all forms of governmental control exist merely to
manifest their wishes and to serve them.
7. Awareness of the Duty to Resist Irresponsible Government: In such a society the despotic
government is considered to be irrelevant and wrong. It becomes a positive duty on the part of
the citizens to resist the irresponsible government. “There is always a tendency to disobedience
amongst minorities and individuals, and such a critical tendency is positively encouraged.”
8. Dominance of Free and Contractual Type of Human Relationships: It is clear from the
above explanation that the “Human relationships in the industrial society are, therefore, wholly
different from those in the militant society. Free, responsible, contractual relationships between
individuals require voluntary co-operation, not the compulsory co-operation which characterizes
relationships in the militant type.
Characteristics of Military and Industrial Societies: A Contrast

Concluding Remarks:
It must be noted that “Spencer did not believe that societies actually existed in the world with the
sharp clarity of distinction that he described in drawing these “models.” [Ronald Fletcher – 286].
Spencer was aware that he was presenting those two “models” to help comparison of societies.
Spencer was of the opinion that this mode of classification would help to interpret and
understand some of the crucially important trends of social evolution. These trends, according to
him were of great importance as the traditional societies get radically transformed by the process
of industrialization.
This mode of classifying societies helped Spencer in undertaking a very detailed comparative
study of each major social institution within each “type” of society. “This gave him a picture of
what, in the whole field of social institutions had actually occurred in the past, and what was
happening in the present.”
In this classification of societies, it appears that Spencer was too optimistic about the industrial
society. Bargardus thus points out: “In the coming industrial order Spencer foresaw an era in
which the main business of society will be to defend the rights of “Individuals.” Spencer forecast
an epoch of industrial states which have abolished war. Experience would tell us that the wars
have not yet become the things of the past.
Bargardus further writes: “Spencer’s industrialism, however, had fundamental weaknesses. It

implies that social organization is more important than social process. It neglects to provide
sufficiently for inherent psychical changes. It assumes that an industrial society, as such, will be
peaceful. It underestimates the importance of socializing motives” [Bargardus]
A Word about Spencer’s Contributions:
 Spencer’s contributions to social thought are not negligible, but recognizable. Unlike
those of Comte, Spencer’s views were widely accepted during his lifetime. They
dominated the minds of many scholars and others from 1865 to 1895. During the three
decades the leading thinkers and philosophers of the West had come under the influence
of Spencer.
 Spencer’s theories had a special appeal because they catered to the two needs of the day,
(a) the desire for unifying knowledge, and (b) the need for scientific justification for the
“laissez-faire” principle.
 Spencer emphasized the laws of evolution and natural causation. He described social
evolution as a phase of natural evolution.
 He strongly supported the principle of “individualism “, for he himself was
individualistic. He attacked the idea that the State is a master machine to which all the
citizens must submit automatically.
 Spencer formulated an integral theory of all reality. “His law of evolution is a cosmic
law. His theory is, therefore, essentially philosophical not sociological. Strictly speaking,
philosophers should check its validity” – L.A. Coser.

 Spencer’s organismic theory highly influenced the later sociologists like Paul
VonLilienfeld, Jacques Novicow, Ward, Sumner and Giddings.
 Spencer in his organic analogy suggested likenesses and differences between biological
organisms and human society.
 He made the role of social structures, or institutions stand out distinctly.
In conclusion, it could be said that “…… Spencer spoke in his writings to the needs
of his time.
Times have changed, but once again his work seems to commend itself to our age as it searches
for answers to age-old questions about how to live in community while maintaining
individuality.
The Contrast Between Militant and Industrial Societies

Characteristic Militant Society Industrial Society
Dominant function Corporate defensive and Peaceful, mutual rendering of
or activity offensive activity for preservation individual services
and aggrandizement
Principle of social Compulsory cooperation; Voluntary cooperation; regulation by
coordination regimentation by enforcement of contract and principles of justice;
orders; both positive and negative only negative regulation of activity
regulation of activity
Relations between Individuals exist for benefit of State exists for benefit of individuals;
state and state; restraints on liberty, freedom; few restraints on property
individual property, and mobility and mobility
Relations between Private organizations encourage

state and other All organizations public; private
organizations organizations excluded
Structure of state Centralized Decentralized

Structure of social Fixity of rank, occupation, and Plasticity and openness of rank,
stratification locality; inheritance of positions occupation, and locality; movement
between positions
Type of economic Economic autonomy and self- Loss of economic autonomy;
activity sufficiency; little external trade; interdependence via peaceful trade;
protectionism free trade
Valued social and Patriotism; courage; reverence; Independence; respect for others;
personal loyalty; obedience; faith in resistance to coercion; individual
characteristics authority; discipline initiative; truthfulness; kindness
4. Emile Durkheim

Despite their differences, Marx, Spencer, and Comte all acknowledged the importance of using
science to study society, although none actually used scientific methods. Not until Emile
Durkheim (1858–1917) did a person systematically apply scientific methods to sociology as a
discipline. A French philosopher and sociologist, Durkheim stressed the importance of
studying social facts, or patterns of behavior characteristic of a particular group. The
phenomenon of suicide especially interested Durkheim. But he did not limit his ideas on the
topic to mere speculation. Durkheim formulated his conclusions about the causes of suicide
based on the analysis of large amounts of statistical data collected from various European
countries.
Durkheim certainly advocated the use of systematic observation to study sociological events, but
he also recommended that sociologists avoid considering people's attitudes when explaining
society. Sociologists should only consider as objective “evidence” what they themselves can
directly observe. In other words, they must not concern themselves with people's subjective
experiences.
A) THEORY OF SUICIDE
Essay on Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide – Durkheim’s third famous book “Suicide” published in
1897 is in various respects related to his study of division of labor. “Suicide”, the act of taking
one’s own life, figures prominently in the historical development of sociology because it was the
subject of the first sociological data to test a theory.
Durkheim’s theory of suicide is cited as “a monumental landmark in which conceptual theory

and empirical research are brought together. Durkheim’s book “Suicide” is an analysis of a
phenomenon regarded as pathological, intended to throw light on the evil which threatens
modern industrial societies, that is, “anomie.” Suicide is an indication of disorganization of both
individual and society. Increasing number of suicides clearly indicates something wrong
somewhere in the social system of the concerned society. Durkheim has studied this problem at
some length.
Durkheim’s study of suicide begins with a definition of the phenomenon. He then proceeds to
refute the earlier interpretations of suicide. Finally, he develops a general theory of the
phenomenon.
Definition of Suicide: According to Durkheim, suicide refers to “every case of death resulting
directly or indirectly from a positive or negative death performed by the victim himself and
which strives to produce this result.”
It is clear from the definition of Durkheim that suicide is a conscious act and the person
concerned is fully aware of its consequences. The person who shoots himself to death, or drinks
severe poison, or jumps down from the 10th story of a building, for example, is fully aware of
the consequences of such an act.
Brief Evaluation of Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide Comments in Appreciation of the

Theory:

1. As L.A. Coser stated, Durkheim’s study of “suicide” could be cited as a monumental land
work study in which conceptual theory and empirical research are brought together in an
imposing manner.”
2. As Abraham and Morgan have said “the larger significance of suicide lies in its demonstration
of the function of sociological theory in empirical science”.
3. A successful attempt is made in this theory to establish logically the link between social
solidarity, social.
4. Durkheim has thrown light on the various faces of suicide. He is, indeed, the first person in
this regard.
Two Main Purposes behind this Study:
Durkheim used a number of statistical records to establish his fundamental idea that suicide is
also a social fact and social order and disorder are at the very root of suicide. As Abraham and
Morgan have pointed out, Durkheim made use of statistical analysis for two primary reasons.
They are stated below:
(a) To refute theories of suicide based on psychology, biology, genetics, climate, and
geographic factors,
(b) To support with empirical evidence his own sociological explanation of suicide.
Durkheim Displays an Extreme Form of Sociological Realism:
Durkheim is of the firm belief that suicide is not an individual act or a private and personal
action. It is caused by some power which is over and above the individual or “super-individual.”
It is not a personal situation but a manifestation of a social condition. He speaks of suicidal
currents as collective tendencies that dominate some vulnerable persons. The act of suicide is
nothing but the manifestation of these currents. Durkheim has selected the instance or event of
suicide to demonstrate the function of sociological theory.
Durkheim Chooses Statistical Method to Know the Causes of Suicide:
Durkheim wanted to know why people commit suicide, and he chooses to think that explanations
focusing on the psychology of the individual were inadequate. Experiments on suicide were
obviously out of question.
Case studies of the past suicides would be of little use, because they do not provide reliable
generalizations, about all suicides. Survey methods were hardly appropriate, because one cannot
survey dead people. But statistics on suicide were readily available, and Durkheim chose to
analyze them.

Durkheim Rejects Extra-Social Factors as the Causes of Suicide:
Durkheim repudiated most of the accepted theories of suicide.
(1) His monographic study demonstrated that heredity, for example, is not a sufficient
explanation of suicide.
(2) Climatic and geographic factors are equally insufficient as explanatory factors.
(3) Likewise, waves of imitation are inadequate explanations.
(4) He also established the fact that suicide is not necessarily caused by the psychological
factors.
Social Forces are the Real Causes of Suicide: Durkheim:

Suicide is a highly individual act, yet the motives for a suicide can be fully understood only by
reference to the social context in which it occurs. In his attempts to substantiate this fact he came
to know that the incidence of suicide varied from one social group or set up to another and did so
in a consistent manner over the years.
Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics; people in large cities were more
likely to commit suicide than people in small communities; people living alone were more likely
to commit suicide than people living in families.
Durkheim isolated one independent variable that lay behind these differences: the extent to
which the individual was integrated into a social bond with others. People with fragile or weaker
ties to their community are more likely to take their own lives than people who have stronger
ties.
Durkheim’s Threefold Classification of Suicide:
Having dismissed explanations of extra-social factors, Durkheim proceeds to analyse the types of
suicide. He takes into account three types of suicide:
(a) Egoistic Suicide which results from the lack of the integration of the individual into his social
group.
(b) Altruistic Suicide is a kind of suicide which results from the over-integration of the
individual into his social group.
(c) Anomie Suicide results from the state of normlessness or degeneration found in society.
Having analyzed the above mentioned three types of suicide, Durkheim concludes that “suicide
is an individual phenomenon whose causes are essentially social.”
Suicide – An Index to Decay in Social Solidarity:

Durkheim has established the view that there are no societies in which suicide does not occur. It
means suicide may be considered a “normal”, that is, a regular, occurrence. However, sudden
increase in suicide rates may be witnessed.
This, he said, could be taken as “an index of disintegrating forces at work in a social structure.”
He also came to the conclusion that different rates of suicide are the consequences of differences
in degree and type of social solidarity. Suicide is a kind of index to decay in social solidarity.
Three Types of Suicide: On the basis of the analysis of a mass of data gathered by him on many
societies and cultures, Durkheim identified three basic types of suicides. They are as follows:
(i) Egoistic Suicide

(ii) Altruistic Suicide
(iii) Anomic Suicide.
According to Durkheim, all these occur as an expression of group breakdown of some kind or
the other. These three types of suicide reveal different types of relations between the actor and
his society.
1. Egoistic Suicide: Egoistic suicide is a product of relatively weak group integration. It takes
place as a result of extreme loneliness and also out of excess individualism. When men become
“detached from society”, and when the bonds that previously had tied them to their fellow beings
become loose – they are more prone to egoistic suicide.
According to Durkheim, egoistic suicides are committed by those individuals who have the
tendency to shut themselves up within themselves. Such individuals feel affronted, hurt and
ignored. Introversive traits gain upper hand in them.
Egoistic persons are aloof and cut off from the mainstream of society and do not take full interest
in social matters. Such persons get alienated and find it difficult to cope with social alienation
and feel impelled to commit suicide.
Durkheim’s belief is that lack of integration of the individuals into the social group is the main
cause for egoistic suicide. Durkheim studied varying degrees of integration of individuals into
their religion, family, political and national communities.
He found that among the Catholics suicides were comparatively less than among the Protestants.
He also found that Catholicism is able to integrate its members more fully into its fold.
On the other hand, Protestantism fosters spirit of free inquiry, permits great individual freedom,
lacks hierarchic organizations and has fewer common beliefs and practices. It is known that the
Catholic Church is more powerfully integrated than the Protestant church.
It is in this way the Protestants are more prone to commit suicide than the Catholics. Hence,
Durkheim generalized that the lack of integration is the main cause of egoistic suicide.

2. Altruistic Suicide: This kind of suicide takes place in the form of a sacrifice in which an
individual ends his life by heroic means so as to promote a cause or an ideal which is very dear
to him. It results from the over- integration of the individual into his group. In simple words,
altruistic suicide is taking off one’s own life for the sake of a cause. It means that even high level
of social solidarity induces suicide.
Examples:
(i) In some primitive societies and in modern armies such suicide takes place.
(ii) Japanese sometimes illustrate this type of suicide. They call it “Harakiri.” In this practice of
Harakiri, some Japanese go to the extent of taking off their lives for the sake of the larger social
unity. They consider that self-destruction would prevent the breakdown of social unity.
(iii) The practice of “sati” which was once in practice in North India is another example of this
kind.
(iv) The self-immolation by Buddhist monks, self-destruction in Nirvana under the Brahmanical
influence as found in the case of ancient Hindu sages represent other variants of altruistic
suicide. Wherever altruistic suicide is prevalent, man is always ready to sacrifice his life for a
great cause, principle, ideal or value.
3. Anomie Suicide: The breakdown of social norms and sudden social changes that are
characteristic of modern times, encourage anomie suicide. When the collective conscience
weakens, men fall victim to anomie suicide. “Without the social backing to which one is
accustomed, life is judged to be not worth continuing.”
Anomie suicide is the type that follows catastrophic social changes. Social life all around seems
to go to pieces. According to Durkheim, at times when social relations get disturbed both
personal and social ethics become the causalities. Values of life come down and outlook of some
persons changes radically. There are then certain dangerous developments in the society.
A sudden change has its vibrations both in social life and social relationship, which paves way
for suicide. If the change is sudden, adjustment becomes difficult and those who do not get
adjusted to changes commit suicide.
It is this social disruption which leads to suicide. According to Durkheim, not only economic
disaster and industrial crisis but even sudden economic prosperity can cause disruption and
deregulation and finally suicide.
Critical Comments:
1. Durkheim has given importance only to social factors in suicide. In doing so, he has neglected
the role of other factors, especially the psychological. Hence this is a one-sided view.
2. The theory is based upon a very small sample of data concerning suicide.

3. As criminologists have pointed out, economic, psychological and even religious factors may
lead to suicide. But Durkheim did not give any importance to these factors.
Concluding Remarks:
These three kinds of suicide understood as social types also correspond approximately to
psychological types. “Egoistic suicide tends to be characterized by a kind of apathy, an absence
of attachment to life; altruistic suicide, by a state of energy and passion; anomie suicide is
characterized by a state of irritation or disgust” – Raymond Aron.
Raymond Aron pointed out that Durkheim in his study of “suicide” has been successful in
establishing a social fact that there are “specific social phenomena which govern individual
phenomena. The most impressive, most eloquent example is that of the social forces which drive
individuals to their deaths, each believing that he is obeying only himself.”
B) ORGANIC SOLIDARITY AND MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY

Key Difference – Mechanic vs Organic Solidarity

Mechanic and Organic Solidarity are two concepts that emerge in the field of sociology between
which a key difference can be identified. These concepts were first introduced by Emilie
Durkheim, a key figure in Sociology. Durkheim was a functionalist who was rather optimistic
about the division of labor in the society. His view is captured in the book titled ‘The division of
labor in society’ which was first published in 1893. In this book, he presented two concepts
known as mechanic solidarity and organic solidarity. The key difference between mechanic and
organic solidarity is that while mechanic solidarity is visible in pre-industrial societies,
organic solidarity is visible in industrial societies.
What is Mechanic Solidarity?
The concept of solidarity is used in sociology to highlight the agreement and support that exists
in a society where people share their belief systems and work together. Durkheim uses the term
mechanic solidarity to refer to societies governed by similarities. Most of the pre-industrialized
societies such as hunting and gathering societies, agricultural societies are examples of mechanic
solidarity.
The key characteristics of such societies are that people share common belief systems and work
with others in cooperation. Communal activities are at the heart of such societies. There is a lot
of homogeneity among people in their thought, actions, education and even in the work that they
perform. In this sense, there is very little room for individuality. Another feature of mechanic
solidarity is that there exist repressive laws. Also, there is very little interdependence among
people as all are involved in similar types of work.

What is Organic Solidarity?
Organic solidarity can be seen in societies where there is a lot of specialization which leads to
high interdependence among individuals and organizations. Unlike in mechanic solidarity, where
there is a lot of homogeneity among the people, a contrasting image can be seen in organic
solidarity. This is visible in industrialized societies such as many of the modern societies, where
people have specific roles and specialized work. Since every individual is engaged in a special
role, this leads to a high level of interdependence because a single individual cannot perform all
tasks.
Some of the key characteristics of organic solidarity are high individuality, constitutional and
organizational laws, secularization, high population and density. Durkheim points out that
although there is a high division of labor in organic solidarity, this is necessary for the
functioning of the society because the contribution that each individual makes to the society
enables the society to function as a social unit.
What is the difference between Mechanic and Organic Solidarity?
Definitions of Mechanic and Organic Solidarity:
Mechanic Solidarity: Mechanic solidarity to refer to societies governed by similarities.
Organic Solidarity: Organic solidarity can be seen in societies where there is a lot of

specialization which leads to high interdependence among individuals and organizations.
Characteristics of Mechanic and Organic Solidarity:
Unit Mechanic Solidarity Organic Solidarity

Focus Mechanic solidarity focuses on Organic solidarity focuses on differences
similarities.
Individuality There is little room for Individuality is promoted
individuality.
Laws Laws are repressive Constitutional, organizational laws can
be seen.
Division of Labor Division of labor is low. Division of labor is very high as
specialization is at the heart of organic
solidarity.
Beliefs and Values and values are similar. There is a great variety of beliefs and
values
5. Karl Marx

Not everyone has shared Spencer's vision of societal harmony and stability. Chief among those
who disagreed was the German political philosopher and economist Karl Marx (1818–1883),
who observed society's exploitation of the poor by the rich and powerful. Marx argued that
Spencer's healthy societal “organism” was a falsehood. Rather than interdependence and
stability, Marx claimed that social conflict, especially class conflict, and competition mark all
societies.
The class of capitalists that Marx called the bourgeoisie particularly enraged him. Members of
the bourgeoisie own the means of production and exploit the class of laborers, called
the proletariat, who do not own the means of production. Marx believed that the very natures of
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat inescapably lock the two classes in conflict. But he then took
his ideas of class conflict one step further: He predicted that the laborers are not selectively
“unfit,” but are destined to overthrow the capitalists. Such a class revolution would establish a
“class‐free” society in which all people work according to their abilities and receive according to
their needs.
Unlike Spencer, Marx believed that economics, not natural selection, determines the differences
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He further claimed that a society's economic system
decides peoples' norms, values, mores, and religious beliefs, as well as the nature of the society's
political, governmental, and educational systems. Also unlike Spencer, Marx urged people to
take an active role in changing society rather than simply trusting it to evolve positively on its
own.
A) Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value

Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value
Karl Marx theories and the books revolutionized the world. His concepts on the equality for all
gave birth to a new system of governance.
Introduction:
Heinrich Karl Marx was a renowned sociologist of the 19th century (1818-1883). He presented
several theories, books and essays which later led to socialism. Marx was exponent supporter of
creating a balance between the 'Petit bourgeoisie' and 'Lumpen Proletariat'. Thus, he
overwhelmingly objected the capitalism. His work like The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital
and political economy revolutionized the whole world. Communist were all Marxist in nature.
The theory of Surplus Value is part of political economy, written by Karl Marx. Karl Marx’s
theory of class conflict, theory of alienation and theory of surplus value are interrelated as all
these theories speak against the capitalism or market economy. The further detail will only
illustrate the Marx theory of surplus value and its validity in the contemporary affairs.
THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE

The price of commodity produced is determined by the labor involved in that commodity. In the
complex capitalist environment laborer provides his services to his boss in order to produce a
commodity but in response to it he just gets a small chunk of the profit. The remaining profit

goes to the boss or who is responsible to conducting that business. The theory of surplus value
says that this laborer, his efforts are helpful, meaningful to the owner of that business as the
surplus amount goes to the boss instead of that laborer who is actually responsible for carrying
out the whole business. Thus, Karl Marx is of the view that a laborer and the person who is
carrying out the business be treated on the equal grounds but the capitalist economy does not
take care of this fact.
Explanation of the theory of surplus value

Labour
Labour is a domain between a man and the nature. The content of labour may remain the same at
different stages of man's history but the character of labour, however, undergoes revolutionary
changes whenever one mode of production is superseded by another. Therefore, objectively to
man's vital activity, labour is his eternal companion. Labour is a most important factor in the
evolution of world civilization.
Understanding labour under capitalism

This means that the means of production are owned by the capitalist and the labour will have an
association with the production of the commodity only. Furthermore, the product of the labour is
capitalist property by all means. He is just contributing his efforts for the well-being of the
capitalist.
Meaning of Surplus Value
 To understand the importance of value, it is important to brief about Marx's theory of

Surplus Value. According to this theory, the main postulates emphasized by Karl Marx
are:
 Commodity production is the outcome of a specific division of labour: “Only such
products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from different
kinds of labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private
individuals.”

The value of commodities expresses what private labors have in common: it is a socially
necessary quantity of labour.
Impacts
Karl Marx criticized this concept of dividing the class between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. In the
Marx theory of class conflict he enunciated the impacts of theory of surplus value. Surplus value
generates a handsome income for the 'owner' however it gives the diminishing returns to the
labour. Hence, this gives birth to petit bourgeois and lumpen proletariat. The former are those
who are rich, wealthy and influential in the society and the latter are those who are weak, poor
and remain at the discretion of the influential persons. Therefore, surplus value generates a class
conflict between the different strata of the people.

Secondly, surplus value gives birth to alienation. This means that a person who is capable and
talented yet, he cannot impart his full abilities to the work, led him to alienation. The reason
behind is that the boss is just concerned about his product regardless of the talent in the labour
and on the other hand, the labour being at the mercy of poor environmental conditions, he is
supposed to do the work under the wage system. The poor laborer does not have any other option
to make his livelihood.
Thirdly, the theory of alienation, class conflict and surplus value give birth to the polarization in
the society. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. Thus, such kind of
exploitation paralyses the society. So polarization creates a sense of deprivation amongst the
members of the society.
Fourthly, according to Marxist, surplus value gives birth to wars and arm conflict. The reason is
that the additional amount or profit earned by the big cartels is utilized on the wars. Thus, gives
birth to chaos and anarchy. Therefore, the Marxist school of thought believes in the closed
economy.
Karl Marx theory of surplus value in the contemporary affairs Karl Marx theories and the books
revolutionized the world. His concepts on the equality for all gave birth to a new system of
governance, i.e. communism. However, the communist could not refrain themselves from
aggressive design as Marxist believe that the surplus money in the capitalism is utilized for
fighting wars. But, history shows that the Russians also had an aggressive ideology. “Only such
products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from different kinds of
labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private individuals.”
Another point is that Marxist totally negates the liberalization of the economy. It talks about the
closed economy however; the capitalist economy is based upon the opening up the market for all.
Globalization is the essence of the capitalist economy. In doing so, it is noteworthy that China is
second largest economy of the world. The growth rate of China is 8%. She has surpassed
Germany. It is a well-established fact that China was never been able to reach such an apogee
prior to abolishing socialism. Now Chinese economy is open for the entire world.
Similarly, Indian economy was also a closed economy prior to bringing economic reforms by the
then finance minister Manmohan Singh. Now, the country is making rapid progress in the
economic field. America wants to capture the Indian market. Therefore, the future of the world
lies in the globalization. One cannot remain aloof from the entire world.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, Karl Marx theories are right in the sense of giving relief to the labour. This was
also good during that century. Russian and the Chinese who were the greatest exponent of the
communism also failed to convince the people for that economic system. Competitive markets
have made a rapid progress in the economic field. The competitive markets are making the things
cheaper for the people. This is also a good example of the market economy. The 21st century is
facing many other challenges to make this planet a peaceful place to live. World has pledged to

reduce poverty, improve maternal conditions and enhance global trade in the Millennium
Development Goals during World Summit. This can only be achieved by globalization.
B) LABOR THEORY
Karl Marx's labor theory of value asserts that the value of an object is solely a result of the labor
expended to produce it. According to this theory, the more labor or labor time that goes into an
object, the more it is worth. Marx defined value as "consumed labor time", and stated that "all
goods, considered economically, are only the product of labor and cost nothing except labor".
The labor theory of value is the fundamental premise of Marx's economics and the basis of his
analysis of the free market. If it is correct, then much of Marx's critique of capitalism is also
correct. But if it is false, virtually all of Marx's economic theory is wrong.
Here is an example of how the labor theory of value works: A worker in a factory is given $30
worth of material, and after working 3 hours producing a good, and using $10 worth of fuel to
run a machine, he creates a product which is sold for $100. According the Marx, the labor and
only the labor of the worker increased the value of the natural materials to $100. The worker is
thus justly entitled to a $60 payment, or $20 per hour.
If the worker is employed by a factory owner who pays him only $15 per hour, according to
Marx the $5 per hour the factory owner receives is simply a rip-off. The factory owner has done
nothing to earn the money and the $5 per hour he receives is "surplus value", representing
exploitation of the worker. Even the tools which the factory owner provided were, according to
Marx, necessarily produced by other workers.
According to the labor theory of value, all profits are the rightful earnings of the workers, and
when they are kept from the workers by capitalists, workers are simply being robbed. On the
basis of this theory, Marx called for the elimination of profits, for workers to seize factories and
for the overthrow of the "tyranny" of capitalism. His call to action has been heeded in many
countries throughout the world.
DURKHEIM & WEBER THEORIES:

COMPARISON AND RELEVANCE TODAY Introduction Classical, seminal sociological
theorists of the late 19th and early 20th century such as Durkheim and Weber were greatly
interested in religion and its effects on society. Like those of Plato and Aristotle from ancient
Greece, and Enlightenment philosophers from the 17th through 19th centuries, the ideas posited
by these sociologists continue to be examined today.
Durkheim and Weber had very complex and developed theories about the nature and effects of
religion. Of these, Durkheim and Weber are often more difficult to understand, especially in light
of the lack of context and examples in their primary texts. Religion was considered to be an
extremely important social variable in the work of these two.

Emile Durkheim: Emile Durkheim was a French sociologist with a background in anthropology,
and became known as ‘the father of sociology’. He lived from 1858-1917 and was educated in
both France and Germany. Durkheim viewed religion as an essential part of one’s social life and
went as far as to say that without religion society could not possibly exist cohesively. Religion,
as ‘the cement of society’, is entirely a social concept.
Durkheim’s method in studying religion was based on the scientific method. It does not take into
account specific beliefs or the origins of religions. Matters regarding the truth of religion are not
accounted for, nor is there any such thing as a false religion. The fact that a religion has survived
for so long gives the religion meaning, and that is central to the social dimension of religion.
Unlike most other sociologists of religion, Durkheim did feel that religion was real, and will
survive. There was nothing illusion or deceptive of religion, and a strong religion will simply
ensure social solidarity.
Max Weber: Max Weber was a German sociologist, economist, and political scientist. He lived
during the same time frame as Durkheim, from the late 19th to the early 20th century. Weber
saw religion as fulfilling self-interest. Although not to the same extent at Marx, Weber did feel
that religion was something that arose out of an individual need for life to have meaning. Unlike
Durkheim, society was not central, but rather what was important to study is how different
individuals of a religion relate to one another.
Weber’s method was groundbreaking at the time because he refuted all previous understandings
of history dealing with religion, particularly those of Marx, and of course, Durkheim.
Nonetheless, he did share some similarities with his French colleague. Like Durkheim, he used a
strict scientific outlook when studying the field, which helped to establish the field of sociology
as an academic discipline.
Comparison of Durkheim &Weber : In comparison studies, unlike Durkheim, who compared
social entities, Weber used the notion of the individual and ideal-types. From his studies, Weber
hypothetically created an ideal form, from whose characteristics can be taken from various
individuals or events. Weber argued that no scientific process can account for every issue
regarding his studies of sociology of religion.
Along with the use of ideal-types, Weber’s goal of sociology of religion was to understand the
individual impact of religion. While Durkheim stressed how religion caused society to remain
interconnected and moral, Weber did not feel it was necessary to delve into the social function of
religion. The personal role of religion and its individual meaning was much more crucial. He
refuses to allow the importance of religion to be reduced to something merely social. Max Weber
believed that religions provided meaning for individuals who aspired it. Religious beliefs are an
example of these self-interests. As far as Durkheim’s society theory relates, Weber believed that
the study of society and religion for that matter should be the study of the interrelation between
individuals.
Weber did not disagree with Durkheim regarding the reality of religions or its future. Weber and
Durkheim were in the minority of sociologists who believed that religion was real and sacred.
They also agreed that religion did have a future, albeit for different reasons. While Durkheim
thought religion was necessary for the society to exist, Weber believed that individuals who were

religious would be influenced to take part in so called worldly affairs, and succeed, such as
capitalist Protestants.
Emile Durkheim and Max Weber were not only the two founders of sociology, but also the
founders of sociology of religion. These two men, from roughly the same time period and
geography, approached their field with due scientific processes. However, while Durkheim
viewed religion to simply the basis and entity of social function, while Weber refused reduce
religion to a single theory, but saw the importance of religious ideas in the personal realm and
the influences it could have not only to oneself but to other surrounding individuals. Both
Durkheim and Weber attempted to interpret religion and its social composition, and understood
the nature of its utmost real importance and role it would have in the future of humanity
C) CONFLICT THEORY
Marx's Theory of Social Class and Class Structure
For Marx, the analysis of social class, class structures and changes in those structures are key to
understanding capitalism and other social systems or modes of production. In the Communist
Manifesto Marx and Engels comment that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history
of class struggles. (Bottomore, p. 75).
Analysis of class divisions and struggles is especially important in developing an understanding

of the nature of capitalism. For Marx, classes are defined and structured by the relations
concerning (i) work and labour and (ii) ownership or possession of property and the means of
production. These economic factors more fully govern social relationships in capitalism than
they did in earlier societies. While earlier societies contained various strata or groupings which
might be considered classes, these may have been strata or elites that were not based solely on
economic factors – e.g. priesthood, knights, or military elite.
Marx did not complete the manuscript that would have presented his overall view of social class.
Many of his writings concern the class structures of capitalism, the relationship among classes
the dynamics of class struggle, political power and classes, and the development of a classless
society, and from these a Marxian approach to class can be developed. Note that Hadden does
not discuss class in any detail, although the class structure of capitalism is implicit in the labour
theory of value and can be derived from this theory.
1. Classes in Capitalism
The main classes in capitalism are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. However, other classes
such as landlords, petty bourgeoisie, peasants, and lumpenproletariat also exist, but are not
primary in terms of the dynamics of capitalism.
a. Bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie or capitalists are the owners of capital, purchasing and
exploiting labour power, using the surplus value from employment of this labour power to
accumulate or expand their capital. It is the ownership of capital and its use to exploit labour and

expand capital are key here. Being wealthy is, in itself, not sufficient to make one a capitalist
(e.g. managers in the state sector or landlords). What is necessary is the active role of using this
wealth to make it self-expansive through employment and exploitation of labour.
Historically, the bourgeoisie began cities of medieval Europe, with the development of traders,
merchants, craftsperson’s, industrialists, manufacturers and others whose economic survival and
ability to increase wealth came from trade, commerce, or industry. In order for each of these to
expand their operations, they needed greater freedom to market products and expand economic
activities. In the struggle against the feudal authorities (church and secular political authorities)
this class formed and took on a progressive role. That is, they helped undermine the old
hierarchical and feudal order and create historical progress. For a segment of this class, wealth
came by employing labour (industrial capital), for others it came through trade (merchant
capital), banking and finance (finance capital), or using land in a capitalist manner (landed
capital). It was the industrial capitalists who employed labour to create capital that became the
leading sector of the bourgeoisie, whose economic activities ultimately changed society. In
Britain, this class became dominant politically and ideologically by the mid-nineteenth century.
By employing workers, industrial capital created the surplus value that could take on the various
forms such as profit, interest and rent.
b. Proletariat. The proletariat are owners of labour power (the ability to work), and mere owners
of labour power, with no other resources than the ability to work with their hands, bodies, and
minds. Since these workers have no property, in order to survive and obtain an income for
themselves and their families, they must find employment work for an employer. This means
working for a capitalist-employer in an exploitative social relationship.
This exploitative work relationship recreates or reproduces itself continually. If the capitalist-
employer is to make profits and accumulate capital, wages must be kept low. This means that the
proletariat is exploited, with the surplus time (above that required for creating subsistence)
worked by the worker creating surplus products. While the worker produces, the products
created by this labour are taken by the capitalist and sold – thus producing surplus value or profit
for the capitalist but poverty for workers. This occurs each day of labour process, preventing
workers from gaining ownership of property and recreating the conditions for further
exploitation.
The antagonistic and contradictory nature of this system is evident as capitalists attempting to
reduce wages and make workers work more intensively, while workers have exactly the opposite
set of interests. Work and the labour process in the capitalist mode of production are organized
so that workers remain property less members of the proletariat. The surplus products and value
created by workers turns into capital, which is accumulated.
Historically, the proletariat emerged as the aristocracy began to suffer financial difficulties in the
later middle ages. Many of those who were supported by working for the aristocracy lost their
livelihood – the "disbanding of the feudal retainers and the dissolution of the monasteries."
Using enclosures, changing the conditions of production in agriculture, and denying peasants
access to common lands and resources, landowners transformed land into pasture land for raising
sheep, or sold land to farmers who began to develop grain and livestock production. People who

had subsisted on the land were denied the possibility of making a living on the land, and they
become property less. Population growth was also considerable, and in some areas forced labour
(slavery, indentured servants, poor, prison) was used. While some people subsisted in rural
industry and craft production, factory production began to undermine these as well in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Together these changes created a large class of landless and
property less people who had no choice but to become members of the proletariat – many
working in factories. These people became free wage laborers, free from feudal ties and free
from a source of livelihood. Today we still talk of free labour markets and the dual meaning is
much the same.
While the relationship between workers and capitalists, or between labour and capital may
appear to be no more than an economic relationship of equals meeting equals in the labour
market, Marx shows how it is an exploitative social relationship. Not only is it exploitative, it is
contradictory, with the interests of the two partners in the relationship being directly opposed to
each other. Although at the same time, the two opposed interests are also partners in the sense
that both capital and labour are required in production and an exploitative relationship means an
exploiter and someone being exploited.
This relationship is further contradictory in that it is not just two sets of interests, but there is no
resolution of the capital-labour contradiction within the organization of capitalism as a system.
The contradictory relationship has class conflict built into it, and leads to periodic bursts of
strikes, crises, political struggles, and ultimately to the overthrow of bourgeois rule by the
proletariat. Class conflict of this sort results in historical change and is the motive force in the
history of capitalism.
c. Landlords. In addition to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, Marx discussed a number of
other classes. First, Marx mentions landowners or landlords as a class in Britain. While these
were historically important, and many still retain their wealth even today (e.g. the Royal Family),
they were considered by Marx to be a marginal class, once powerful and dominant but having
lost their central role in production and the organization of society. In order to retain their wealth,
some of these landowners were able to transform their wealth in land into landed capital. While
this constituted a somewhat different form than industrial capital, this meant that the land was
also used as capital, to accumulate. Labour may not be directly employed by landowners, but the
land is used as a means by which capital can be expanded.
d. Petty Bourgeoisie and Middle Class. The lower middle class or the petty (petite) bourgeoisie
(the bourgeoisie was sometimes called the middle class in this era), constitutes "the small
manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant" (Giddens and Held, p. 24). The
characteristic of this class is that it does own some property, but not sufficient to have all work
done by employees or workers. Members of this class must also work in order to survive, so they
have a dual existence – as (small scale) property owners and as workers. Because of this dual
role, members of this class have divided interests, usually wishing to preserve private property
and property rights, but with interests often opposed to those of the capitalist class. This class is
split internally as well, being geographically, industrially, and politically dispersed, so that it is
difficult for it to act as a class. Marx expected that this class would disappear as capitalism
developed, with members moving into the bourgeoisie or into the working class, depending on

whether or not they were successful. Many in this class have done this, but at the same time, this
class seems to keep recreating itself in different forms.
Marx considers the petite bourgeoisie to be politically conservative or reactionary, preferring to

return to an older order. This class has been considered by some Marxists to have been the base
of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. At other times, when it is acting in opposition to the interests
of large capital, it may have a more radical or reformist bent to it (anti-monopoly).
Note on the Middle Class. The issue of the middle class or classes appears to be a major issue
within Marxian theory, one often addressed by later Marxists. Many Marxists attempt to show
that the middle class is declining, and polarization of society into two classes is a strong
tendency within capitalism. Marx's view was that the successful members of the middle class
would become members of the bourgeoisie, while the unsuccessful would be forced into the
proletariat. In the last few years, many have argued that in North America, and perhaps on a
world scale, there is an increasing gap between rich and poor and there is a declining middle.
While there have been tendencies in this direction, especially among the farmers and peasantry,
there has been no clear long run trend toward decline of the middle class. At the same time as
there has been polarization of classes, there have been new middle groupings created. Some of
these are small business people, shopkeepers, and small producers while others are professional
and managerial personnel, and some intellectual personnel. Well paid working class members
and independent trades people might consider themselves to be members of the middle class.
Some segments of this grouping have expanded in number in recent years. While it is not clear
that these groups hold together and constitute a class in any Marxian sense of being combined in
opposition to other classes, they do form a middle grouping. Since Marx's prediction has not
come true, sociologists and other writers have devoted much attention to explaining this middle
grouping – what is its basis, what are the causes of its stability or growth, how it fits into the
class structure, and what are the effects of its existence on proletariat and bourgeoisie.
e. Lumpenproletariat. Marx also mentions the "dangerous class" or the social scum. Among the
members of this group are "ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, vagabonds,
discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, pickpockets, brothel keepers, rag-pickers, beggars" etc.
(Bottomore, p. 292). This is the lumpenproletariat. He does not consider this group to be of any
importance in terms of potential for creating socialism, if anything they may be considered to
have a conservative influence. Other writers and analysts have considered them to have some
revolutionary potential. One of the main reasons for mentioning them is to emphasize how
capitalism uses, misuses and discards people, not treating them as humans. Today's
representative of this class of lumpenproletariat are the homeless and the underclass.
f. Peasantry and Farmers. Marx considered the peasantry to be disorganized, dispersed, and
incapable of carrying out change. Marx also expected that this class would tend to disappear,
with most becoming displaced from the land and joining the proletariat. The more successful
might become landowners or capitalist farmers. With respect to family farmers as a group, much
the same could be said. However, Marx was not really very familiar with these as a group, and
had little to say about these. The various analyses of the role of farmers in the Prairies constitute
a more adequate view of what may be expected from this group. They could be considered to

form a class when they act together as a group. In the early days of Prairie settlement, farms were
of similar size, farmers had generally similar interests, and the farm population acted together to
create the cooperative movement and the Wheat Board. More recently, Prairie farmers are often
considered to be split into different groups or strata, dependent on type of farming, size of farm,
and whether or not they employ labour. Farmers have not been able to act together as a class in
political and economic actions in recent years. Lobbying by some farm groups have been
successful, but these do not usually represent farmers as a whole.
2. Features of Marx's Analysis
a. Group Basis. For Marx, classes cannot be defined by beginning observation and analysis
from individuals, and building a definition of a social class as an aggregate of individuals with
particular characteristics. For example, to say that the upper class is all families with incomes of
$500,000 or more is not an adequate manner of understanding social class. The latter is a
stratification approach that begins by examining the characteristics of individuals, and from this
amassing a view of social class structure as a whole. This stratification approach often combines
income, education, and social prestige or status into an index of socioeconomic status, creating a
down-gradation from upper class to lower class. The stratification approach is essentially a
classification, and for Marx classes have meaning only as they are real groups in the social
structure. Groups mean interaction among members, common consciousness, and similar types
of behavior that are connected in some way with group behavior. Categories such as upper class,
middle class and lower class, where those in each category may be similar only in the view of the
researcher are not fully Marxian in nature.
Classes are groups, and Marx discusses the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, not individual
capitalists and individual workers. As individuals, these people may be considered members of a
class, but class only acquires real meaning when it the class as a whole and the social
relationships defining them that are considered. For example, "The bourgeoisie ... has put an end
to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. ... " (Giddens and Held, p. 21). Here the bourgeoisie is
historically created and is an actor in politics, economics and history.
In terms of individuals as members of classes, they are members of a class as they act as
members of that class. For example, Marx notes that burghers or members of the bourgeoisie in
early capitalist Europe:
the class in its turn achieves an independent existence over against the
individuals, so that the latter find their conditions of existence predestined, and
hence have their position in life and their personal development assigned to them
by their class, become subsumed under it. (Giddens and Held, 20).
To the extent that individuals are considered in the social system, they are defined by their class.
For Marxists, class structures exist as objective facts, and a researcher could examine class and
membership of a class, but would have to understand the nature of the whole social and
economic structure in order to do so. To the extent that these members act in society, they act as
representatives of their class, although Marx would leave some room for individual freedom of
action.

b. Property and Class. Classes are formed by the forces that define the mode of production, and
classes are an aspect of the relations of production. That is, classes do not result from distribution
of products (income differences, lender and borrower), social evaluation (status honour), or
political or military power, but emerge right from relationship to the process of production.
Classes are an essential aspect of production, the division of labour and the labour process.
Giddens notes:
Classes are constituted by the relationship of groupings of individuals to the

ownership of private property in the means of production. This yields a model of
class relations which is basically dichotomous [since some own and others do not,
some work and others live off the fruits of those who labour]: all class societies
are built around a primary line of division between two antagonistic classes, one
dominant and the other subordinate. (Giddens, p. 37).
In describing various societies, Marx lists a number of classes and (antagonistic) social
relationship such as "freeman and slave, ... lord and serf, ... oppressor and oppressed" that
characterize different historical stages or modes of production. While Marx also mentions
various ranks and orders of society, such as vassals and knights, the forms of struggle between
classes are primarily viewed as occurring around control and use of property, the means of
production, and production as a whole, and the manner in which these are used. The basic
struggle concerns who performs the labour, and who obtains the benefits from this labour.
An elite is not necessarily a class for Marx. Examples of elites are military elites, priests or
religious leaders, and political elites – these mays may very powerful and oppressive, and may
exercise formal rule at a certain time or place. An elite could form a class, but a political or
military elite is not necessarily a class – an elite may be based on recruitment (rather than
ownership) and may not have much ultimate say in determining the direction of society. Or the
elite may be based on religious, military, political or other structures. This would especially be
the case in pre-capitalist or non-capitalist societies. For Marx, and especially in capitalism,
domination came from control of the economy or material factors, although it was not confined
to this. Thus, the dominant class was the class which was able to own, or at least control, the
means of production or property which formed the basis for wealth. This class also had the
capability of appropriating much of the social surplus created by workers or producers. An elite
may have such power, but might only be able to administer or manage, with real control of the
means of production in the hands of owners.
c. Class as Social Relationship – Conflict and Struggle. At several points, Marx notes how the
class defines itself, or is a class only as it acts in opposition to other classes. Referring to the
emergence of the burghers or bourgeoisie as a class in early capitalist Europe, Marx notes how
The separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a
common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with
each other as competitors. (Giddens and Held, p. 20).
Both competition and unity can thus characterize a class; there can be very cut-throat
competition among capitalists, but when the property relations and existence of the bourgeois

class is threatened, the bourgeoisie acts together to protect itself. This becomes apparent when
rights of private property or the ability of capital to operate freely comes under attack. The
reaction of the bourgeoisie may involve common political action and ideological unity, and it is
when these come together that the bourgeoisie as a class exists in its fullest form. In commenting
on France, Marx notes that the French peasantry may be dispersed and lacking in unity, but
In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that

separate their mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of the other
classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class.
(Giddens, p. 37)
It is when the peasantry as a group is in opposition to other classes that the peasantry form a
class. These quotes do not provide an example of the same with respect to the proletariat, but in
his other writings Marx noted that the proletariat is a true class when organized in opposition to
the bourgeoisie, and creating a new society.
Class, for Marx, is defined as a (social) relationship rather than a position or rank in society. In
Marx's analysis, the capitalist class could not exist without the proletariat, or vice-versa. The
relationship between classes is a contradictory or antagonistic relationship, one that has struggle,
conflict, and contradictory interests associated with it. The structure and basis of a social class
may be defined in objective terms, as groups with a common position with respect to property or
the means of production. However, Marx may not be primarily interested in this definition of
class. Rather, these classes have meaning in society and are historical actors only to the extent
that they do act in their own interests, and in opposition to other classes. Unlike much other
sociology, Marx's classes are defined by class conflict.
6. Max Weber
The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) disagreed with the “objective evidence only”
position of Durkheim. He argued that sociologists must also consider people's interpretations of
events—not just the events themselves. Weber believed that individuals' behaviors cannot exist
apart from their interpretations of the meaning of their own behaviors, and that people tend to act
according to these interpretations. Because of the ties between objective behavior and subjective
interpretation, Weber believed that sociologists must inquire into people's thoughts, feelings, and
perceptions regarding their own behaviors. Weber recommended that sociologists adopt his
method of Verstehen (vûrst e hen), or empathetic understanding. Verstehen allows sociologists to
mentally put themselves into “the other person's shoes” and thus obtain an “interpretive
understanding” of the meanings of individuals' behaviors.
A) Theory of Bureaucracy
THE THEORY OF BUREAUCRACY:

The theory of bureaucracy is attributed to the German sociologist Max Weber. His theory
described the modern organizational structure, defined by salaried workers in hierarchical
structures carrying out specialized and differentiated tasks. His model of bureaucracy is
considered the most accurate prediction to come from the social sciences. While Marx’s socialist
revolution never materialized, and neither Keynes nor Friedman predicted economic systems that
led to prosperity, Weber was undoubtedly correct that the bureaucracy would be the defining
institution of the modern age.
We live our lives in bureaucracies. We are born in a bureaucratic hospital, and go on to attend
bureaucratic schools. We then find employment in bureaucracies, consume products created and
sold by bureaucracies, and are governed by bureaucracies.
The bureaucratic model is the original paradigm of public administration. Early public
administrators, who popularized the field in the early twentieth century, sought to deliver better
government through the power of bureaucracy. Coupled with authoritarian management
practices borrowed from industry, known as Taylorism or scientific management, public
administrators believed that well run public bureaucracies could deliver efficient and effective
public services. Key to this perspective was the idea that bureaucracies could achieve political
neutrality; the founding paradigm of public administration was known as the politics-
administration dichotomy, which separated the legislative and policy making functions of
government from the politically neutral execution of policy by public bureaucracies.
Over time the key paradigms of public administration evolved from the bureaucratic model.
Frank analysis revealed that public bureaucracies are not politically neutral, but contribute to the
political and policy-making process. Other insights revealed that authoritarian management
styles are sometimes ineffective and inefficient, and theorists began advocating for a humanizing
of workplace human resource policies. Insights from economics contributed to the understanding
of rational decision-making processes within bureaucracies, and formalized our understandings
of public opinion and organizational behavior.
Modern public administration recognizes the centrality of bureaucratic structures to modern day
public sector organizations. Those who examine the role of modern bureaucracies are often
focused on deriving insights into effective management practices. This field of inquiry is known
as public management, and is often closely aligned with organizational behavior research in
other fields. These theorists generally test hypotheses about various management practices with
formal statistical and econometric models. This formal analysis of bureaucracy is highly
influential in modern schools of public administration.
What is Bureaucracy?
It is a form of administrative system used by both public and private institutions. Simply put, it is
a government body that is composed of non-politicians but who are appointed to help in policy-
making and be in charge of administrative tasks in government agencies.
In government, bureaucrats implement policies, write rules and regulations and administer them
on people, among others. In organizations, bureaucracy structure is divided into different levels,
from frontline employees up to the upper management. While there are countries doing well with

this kind of structure, there are also groups not in favor of this system. Here are some of the
views about this controversial issue:
The German sociologist Max Weber was the first to formally study bureaucracy and his works
led to the popularization of this term. In his 1922 essay Bureaucracy, published in his magnum
opus Economy and Society, Weber described many ideal-typical forms of public administration,
government, and business. His ideal-typical bureaucracy, whether public or private, is
characterized by:
 hierarchical organization
 formal lines of authority (chain of command)
 a fixed area of activity
 rigid division of labor
 regular and continuous execution of assigned tasks
 all decisions and powers specified and restricted by regulations
 officials with expert training in their fields
 career advancement dependent on technical qualifications
 qualifications evaluated by organizational rules, not individuals
Weber listed several preconditions for the emergence of bureaucracy, including an increase in
the amount of space and population being administered, an increase in the complexity of the
administrative tasks being carried out, and the existence of a monetary economy requiring a
more efficient administrative system. Development of communication and transportation
technologies make more efficient administration possible, and democratization and
rationalization of culture results in demands for equal treatment.
Although he was not necessarily an admirer of bureaucracy, Weber saw bureaucratization as the
most efficient and rational way of organizing human activity and therefore as the key to rational-
legal authority, indispensable to the modern world. Furthermore, he saw it as the key process in
the ongoing rationalization of Western society. Weber also saw bureaucracy, however, as a
threat to individual freedoms, and the ongoing bureaucratization as leading to a "polar night of
icy darkness", in which increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in a soulless
"iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control. Weber's critical study of the
bureaucratization of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work. Weber Many
aspects of modern public administration are based on his work, and a classic, hierarchically
organized civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service".
List of Advantages of Bureaucracy
Advantages of Bureaucracy
1. Specialization: A bureaucratic organization provides the advantages of specialization because
every member is assigned a specialized task to perform.
2. Structure: A structure of form is created by specifying the duties and responsibilities and
reporting relationships within a command hierarchy. Structure sets the pace and framework for
the functioning of the organization.

3. Rationality: A measure of objectivity is ensured by prescribing in advance the criteria far
decision making in routine situations.
4. Predictability: The rules, regulations, specialization, structure and training import

predictability and thereby ensure stability in the organization. Conformity to rules and roles in
the structural framework bring about order to cope with complexity.
5. Democracy: Emphasis on qualifications and technical competence make the organization

more democratic. Officials are guided by the prescribed rules, policies and practices rather than
by patronage or other privileged treatment.
Disadvantages of Bureaucracy
1. Rigidity: Rules and regulations in a bureaucracy are often rigid and inflexible. Rigid
compliance with rules and regulations discourages initiative and creativity1. It may also provide
the cover to avoid responsibility for failures.
2. Goal Displacement: Rules framed to achieve organizational objectives at each level become

an end to themselves. When individuals at lower levels pursue personal objectives, the
overall objectives of the organization may be neglected.
3. Impersonality: A bureaucratic organization stresses a mechanical way of doing things.

Organizational rules and regulations are given priority over an individual’s needs and emotions.
4. Compartmentalization of Activities: Jobs ore divided into categories, which restrict people

from performing tasks that they are capable of performing. It also encourages preservation of
jobs even when they become redundant.
5. Paperwork: Bureaucracy involves excessive paperwork as every decision must be put into

writing. All documents have to be maintained in their draft and original forms. This leads to
great wastage of time, stationery and space.
6. Empire Building: People in bureaucracy tend to use their positions and resources to

perpetuate self interests. Every superior tries to increase the number of his subordinates as if this
number is considered a symbol of power and prestige.
7. Red Tape: Bureaucratic procedures involve inordinate delays and frustration in the

performance of tasks.

Proposed Civil Services Reforms priorities in Pakistan:
The limited progress on civil service reform in Pakistan has not been due to a lack of knowledge
about what needs to be done. Over the course of the past sixty years there have been more than
twenty studies on administrative reform prepared by various government committees or
commissions (including six since 1996), that have clearly identified the most serious
problems.8 Instead, the lack of progress is due primarily to political factors and ineffective
political strategies for pushing through reforms. The following section briefly examines some of
the major civil service reform priorities in Pakistan and describes some of the political factors
that have contributed to the lack of progress in addressing them.
1) Reducing the Politicization of the Bureaucracy
2) Reversing the Militarization of the Bureaucracy
3) Recruiting, Training and Retaining “The Best and the Brightest”
4) Greater accountability
5) Enhanced efficiency and transparency
6) Rightsizing
7) Reform of the cadre system
Conclusion
A bureaucracy structure might be considered ineffective by critics but there are also valid
arguments posited by supporters. Other countries run well with bureaucrats but there are also
obvious flaws within the structure which make others critical about it. But the fact still remains,
bureaucracy exists and is here to stay.
7. C.H. Cooly
A) Self Looking Glass
The looking-glass self is a social psychological concept introduced by Charles Horton Cooley in
1902 (McIntyre 2006). The concept of the looking-glass self describes the development of one's
self and of one's identity through one's interpersonal interactions within the context of society.
Cooley clarified that society is an interweaving and inter-working of mental selves. The term
"looking glass self" was coined by Cooley in his work, Human Nature and the Social Order in
1902.
The looking-glass self has three major components and is unique to humans (Shaffer 2005).
According to Lisa McIntyre’s The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in Sociology, the concept of
the looking-glass self-expresses the tendency for one to understand oneself through their own
understanding of the perception which others may hold of them. This process is theorized to
develop one's sense of identity. Therefore identity, or self, is the result of learning to see
ourselves as others do (Yeung & Martin 2003).
The looking-glass self begins at an early age, continuing throughout the entirety of one's life as
one will never stop modifying their self unless all social interactions are ceased Some
sociologists believe that the effects of the looking-glass self-wane as one ages. Others note that
few studies have been conducted with a large number of subjects in natural settings

Symbolic Interaction: In hypothesizing the framework for the looking glass self, Cooley stated,
"the mind is mental" because "the human mind is social." From the time they are born, humans
define themselves within the context of their social interactions. The child learns that the symbol
of his/her crying will elicit a response from his/her caregivers, not only when they are in need of
necessities such as food or a diaper change, but is also a symbol that signals to caregivers that the
child is in need of attention. Schubert references in Cooley's On Self and Social Organization, "a
growing solidarity between mother and child parallels the child's increasing competence in using
significant symbols. This simultaneous development is itself a necessary prerequisite for the
child's ability to adopt the perspectives of other participants in social relationships and, thus, for
the child's capacity to develop a social self."
George Herbert Mead described the creation of the self as the outcome of "taking the role of the
other," the premise for which the self is actualized. Through interaction with others, we begin to
develop an identity of our own as well as developing a capacity to empathize with others. As
stated by Cooley, "The thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the mere mechanical
reflection of ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon
another's mind." (Cooley 1964)
Three Main Components: There are three main components that comprise the looking-glass self
(Yeung, et al. 2003).
1. We imagine how we must appear to others.

2. We imagine and react to what we feel their judgment of that appearance must be.
3. We develop our self through the judgments of others.

1. Step One:
 We imagine how our personality and appearance appears to others

 Attractive/unattractive, heavy/slim, friendly/unfriendly
2. Step Two:
 We imagine how other people judge the appearance we think we present in step one
 How do we think they feel about us
3. Step Three:
 We develop a self-concept based on how we feel we are judged in step two

 If we are judged in a good way, we have a favourable self-concept
 If we are judged in a bad way, we have an unfavourable self-concept
Conclusion: Everyone is the society has self looking glass concept and people normally adopt the
behaviour according to the concept.
8. Robert Martin
A) Strain Theory
Robert Merton: Strain Theory
Back in the 1950s as criminologists began to more seriously explore the sociological causes
behind crime, Robert K. Merton put forth his perspective through strain theory. Merton argued
that mainstream society holds certain culturally defined goals that are dominant across society.
for example: In a capitalist society, the dominant goal that most people aim for is accumulating
wealth.
Matron argued that people adopt deviant behavior when then cannot achieve socially approved
goals be legitimate way. Deviance is result of strain. Society may be set up in a way that
encourages too much deviance In other words, whether you got rich via conventional/legal
means, or via unconventional/illegal means, it didn’t matter, as long as you got your coin. For
Merton then, there was anomie (normlessness) regarding the means.
Merton furthered this perspective by providing a framework by which sociologists could

typologies criminals and non-criminals – strain theory. Strain theory argues that one must
consider if an individual rejects or accepts (1) society’s cultural goals (wanting to make money),
as well as (2) the institutional means by which to attain those goals.
Merton also classified people into five general categories with regards to their relationship to
culturally accepted goals and the means to achieving those goals:

1. Conformists: are people who believe in both the established cultural goals of society as
well as the normative means for attaining those goals. They follow the rules of society.
Everyone wanted to be doctor but not possible. (CSS Officers, Doctor, Engineer, Pilot,
Teacher, Professor etc
2. Ritualists: Common among lower middle class people who lower their success goals so
that they can more easily achieve success. These people are usually hard workers. These
are individuals who do not believe in the established cultural goals of society, but they do
believe in and abide by the means for attaining those goals.
3. Innovators: Largely found among lower class people who have learned to accept the
success goal but reject the use of legitimate means in favor of illegitimate means. Those
individuals that accept the cultural goals of society but reject the conventional methods of
attaining those goals. These people usually have a blatant disregard for the conventional
methods that have been established in attaining wealth and are generally those we regard
as criminals. Goals of success are accepted but individual use illegitimate means to
achieve them. Example: dealing drugs or stealing to achieve financial security. Trying to
get material wealth illegally
4. Retreatants: The Retreatants withdraws from society and does not care about success.
These are individuals who reject both the cultural goals and the accepted means of
attaining those goals. They simply avoid both the goals and means established by society
without replacing those norms with their own counter-cultural forces. Individual give up
on achieving goals, but have internalized the means and so carry on following the rules for
their own sake. (Drug addiction, alcoholics, vagrant and homeless person etc)
5. Rebels: attempt to change the existing system of success and replace it with a new one.
The new system includes new goals and new ways to achieve them. They may reject the
pursuit of fame and fortune and the cutthroat nature that is needed to obtain success. They
not only reject both the established cultural goals and the accepted means of attaining
those goals, but they substitute new goals and new means of attaining those goals.
Violence
Merton's Paradigm of Deviant Behavior

Attitude to Goals Attitude to Means Modes of Adaptation
Accept Accept Conformity
Accept Reject Innovation
Reject Accept Ritualism
Reject Reject Retreatism
reject/accept reject/accept Rebellion
Criticism
Strain Theory has received several criticisms such as:

1. Strain Theory best applies only to the lower class as they struggle with limited resources
to obtain their goals.
2. Strain Theory fails to explain white collar crime, the perpetrator of whom have many
opportunities to achieve through legal and legitimate means.
3. Strain Theory fails to explain crimes based in gender inequality.
4. Merton deals with individuals forms of responses instead of group activity which crime
involves.
5. Merton's Theory is not very critical of the social structure that he says generate the
strains.
6. Strain Theory neglects the inter- and intra-personal aspect of crime.
7. Strain Theory has weak empirical evidence supporting it.
Conclusion: Each society has goal but it is not necessary that each person can understand goal.
According to strain theory, deviants are not pathogenic individuals, but the products of society.
Robert Merton's social strain theory holds that each society has a dominant set of values and
goals along with acceptable means of achieving them. Not everyone is able to realize these goals.
The gap between approved goals and the means people have to achieve them creates what
Merton terms social strain.
1.5. Applications of sociology in the society.
 Teaching,
 Social research,
 Social work,
 Professions—medicine,
 law, engineering,
 Business and Industry,
 Entrepreneurship,
 Rural Urban Planning and City management,
 Public administration—civil services,
 Policy making and Business consultancy,
 Politics,
 Child welfare and health care,
 Architecture,
 International relations and
 Criminal justice etc.
1.6. Branches of Sociology:
Sociology is broadly defined as the study of human society. Society is vast and complex
phenomenon and therefore it is generally debatable that which part of society should be studied

by sociology. There is a great degree of difference of opinion regarding the definitions, scope
and subject matter of sociology.
According to Durkheim sociology has broadly three principal divisions which he terms as:
Social morphology covers the geographical settings, the density of population and other
preliminary data which is likely to influence the social aspects.
Social physiology is concerned with such dynamics processes as religion, morals, law, economic
and political aspects, each of which may be the subject matter of a special discipline
General sociology is an attempt to discover the general social laws which may be derived from
the specialized social processes. This is considered by Durkheim as the philosophical part of
sociology.
Max Weber combines two schools of thought – ie historical and systematic and he adds
something more. His analysis with regard to relations between economics and religion enables
him to use both historical as well as systematic method. The sociologies of law, economics and
religion are the special sociologies which are part of both systematic and historical methods of
study.
According to Sorokin, Sociology can be divided into two branches- General Sociology and
special sociology. General sociology studies the properties and uniformities common to all
social and cultural phenomena in their structural and dynamic aspects. The inter-relationships
between the socio-cultural and biological phenomena.
Ginsberg has listed the problems of sociology under four aspects- social morphology, social
control, social processes and social pathology. Social morphology includes investigation of the
quantity and quality of population, the study of social structure or the description and
classification of the principal types of social groups and institutions. Social control includes the
study of law, morals, religion, conventions, fashions and other sustaining and regulating
agencies. Social processes refer to the study of various modes of interactions between individuals
or groups including cooperation and conflict, social differentiation and integration, development
and decay. Social pathology refers to the study of social maladjustments and disturbances.
Raymond Aron has mentioned six schools in sociology. These are historical, formal, society
and community, phenomenological, universalistic and general.
Sociology of Religion studies the church as a social institution inquiring into its origin,
development and forms as well as into changes in its structure and function.
Sociology of Education studies the objectives of the school as a social institution, its curriculum
and extracurricular activities and its relationship to the community and its other institutions.
Political sociology studies the social implications of various types of political movements and
ideologies and the origin, development and functions of the government and the state.
Sociology of law concerns itself with formalized social control or with the processes whereby
members of a group achieve uniformity in their behavior through the rules and regulations
imposed upon them by society. It inquiries into the factors that bring about the formation of

regulatory systems as well as into the reasons for their adequacies and inadequacies as a means
of control.
Social psychology seeks to understand human motivation and behavior as they are determined
by society and its values. It studies the socialization process of the individual how he becomes a
member of society- it also studies the public, crowd, the mob and various other social groupings
and movements. Analysis of mass persuasion or propaganda and of public opinion has been one
of its major interests.
Social psychiatry deals with the relationships between social and personal disorganization, its
general hypothesis being that society through its excessive and conflicting demands upon the
individual is to a large extent responsible for personal maladjustments such as various types of
mental disorder and antisocial behavior. In its applied aspects it is concerned with remedying this
situation
Social disorganization deals with the problems of maladjustment and malfunctioning, including
problems of crime and delinquency, poverty and dependency, population movements, physical
and mental disease and vice. Of these sub-divisions crime and delinquency have received
perhaps the greatest attention and have developed into the distinct fields of criminology.
1.7. Understanding the Sociological Perspective
A. Unifying Properties of Sociology
While society is a system of beliefs and actions carried out by human beings, sociology is
something that transcends these boundaries by connecting common themes and highlighting
areas warranting change. When attempting to apply themes to commonalities found in society,
the term "sociological perspective" is frequently employed.
The term "sociological perspective" may also be interchanged with "model." In short, a
sociological perspective or model presents an assumption made about society. In other words, a
sociological perspective is a particular way of approaching a phenomenon common in sociology.
It involves maintaining objectivity; hence, accepting, based upon the evidence presented, what
may come as a surprise or even a disappointment based on that evidence.
After simplifying the number of perspectives that actually exist, the three primary ones
are: Evolutionary, functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interactionism.
Evolutionary Perspective: It talks about how societies grow over a period of time. Evaluation of
society enables to understand the factors of social development.
Functionalism Perspective: The origins of functionalism can be traced back to the collective
works of Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim. It is best summed up as the study of how social
order is maintained within a society. The view in functionalism is that the parts of society act in
unison, even though they act in different ways.

In functionalist societies, such institutions or social structures as families, religious groups,
educational forums, and others are the bricks that bind individuals together to cultivate unity and
order within a society. They promote integration, stability, agreement, and harmony. In general,
functionalists focus on how the parts of the social system contribute to the persistence of that
system. Their interest is in the purpose of the aspect of society they are studying. The purpose
concept can be taken one step further by evaluations according to function. This analysis is
broken down into three parts, manifest functions, latent functions, and dysfunctions. The purpose
question can be evaluated based on whether functions are apparent, or manifest, such as the
military's function to defend and protect its citizens; or latent, such as bartenders serving drinks
but also providing the less recognized function of listening to people's problems. An example of
dysfunction is the widespread population growth in Las Vegas that has created intense concern
about the residual effect of the breakdown of social order.
Conflict Perspective: In the conflict perspective, the view is less of a unified system and more of
an environment of conflict struggles and clashes of power. Hence, rather than working together
to achieve a common objective, individuals within this perceived society work independently to
attain their own personal goals.
While individuals strive to fulfill their personal destinies, they are not above using force or other
competitive means to ensure that others do not get in their way or take away their precious
resources. Benefiting at the expense of others is a hallmark feature of the conflict perspective. It
implies that while people are willing to hurt others in order to get what they want, they do so by
using rationalization as a means of justifying their actions or behaviors
Karl Marx may be the most well-known of all the conflict theorists. His argument was that the
struggle between social economic classes created the major segregation among members of
society.
However, today, not all conflict theorists ascribe to the Marxist way of thinking. Rather, many
see conflict pertaining to class not necessarily as the causal effect of change but instead as a
normal part of life. Furthermore, in failing to see class conflict as the only form of conflict in
existence, they recognize all forms of conflict, including that caused by gender inequality,
ageism, political ideology, and racial prejudices.
1.8. Major Social Perspectives:
The sociological perspective is a perspective on human behavior and its connection to society as
a whole. It invites us to look for the connections between the behavior of individual people and
the structures of the society in which they live.
Typically, we tend to think of our society as just natural. We think that it is just "there" the way
the air is. We don't think about how it affects us and our behavior. The sociological perspective
is one in which we do not do this. Instead, we look at our society and the way it is set up. We
ask how that society affects us. In this way, the sociological perspective helps us to understand
how society is important in shaping our everyday lives.
A. This perspective is important because it provides a different way of looking at familiar
worlds. It allows us to gain a new perception of social life.

B. This perspective stresses the broader social contexts in which people live by looking at
individuals’ social location—jobs, income, education, gender, race-ethnicity, and age—and by
considering external influences—people’s experiences—which are internalized and become part
of a person’s thinking and motivations. We are able to see the links between what people do and
the social settings that shape their behavior.
C. This perspective enables us to analyze and understand both the forces that contribute to the
emergence and growth of a global network and our unique experiences in our own smaller
corners of life.
Sociologists analyze social phenomena at different levels and from different perspectives. From
concrete interpretations to sweeping generalizations of society and social behavior, sociologists
study everything from specific events (the micro level of analysis of small social patterns) to the
“big picture” (the macro level of analysis of large social patterns).
1.9. General components of interaction studies:
According to Interactionist, The pioneering European sociologists, however, also offered a broad
conceptualization of the fundamentals of society and its workings. Their views form the basis for
today's theoretical perspectives, or paradigms, which provide sociologists with an orienting
framework—a philosophical position—for asking certain kinds of questions about society and its
people.
Sociologists today employ three primary theoretical perspectives: the symbolic Interactionist
perspective, the functionalist perspective, and the conflict perspective. These perspectives offer

sociologists theoretical paradigms for explaining how society influences people, and vice versa.
Each perspective uniquely conceptualizes society, social forces, and human behavior.
The symbolic Interactionist perspective
The symbolic Interactionist perspective, also known as symbolic interactionism, directs

sociologists to consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean, and
how people interact with each other. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max
Weber's assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their
world, the American philosopher George H. Mead (1863–1931) introduced this perspective to
American sociology in the 1920s.
According to the symbolic Interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and
then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols. Verbal conversations,
in which spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make this subjective interpretation
especially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the “sender,” and, during effective
communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the “receiver.” In other terms, words
are not static “things”; they require intention and interpretation. Conversation is an interaction of
symbols between individuals who constantly interpret the world around them. Of course,
anything can serve as a symbol as long as it refers to something beyond itself. Written music
serves as an example. The black dots and lines become more than mere marks on the page; they
refer to notes organized in such a way as to make musical sense. Thus, symbolic Interactionist
give serious thought to how people act, and then seek to determine what meanings individuals
assign to their own actions and symbols, as well as to those of others.
Consider applying symbolic interactionism to the American institution of marriage. Symbols
may include wedding bands, vows of life long commitment, a white bridal dress, a wedding
cake, a Church ceremony, and flowers and music. American society attaches general meanings to
these symbols, but individuals also maintain their own perceptions of what these and other
symbols mean. For example, one of the spouses may see their circular wedding rings as
symbolizing “never ending love,” while the other may see them as a mere financial expense.
Much faulty communication can result from differences in the perception of the same events and
symbols.
Critics claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the
“big picture.” In other words, symbolic Interactionist may miss the larger issues of society by
focusing too closely on the “trees” (for example, the size of the diamond in the wedding ring)
rather than the “forest” (for example, the quality of the marriage). The perspective also receives
criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions.
The functionalist perspective

According to the functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, each aspect of society is
interdependent and contributes to society's functioning as a whole. The government, or state,
provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state

depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children
grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process,
the children become law‐abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes
well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the
parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For
example, during a financial recession with its high rates of unemployment and inflation, social
programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer programs. Families tighten their budgets. And
a new social order, stability, and productivity occur.
Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, or cohesion, in which
members of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society as a
whole. Emile Durkheim suggested that social consensus takes one of two forms:
Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when people in a society maintain
similar values and beliefs and engage in similar types of work. Mechanical solidarity most
commonly occurs in traditional, simple societies such as those in which everyone herds cattle or
farms. Amish society exemplifies mechanical solidarity.
In contrast, organic solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when the people in a
society are interdependent, but hold to varying values and beliefs and engage in varying types of
work. Organic solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized, complex societies such those
in large American cities like New York in the 2000s.
The functionalist perspective achieved its greatest popularity among American sociologists in the
1940s and 1950s. While European functionalists originally focused on explaining the inner
workings of social order, American functionalists focused on discovering the functions of human
behavior. Among these American functionalist sociologists is Robert Merton (b. 1910), who
divides human functions into two types: manifest functions are intentional and obvious,
while latent functions are unintentional and not obvious. The manifest function of attending a
church or synagogue, for instance, is to worship as part of a religious community, but its latent
function may be to help members learn to discern personal from institutional values. With
common sense, manifest functions become easily apparent. Yet this is not necessarily the case
for latent functions, which often demand a sociological approach to be revealed. A sociological
approach in functionalism is the consideration of the relationship between the functions of
smaller parts and the functions of the whole.
Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of an event such as
divorce. Critics also claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency on the
part of society's members. Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in
changing their social environment, even when such change may benefit them. Instead,
functionalism sees active social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will
compensate naturally for any problems that may arise.
The conflict perspective

The conflict perspective, which originated primarily out of Karl Marx's writings on class
struggles, presents society in a different light than do the functionalist and symbolic interactionist
perspectives. While these latter perspectives focus on the positive aspects of society that
contribute to its stability, the conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever
changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change,
and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists challenge the status quo,
encourage social change (even when this means social revolution), and believe rich and powerful
people force social order on the poor and the weak. Conflict theorists, for example, may interpret
an “elite” board of regents raising tuition to pay for esoteric new programs that raise the prestige
of a local college as self serving rather than as beneficial for students.
Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict perspective
in favor of the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain considerable
interest in conflict theory. They also expanded Marx's idea that the key conflict in society was
strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the
potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. Conflict
theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to
compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the
ever changing nature of society.
Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society. The theory
ultimately attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive
aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in
preserving society and social order.
society is in a constant state of development. This is the by-product of consistent communication
and negotiation. Symbolic Interactionist are also known as micro sociologists. The scope of their
studies is confined to small focal points, such as interaction among small, intimate groups of
individuals as opposed to large populations.
Interaction, normally conducted through face-to-face meetings, tends to address everyday regular
activities, such as shared meals, work schedules, leisure pursuits, and more. It is the belief of
Interactionist that society is the result of the ongoing exchanges among individuals and small
groups of persons over the course of long stretches of time. Interactionist are most interested in
how persons act toward and respond to one another, as well as the influence that each holds over
one another in society as a whole.
Interactionist perceive people as being able to create their own level of acceptability in their
lives. This means that each person, through shared communications and boundary establishment,
sets up his or her own sense of comfort, as well as expectancies for future interactions.
Rather than being interested in institutions such as the economy, government, or social class,
micro sociologists are concerned with the personal relationships and interchanges among
individuals and among small groups of people.
1.10. Key themes of interaction studies:

Society is dynamic, or constantly evolving. Change occurs because of the interaction of
individuals, as opposed to larger bodies or institutions found in society, e.g., the government.
Persistent evolution, as opposed to steadfast patterns, winds up being the true hallmark of
society. Compared with Marxist theorists who seek out change determined by traits found in the
social structure, interactionists seek out change that is free form and independent of any one
conduit.
1.11. Scope and importance of sociology
a) Scope of Sociology
In the field of knowledge
Society is the web of social institutions and all these institutions are interrelated and interlinked
with each other’s. Sociologist have the basic and primary objective is to build up knowledge
about the society and social interaction. Sociologist are required to gain the know- how about the
social problems and their solutions. The specialized fields of sociology which give knowledge to
the students of sociology about different aspects of human social life
1.12. Specialized filed of knowledge: -
Rural Sociology, Urban Sociology, Medical Sociology, Criminology, Social Psychology,
Economic Sociology, Sociology of Religion, Industrial Sociology, Sociology of Social Problems,
Sociology of Education, Political Sociology and Sociology of the Family.
In the field of profession, Teaching, Research, Administration.
Following public and private sector organizations are working in the country: -
 Ministry of Social Welfare (Pakistan) Social Welfare Departments,

 Zakat Funds,
 Pakistan Bait ul Mal,
 Campaign for blood donation,
 Sponsor a child of Thalassemia Children,
 Donation Boxes,
 Children Welfare Society,
 Charity Shows,
 Centre for mentally retarded children (CHAMAN) Lahore,
 District industrial homes (SANATZAR),
 Day care centers,
 Model orphanages (children homes Homes for the destitute and needy women / girls,
 Vocational training centers for women in rural areas,
 Home for old persons (AAFIAT),
 (DAR-UL-SAKOON) providing an enabling for mentally sick patients.
 Supportive and rehabilitative services.
 Mainstreaming with families.
 Medical social services projects (MSSP) (many hospitals)

b) Importance of sociology
Prior to the emergence of sociology, the study of society was carried on in an unscientific
manner and society had never been the central concern of any science. It is through the study of
sociology that the truly scientific study of the society has been possible. Sociology because of its
bearing upon many of the problems of the present world has assumed such a great importance
that it is considered to be the best approach to all the social sciences.
Sociology studies role of the institutions in the development of the individuals
It is through sociology that scientific study of the great social institutions and the relation of the
individual to each is being made. The home and family, the school and education, the church and
religion, the state and government, industry and work, the community and association, these are
institutions through which society functions. Sociology studies these institutions and their role in
the development of the individual and suggests suitable measures for re-strengthening them with
a view to enable them to serve the individual better.
Study of sociology is indispensable for understanding and planning of society
Society is a complex phenomenon with a multitude of intricacies. It is impossible to understand
and solve its numerous problems without support of sociology. It is rightly said that we cannot
understand and mend society without any knowledge of its mechanism and construction.
Without the investigation carried out by sociology no real effective social planning would be
possible. It helps us to determine the most efficient means for reaching the goals agreed upon. A
certain amount of knowledge about society is necessary before any social policies can be carried
out.
Sociology is of great importance in the solution of social problems
The present world is suffering from many problems which can be solved through scientific study
of the society. It is the task of sociology to study the social problems through the methods of
scientific research and to find out solution to them. The scientific study of human affairs will
ultimately provide the body of knowledge and principles that will enable us to control the
conditions of social life and improve them.
Sociology has drawn our attention to the intrinsic worth and dignity of man
Sociology has been instrumental in changing our attitude towards human beings. In a specialized
society we are all limited as to the amount of the whole organization and culture that we can
experience directly. We can hardly know the people of other areas intimately. In order to have
insight into and appreciation of the motives by which others live and the conditions under which
they exist a knowledge of sociology is essential.
Sociology has changed our outlook with regard to the problems of crime
It is through the study of sociology that our whole outlook on various aspects of crime has
change. The criminals are now treated as human beings suffering from mental deficiencies and
efforts are accordingly made to rehabilitate them as useful members of the society.
Sociology has made great contribution to enrich human culture

Human culture has been made richer by the contribution of sociology. The social phenomenon is
now understood in the light of scientific knowledge and enquiry. According to Lowie most of us
harbor the comfortable delusion that our way of doing things is the only sensible if not only
possible one. Sociology has given us training to have rational approach to questions concerning
oneself, one's religion, customs, morals and institutions. It has further taught us to be objective,
critical and dispassionate. It enables man to have better understanding both of himself and of
others. By comparative study of societies and groups other than his existence, his life becomes
richer and fuller than it would otherwise be. Sociology also impresses upon us the necessity of
overcoming narrow personal prejudices, ambitions and class hatred.
Sociology is of great importance in the solution of international problems
The progress made by physical sciences has brought the nations of the world nearer to each
other. But in the social field the world has been left behind by the revolutionary progress of the
science. The world is divided politically giving rise to stress and conflict. Men have failed to
bring in peace. Sociology can help us in understanding the underlying causes and tensions.
The value of sociology lies in the fact that it keeps us update on modern situations
It contributes to making good citizens and finding solutions to the community problems. It adds
to the knowledge of the society. It helps the individual find his relation to society. The study of
social phenomena and of the ways and means of promoting what Giddens calls social adequacy
is one of the most urgent needs of the modern society. Sociology has a strong appeal to all types
of mind through its direct bearing upon many of the initial problems of the present world.
The Roles of the Sociologist

Like all scientist’s sociologists are concerned with both collecting and using knowledge. As a
Scientist the sociologist's foremost task is to discover and organize knowledge about social life.
A number of full time research sociologists are employed by universities, government agencies,
foundations or corporations and many sociologists divide their time between teaching and
research.
Another task of the sociologist as a scientist is to clear away the misinformation and superstition
which clutters so much of our social thinking. Sociologists have helped to clear doubts about
hereditary, race, class, sex differences, deviation and nearly every other aspect of behavior. By
helping replace superstition and misinformation with accurate knowledge about human behavior
sociologists are performing their most important role.
Sociologists make sociological predictions. Every policy decision is based upon certain
assumptions about the present and future state of the society. Most social science prediction
consists not of predicting specific developments as the astronomer predicts an eclipse but of
forecasting the general pattern of trends and changes which seem most probable. All such
predictions or forecasts should be offered with certain humility for no certainty attends them.
Instead social scientists offer them as the best most informed guesses available upon which to
base our policy decisions and expectations for the future. Sociological prediction can also help to
estimate the probable effects of a social policy. Every social policy decision is a prediction. A

policy is begun in the hope that it will produce a desired effect. Policies have often failed
because they embodied unsound assumptions and predictions.
Sociologists can help to predict the effects of a policy and thus contribute to the selection of
policies which achieve the intended purposes. For example, what effect does dropping out of
high school have upon a youth's future earnings? One of the greatest services any scholarly
group can offer is to show the society what policies are most likely to work in achieving its
objectives. Some sociologists are engaged in planning and conducting community action
programs advising on public relations, employee relations, working on human relations problems
etc. Often these sociologists have specialized in social psychology, industrial sociology, urban or
rural sociology or the sociology of complex organizations.
The term clinical sociologist has appeared to describe the work of the sociologist as technician.
To some extent this is a new name for what sociologists have been doing for a long time but it
also includes a considerable broadening of the range of sociologists' efforts to be useful in
society. In such positions the sociologist is working as an applied scientist. He or she has been
engaged to use scientific knowledge in pursuing certain values - a harmonious and efficient
working force an attractive public image of the industry or an effective community action
Programs.
Teaching is the major career of many sociologists. In addition to the concerns and problems of
teaching in any field, the problem of value neutrality versus value commitment is a particularly
acute question. The ethics of university teaching have demanded that the teacher refrain from all
conscious indoctrination but it is debatable. Scientists seek to discover knowledge but should
they tell the society how this knowledge should be used? The basic question is whether science
specifically sociology should be value-free. For example, sociologists know some things about
population growth, race relations, urban development and many other matters involving
questions of public policy. Early sociologists gave support to all sorts of public policies they
believed in. Between 1920 and 1940 many sociologists shifted to the view that sociology should
be a more nearly pure science discovering knowledge but not attempting to decree how it should
be used. They sought to build sociology on the model of physics as a value-free science. As such
it should be committed to no values except those of free scientific inquiry.
Many sociologists today believe that sociologists should claim a major role in making decisions
about public policy and should involve themselves in the major issues of our society. They feel
that not only do sociologists have a duty to say what society might do about problems of race
conflict, population growth, birth control, drug addiction, divorce etc but the sociologists should
say what society should do about such problems.
Sociologists have agreed upon some of the propositions: Sociologists should show the
relationships between values. If we wish to clean up polluted rivers we must be prepared to
spend a lot of tax money in doing so. Sociologists may clarify what value sacrifices must be
made if we wish to attain certain other values. A sociologist as an individual may properly make
value judgments, support causes and join reform movements like any other citizen. As a scientist
the sociologist may not know whether television violence is harmful to children and therefore
might not make public recommendations but as a parent will make a decision according to the
personal beliefs and values. Beyond this there is no complete agreement among sociologists
concerning what role they should assume. Most sociologists have some firm opinions on what

policies society should follow and are in considerable agreement with one another upon many of
these policies.

Chapter 2
CULTURE
Chapter Topics: Introduction to Culture, Cultural similarities and cultural dissimilarities,

Meaning and characteristics of culture, Types of culture, Components of culture, Functions of
culture, A Case study, Factors of cultural development, Salient features of Pakistani culture,
Elements of culture, Ethnocentrism, Xenocentrism, Socialization, Some common sub topics /
terminologies
Introduction of Culture:
Actually, The word culture is derived from the Latin root cultura or cultus meaning to "inhabit,
cultivate, or honour". In general, culture refers to human activity; different definitions of culture
reflect different theories for understanding, or criteria for valuing human activity. Present
day Anthropologists use the term to refer to the universal human capacity to classify experiences
and to encode and communicate them symbolically. They regard this capacity as a defining
feature of the genus Homo. Since culture is learned, people living in different places have
different cultures. There can be different cultures in different countries, and there can also be
shared cultures among continents.
Cultural similarity and dissimilarity is a common traits among the human societies. There are
few factors counted for cultural similarity such as education, religion, politics, economy,
governance, family, language etc. but at the same time human societies within a same culture
also witness cultural dissimilarities such as there is education, religion, politics, economy,
governance, family, language, but all these are very different with each other. In a same culture,
there are different religions, economics models, governing styles, educational practices and
change in language and communication styles.
There is no denying the fact each culture has different characteristics which lead to different
appearances. Even within Pakistan there are different cultural practices being followed by with
different practices. There is a general culture, but existence of sub culture cannot be
underestimated. International study of Japanese culture reveals that most of Japanese try to be
polite as much as they can and think that is virtue, while some people from certain cultures in
Europe think light respect is enough. However, some cultures are similar to each other while
others are not. Both Korea and Japan have a culture of being extremely polite to older people.
There cultures all over the world have both similarities and differences. It is important to
compare and contrast different cultures and try to learn about them, which leads to the gain of
tolerance and respect to other cultures, the most important key to living in international society.
Before discussing Culture chapter, let us understand what are differences between Chinese
Culture and US culture with following 6 cultural differences between China and the USA:-

Privacy: Chinese people do not have the same concept of privacy as Americans do. They talk
about topics such as ages, income or marital status, which Americans think is annoying and
intrusive.
Family: In China, elders are traditionally treated with enormous respect and dignity while the
young are cherished and nurtured. In America, the goal of the family is to encourage
independence, particularly that of the children. Unlike the Chinese, older Americans seldom live
with their children.
Friends: Chinese people have different meanings to define friends. Just hanging out together
time to time is not friendship. Friendship means lifelong friends who feel deeply obligated to
give each other whatever help might seem required. Americans always call people they meet
friends, so the definition of friends is general and different. There are work friends, playing
friends, school friends and drinking friends.
Money: As is well known, the Chinese like to save. They are always conservative when they are
planning to spend money. It is different in the USA, where far fewer families are saving money
for emergencies and education than their Chinese counterparts.
Education: Chinese people value education and career more than Americans, who in turn put
more emphasis on good character and faith.
Collectivism vs. Individualism: Basically China values the community and the US values the
individual. If you achieve something in the US, it's because you were great. While in China, if
you achieve something in China it's because the team, or family, or company is great. Everything
you do gets attributed to the greater whole, while in America individual merits are celebrated.
Definitions of Culture
If you ask 100 anthropologists to define culture, you’ll get 100 different definitions. However,
most of these definitions would emphasize roughly the same things: that culture is shared,
transmitted through learning and helps shape behavior and beliefs. Culture is of concern to all
four subfields and while our earliest ancestors relied more on biological adaptation, culture now
shapes humanity to a much larger extent.
Culture is universal among all human groups and even exists among some primates. All cultures
have to provide for the physical, emotional, and social needs of their members, enculturate new
members, resolve conflicts and promote survival for their members.
Society must balance the needs of the whole with the needs of the individual. If individual needs
are continually suppressed, social systems can become unstable and individual stress can become
too much to handle. Every culture has its own methods of balancing the needs of society in
relation to individual needs.
 One of the earliest definitions of culture was put forth by Tylor in 1871: “Culture, or
civilization, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law,

morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member
of society.”
 Another, more modern, definition of culture is, “a society’s shared and socially
transmitted ideas, values and perceptions, which are used to make sense of
experience and generate behavior and are reflected in that behavior.”
 Cooley, Argell and Car “The entire accumulation of artificial objects, conditions,
tools, techniques, ideas, symbols and behavior patterns peculiar to a group of
people, possessing a certain consistency of its own, and capable of transmission from
one generation to another.”
 Spencer-Oatey 2008: ‘Culture is a fuzzy set of basic assumptions and values,

orientations to life, beliefs, policies, procedures and behavioral conventions that are
shared by a group of people, and that influence (but do not determine) each
member’s behavior and his/her interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of other people’s
behavior.
 According to Allama Iqbal “Culture encompasses all the mental, spiritual and
physical activities of a nation. It includes the basic beliefs and faith, values and
literature, art and architecture, music and mode of dress, manners and customs
prevalent in a given society.
 Avruch 1998: ‘Culture ... is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief,
art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a
member of society.’
 Kroeber &Kluckhohn 1952: 181; cited by Adler 1997: 14 : ‘Culture consists of

patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by
symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their
embodiment in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e.
historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture
systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other, as
conditional elements of future action.
 Culture is the sum of total of the learned behavior of a group of people that are
generally considered to be the tradition of that people and are transmitted from
generation to generation.
 Culture is a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of

one group or category of people from another.
 Some aspects of human behavior, such as language, social practices such

as kinship and marriage, expressive forms such as art, music, dance, ritual,
and religion, and technologies such as tool usage, cooking, shelter, and clothing are
said to be cultural universals, found in all human societies.

Culture is most important concepts in social sciences and psychology. Study of human society
immediately leads to study of human culture. Culture and society are inseparable entities with
each other. Working together is a big challenge in 21st century: Working together with people
of different cultures than your own can be very difficult. It’s not just a challenge in Japan, but for
people all over the world and in any industry. As our world becomes increasingly globalized the
opportunities are enormous but so are the challenges.
Components of culture:
Since culture is an abstract nature of phenomenon, therefore, components of culture can help to
understand it and help to give a proper definition. These components vary such as Religion,
Language, Technology, Art, Architecture, Music, Sports, Dress, Diet, Government, Technology,
economy, agriculture, Law, rules, regulations, values, education, recreation, work ethics,
etiquettes etc.
MEANING AND CHARACTERISTICS:
 Culture is learned: Culture is not inherited biologically but it is leant socially by man in
a society. It is not an inborn tendency but acquired by man from the association of others,
e.g. drinking, eating, dressing, walking, behaving, reading are all learnt by man.
 Culture is social: It is not an individual phenomena but it is the product of society. It

develops in the society through social interaction. It is shared by the man of society No
man can acquire it without the association of others. Man is man only among men. It
helps to develop qualities of human beings in a social environment. Deprivation of a man
from his company is the deprivation of human qualities.
 Culture is shared: Culture is something shared. It is nothing that an individual can

passes but shared by common people of a territory. For example, customs, traditions,
values, beliefs are all shared by man in a social situation. These beliefs and practices are
adopted by all equally.
 Culture is transmitted: Culture is capable of transmitted from one generation to the

next. Parent’s papa’s cultural traits to their children and in return they pass to their
children and son on. It is not transmitted through genes but through language. Language
is means to communication which passes cultural traits from one generation to another.
 Culture is continuous: It is continuous process. It is like a stream which is flowing from

one generation to another through centuries. “Culture is the memory of human race.”
Culture is accumulative: Culture is not a matter of month or a year. It is the continuous

process and adding new cultural traits. Many cultural traits are borrowed from out-side
and these absorbed in that culture which adopt it, as culture is accumulative and
combines the suitable cultural traits.

 Culture is integrated: All the cultural aspects are inter-connected with each other. The
development of culture is the integration of its various parts. For example, values system
is interlinked with morality, customs, beliefs and religion.
 Culture is changing: It remains changing but not static. Cultural process undergoes
changes. But with different speeds from society to society and generation to generation.
 Culture varies from society to society: Every society has its own culture and ways of
behaving. It is not uniform everywhere but occurs differently in various societies. Every
culture is unique in itself is a specific society. For example, values, customs, traditions,
ideologies, religion, belief, practices are not similar but different in every society.
However the ways of eating, drinking, speaking, greeting, dressing etc are differs from
one social situation to another in the same time.
 Culture is responsive: Culture is responsive to the changing conditions of a physical

world. It intervenes in the natural environment and helps man from all dangers and
natural calamities e.g. our houses are responsible to give us shelter and safety from storm
and heavy rains.
 Culture is gratifying and essential: It is gratifying and provide all the opportunities for
needs and desires satisfaction. These needs may be biological or social but it is
responsible to satisfy it. Our needs are food, shelter, clothing and desires are status, fame,
money, sex etc are all the examples which are fulfilled according to the cultural ways. In
fact it is defined as the process through which human beings satisfy their need.
 Linked with society and takes years to form: Last but not the least one of the
characteristics of culture that culture and society are one and the same. But if we say that
these turn two are twin sister, it would not be wrong. Society is a composite of people
and they interact each other through it. It is to bind the people within the society.
TYPES OF CULTURE:
Material Culture: Material culture refers to the physical objects, resources, and spaces that
people use to define their culture. These include homes, neighborhoods, cities, schools, churches,
synagogues, temples, mosques, offices, factories and plants, tools, means of production, goods
and products, stores, and so forth.
1. Non-Material culture: Thoughts or ideas that make up a culture are called the non-
material culture. In contrast to material culture, non-material culture does not include any
physical objects or artifacts. Examples of non-material culture include any ideas, beliefs,
values, norms that may help shape society.
2. Real Culture: Sociologically speaking, sometimes there is a gap between the culture -
including values - that a society professes to have and the culture that they actually
possess. Ideal culture includes the values and norms that a culture claims to have,
while real culture includes the values and norms that are actually followed by a culture.

3. Ideal Culture: Ideal culture refers to practices and norms a culture is supposed to follow.
4. Real culture: on the other hand, refers to practices and norms a culture actually follows.
There is always a gap between ideal and real culture, and many reasons can be attributed
to it.
FUNCTIONS OF CULTURE:
CULTURE IS TREASURY OF KNOWLEDGE: Provides knowledge essential for physical,

social and intellectual existence of human being. Birds and animals have instinctively
knowledge, but man has to learn from the society. There is difference between human and
animal life. Man has greater learning capacity. Adopt himself according to the changing
circumstances. Preserves knowledge and enables him to behave according to the situation. Man
receives everything from the culture and feels adjusted.
CULTURE DEFINES SITUATIONS: It determines the situations and enable us how to
behave with the social situations. What knowledge we should get, whom to meet, how to talk,
how to laugh, how to convince and how to observe situations. Each culture has many subtle cues
which define each situation. It reveals whether one should prepare to fight, run, laugh or make
love. For example, suppose someone approaches you with right hand outstretched at waist level.
What does this mean? That he wishes to shake hands in friendly greeting is perfectly obvious –
obvious, that is to anyone familiar with our culture. But in another place or time the outstretched
hand might mean hostility or warning. One does not know what to do in a situation until he has
defined the situation. Each society has its insults and fighting words. The cues (hints) which
define situations appear in infinite variety. A person who moves from one society into another
will spend many years misreading the cues. For example, laughing at the wrong places.
CULTURE DEFINES ATTITUDES, VALUES AND GOALS: Attitude refers the tendency to
feel and act in certain ways. Values are the measures of goodness or desirability. Goals refers to
the attainments which our values define as worthy. It is our culture that conditions our attitudes
towards various issues such as religion, morality, marriage, science, family planning and so on.
Each person learns in his culture what is good, true, and beautiful. Attitudes, values and goals are
defined by the culture. While the individual normally learns them as unconsciously as he learns
the language. Attitude are tendencies to feel and act in certain ways. Values are measures of
goodness or desirability, for example, we value private property, (representative) Government
and many other things and experience. Goals are those attainments which our values define as
worthy, (e.g.) winning the race, gaining the affections of a particular person, or becoming
president of the firm. By approving certain goals and ridiculing others, the culture channels
individual ambitions. In these ways culture determines the goals of life.
CULTURE MOULDS PERSONALITY: (ANNA AND ISABELLE): Each of us is molded
by whatever culture in which we grew up. As we grow and mature, we naturally become used to
the style of dress, the types of food, hygiene, and the general cultural norms of our environment.
By the time we are adults, we have become molded to the customs and lifestyles of the people of
our own country. However, anyone who has moved from their own country to another country

will notice many cultural differences. These differences can be minor, but many can be
dramatically significant. For example, when coming to the China from Saudi Arabia, there were
so many differences in the culture, customs, and mode of dress, it was difficult for me to feel
comfortable at first. Vast differences in the culture and customs of the China and Saudi Arabia
can make adjustment difficult for many people.
 People in society usually follow cultural patterns and act according to customary
norms, rules, regulations, traditions, folkways and mores. Within the culture, the role of
environment, cultural norms dictate, early childhood experiences, a competitive culture, a
creative culture, hardworking culture, religious culture etc cannot be underestimated. It
was time when the role of neighborhood was quite significant for parents. By the passage
of time, the role of media, religion and normative orders is getting stronger as well.
Today, technology is directing the human behavior and almost in all walks of life there is
excess use of technology to maintain the social order.
 Stated otherwise, we may be born with a personality but it is molded by the
environment and the social structures we dwell in. It is refined in the cauldron of
cultural and social heritage, which affects each and every aspect of our life. Cultural
norms dictate our upbringing as we pick up the beliefs, values, attitudes and prejudices
unconsciously from our families, friends, ethnic groups and society.
 Early childhood experiences leave a profound impact on our personalities. Closed
and conservative societies send a mute message to the child not to explore anything
independently, thereby curbing the free spirit, which a child is born with. Cultural
conditioning starts the moment a child is born, the way he is christened, fed, educated and
raised. When the diktats of culture expect a child to follow certain set rules of a society,
which fail to distinguish between the aptitudes and aspirations of an individual, which
expects all the persons to stay within those boundaries – such families often raise
introverts, serious and quiet individuals who are conditioned to be cautious at each step.
 They grow up to be huge supporters of tradition and culture that they have imbibed.
The chain of thoughts and ideas continue to be passed on to the next generation and
that’s how certain redundant traditions continue to thrive. When we grow up in
a free and unrestricted surroundings, where there are no rules for wearing a particular
dress or studying a compulsory subject, where swimming lessons are a norm for every
child, we develop into original thinkers, independent, analytical, adventurous and
determined.
 Such persons become natural leaders, with the urge to accomplish all that they can
conceive. They have a mind of their own and can never be misled by anti-social
elements. A competitive culture raises extremely ambitious children because the
prodding to do better than the challenger in his peer group infuses a spirit of pursuing
success aggressively. The enthusiasm to excel gets embedded in their personality.
 They become highly successful, practical and conscientious workers. They can inspire
many more to be like them. A creative culture encourages children to develop their own
exciting ideas and beliefs. When children are given the liberty to explore their own fun
oriented activities, when their minds are not loaded with pre-conceived tasks, discovering
and learning becomes a part of their personalities. Such children grow up to be innovative
artists who can be creative as well as idealistic. They are very adaptive, kindhearted and
sensitive.

 Hardworking culture brings the best out of children and train them at a very early
stage to understand the dignity and value of work. Those who grow up with this
culture around them tend to respect all kinds of work, are very helpful and cooperative,
responsible and reliable. However they miss on the leisurely aspects of life, as they are
always eager to accomplish their goals. Since they are trained by difficult and harsh
surroundings, they are highly resilient and flexible. Perseverance and loyalty are the
hallmarks of such a personality.
 Religious culture gives a distinctive shape to the personality, which has definite
leanings towards duty and devotion. Children who are exposed to scriptures and places of
worship at a tender age tend to become believers, some of them follow religious decrees
blindly and lose their logical and analytical bent of mind. They may be submissive but
stand firm with their beliefs, they may be abstemious and compassionate but are very
sensitive towards their principles.
 Personality Development Factors : In today’s competitive scenario, everyone wants to
achieve success but that can only be possible with an influencing personality. Personality
is a set of individual divergence that there affected by the development of individual:
value, attitude, personal memories, social relationships, habits and skills. With an
effective personality any individual can be creative and innovative which is an important
skill required by organizations. Personality development is the comparatively abiding
pattern of thoughts, feelings, and behaviour that discern individual from another.
Individual
 Heredity
 Physique
 Nervous System
 Intelligence
Environmental Factors
 Family
 School
 Maturity
 Success and Failure
 Socio-Cultural
Other Factors
 Language
 Interpersonal relationship
 Social Role
 Ability to observe, perceive and think etc
CULTURE DEFINES MYTHS, LEGENDS, AND THE SUPERNATURAL: Myths and

legends are important part of every culture. They may inspire, reinforce effort and sacrifice and
bring comfort in bereavement. Whether they are true is sociologically unimportant. Ghosts are
real to people who believe in them and who act upon this belief. We cannot understand the

behavior of any group without knowing something of the myths, legends, and supernatural
beliefs they hold. Myths and legends are powerful forces in a group’s behavior. Culture also
provides the individual with a ready-made view of the universe. The nature of divine power and
the important moral issues are defined by the culture.
CULTURE PROVIDES BEHAVIOUR PATTERNS: The individual need not go through
painful trial and error learning to know what foods can be eaten (without poisoning himself), or
how to live among people without fear. He finds a ready-made set of patterns awaiting him
which he needs only to learn and follow. The culture maps out the path to matrimony. The
individual does not have to wonder how one secures a mate; he knows the procedure defined by
his culture. If men use culture to advance their purposes, it seems clear also that a culture
imposes limits on human and activities. The need for order calls forth another function of culture
that of so directing behavior that disorderly behavior is restricted and orderly behavior is
promoted. A society without rules or norms to define right and wrong behavior would be very
much like a heavily travelled street without traffic signs or any understood rules for meeting and
passing vehicles. Chaos would be the result in either case. Social order cannot rest on the
assumption that men will spontaneously behave in ways conducive to social harmony.
FACTORS OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: -
CULTURAL DIFFUSION: Both material artifacts and ideas from one culture to another
culture. Sociologists estimate that about 90 % of the contents of every culture are borrowed from
others cultures. Some scientists and anthropologists consider diffusion as the main source of
cultural and social change. Sociologists define cultural diffusion as “the borrowing of cultural
elements from another society". Diffusion takes place in every society. The most outstanding
contemporary social change- the spread of modernization process around the world- represents
the diffusion of industrialism from the advanced to the less developed societies. Material artifacts
that prove useful are more readily of the society into which they diffuse. For the reasons, the less
developed societies always accept the normative orders of advanced societies.
INVENTION: Invention refers to "new combination of or new use of existing knowledge"
Horton and Hunt. "An invention is the combination or new use of existing knowledge to produce
something that did not exist before" Ian Robertson. "An invention is any re-combination of
existing cultural elements in such a fashion as to produce something new" Lorman and Gorman.
Invention may be either material (Bow and arrow, gun, spacecraft, computer etc).Social or non-
Social material (Constitutional government, corporations, alphabet, dance, drama and literature
etc). The nature and rate of cultural invention also varies from culture to culture and depends
upon existing store of knowledge.
For cave dweller, their knowledge was much limited and therefore, bow and arrow was just big
achievements. Modern people are clever than primitive people due to repository of knowledge. A
number of inventions have been witnessed by human societies such as:
 Machines,
 Plans for many machines that were workable in principle
 Helicopters
 Submarines

 Machine guns
 Air conditions
 Areal bombs
 Hydraulic pumps etc
DISCOVERY: Discovery can also be defined as third source of socio-cultural change.
According to Hurton and Hunt, "A discovery is a shared human perception of an aspect of reality
which already exists". A new continent, the composition of the atmosphere, the power of steam,
the circulation of the blood etc were already there but a new discovery becomes source of
addition.
PAKISTANI CULTURE IS AN ISLAMIC CULTURE
Pakistan is an ideological Islamic State. Its very existence is due to Islam, so the Pakistani
culture is primarily based on the Islamic way of life. All other ingredients of culture are inspired
by Islam. Pakistani culture is highlighted by its grandeur, simplicity, firm convictions and noble
deeds and ideas.
Salient Features of Pakistani Culture
1) Religious Uniformity: Pakistan came into existence to provide its people a system of life
based on Islam. The people, in spite of some differences of languages, customs and
traditions commonly follow one religion of Islam. This is the religion, which is practiced
by all people of Pakistan.
2) Language: A number of languages are spoken in Pakistan. Some of them are Punjabi,
Sindhi, Pushto and Balochi. But Urdu is spoken and understand in all parts of Pakistan.
Being the official language, it is the media of communication between all regions of
Pakistan.
3) Literature and Poetry: Literature is an important aspect of our cultural life. Most of our
poets reflect Islamic code and trend in their poetry. They gave the message of love and
brotherhood. Similarity of thought amongst poets and writers of all regions is an
important factor of our cultural life.
4) Dress and Diet: Dress is an important manifestation of culture. The regional dresses of
Pakistan undergo changes in the light of local traditions, economic condition, way of
living and wealth in the region. But in all Provinces people generally wear Shalwar
Kameez.
5) Mixed Culture: Pakistani culture is mixed culture although majority of people are
Muslims by birth and faith. But there is great influence of Hindus and British culture on
the present Pakistani society.

6) Male Dominated Society: In Pakistani culture, the male member of the family enjoys the
key position. Family is headed by a male member and in most cases, he is the sole source
of income for other members of the family
7) Arts and Architecture: The iconoclasm of Islam has given a characteristic form and
pattern in the use of elegant designs, based on geometric figures and floral forms
borrowed from nature. The Shah Jahan Masjid, Shalimar Garden, Badshahi Masjid,
ShahiQila and many such graceful buildings are a living proof of the excellent Mughal
architecture
8) Handicrafts: Embroidery, leather works, glazed pottery, wood work, carpet making,
metal crafts and ivory are the essential parts of our culture. Pakistani craftsmen are
considered as the best in their craftsmanship. They are known for the high quality works
which is very popular in foreign countries.
9) Recreational Activities – Sports: The recreational activities all over the Pakistan are
common. The games like Cricket, Hockey, Football, Kabaddi etc are popular in every
part of our country. These games reflect our cultural identity.
10) Education: Education contributes a great deal in developing national character.

Educational system plays a vital role in the formation of Culture, Unity and Solidarity of
a nation. It is therefore, important that the entire syllabus right from the lower to higher
level should be placed in accordance with the ideology of Pakistan
11) Religious Festivals: Festivals play an important part of our culture. Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-
ul-Azha are our two main religious festivals. They are celebrated with great happiness
throughout the country
12) Islamic Rituals and Religious Festivals: Islamic rituals and festivals play an important
part of our culture. The rituals and festivals are observed with unusual enthusiasm.
Obligatory prayers, fasts during the month of Ramadan and the payment of Zakat
prescribed by Islam are being observed almost everywhere. Statistics reveal that
Paksitanis attendance at Hajj is usually very high. The enthusiasm with which Pakistani
families celebrate religious festivals is a inspirational spectacle. Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-
Azha are our two main religious festivals. They are celebrated with great happiness
throughout the country.
13) Ulema, Mushaikh and Sufi Poets: Ulema, Mushaikh and Sufi Poets occupy an honored
place in our cultural aspect of life. Sufis like Lal Shahbaz, Data GanjBaksh, Shah Abdul
latif, SachalSarmast, Hazrat Sultan Bahu and Waris Shah rendered meritorious services
for the spread of Islam in the Sub Continent.
ELEMENTS of CULTURE:

INTRODUCTION: Culture was defined earlier as the symbols, language, beliefs, values, and
artifacts that are part of any society. As this definition suggests, there are two basic components
of culture: ideas and symbols on the one hand and artifacts (material objects) on the other. The
first type, called nonmaterial culture, includes the values, beliefs, symbols, and language that
define a society. The second type, called material culture, includes all the society’s physical
objects, such as its tools and technology, clothing, eating utensils, and means of transportation.
These elements of culture are discussed next.
NORMS: Simply put, a norm is a rule that guides behavior among members of a society or
group. Definition: Norms refer to conditions for social relations between groups and individuals,
for the structure of society and the difference between societies, and for human behavior in
general. Norms are shared rules, customs, and guidelines that govern society and define how
people should behave in the company of others.
A customary way is called Norm.
Founding sociologist Émile Durkheim considered norms to be social facts: things which exist in
society independent of individuals, and that shape our thoughts and behavior. Norms may be
applicable to all members of society or only to certain subsets of the population, such as students,
teachers, clergy, police officers, or soldiers in warfare.
Norms guide smooth and peaceful interactions by prescribing predictable behavior in different
situations. For instance, in the Pakistan and other societies of the world, handshaking is a
traditional greeting; saying salm while entering in the house, waring dress during the rituals,
wearing various kinds of clothes occasionally etc.
Norms are generally accepted prescriptions for or prohibitions against behavior, belief, or
feeling. Norms cannot and must be upheld by a group. Norms always include sanctions but
values never do. We learn norms in a variety of settings and from various factors, including our
families, from teachers and peers in school, through the media, and simply by interacting with
others as we go about our daily business.
TYPES OF NORMS: Sociologists divide norms into four types: Folkways, mores, taboos, and
laws.
1. FOLKWAYS: The world is one, big community which is made up of several different
societies that are distinct from one another. These societies have their own history, laws, beliefs,
traditions, practices, customs, and ways of life. These make each society different and shape how
their people act. Even a nation or country can have societies or ethnic groups that differ, each
according to their own customs, traditions, and religions which they have followed from their
ancestors.
These beliefs, habits, practices, rules, customs, traditions, and manners are called by different
names. They are called etiquette, decorum, propriety, values, virtues, folkways, and mores.
According to Reuter and Hart (1933), “The folkways are simple habits of action common to the
members of the group; they are the ways of the folks that are somewhat standardized and have
some degree of traditional sanction for their persistence”.

Maclver and Page (1949) defined it as: “The folkways are the recognized or accepted ways of
behaving in the society.”In sociology, folkways are generally discussed in contrast
to mores because they are both types of social norms, though they vary in the degree to which
they are enforced. Folkways are the customs or conventions of daily life. They are a type of
social norm -- expectations for how we act.
Folkways are mildly enforced social expectations, while mores are strictly held beliefs about
behaviors. Mores dictate right and wrong, while folkways distinguish between proper and rude
behavior. Most people in a society follow traditional folkways but failure to conform to them is
considered neither illegal nor immoral. How do you greet someone when you first meet him?
Often, greetings include some form of 'Hello' and 'How are you?'. Perhaps you shake the person's
hand and smile when you introduce yourself. You probably expect similar behaviors from the
other person. You can be confident that the person you're meeting will reciprocate in a similar
manner because these behaviors are folkways.
Noted early American sociologist, William G. Sumner (1840-1910) identified two types of
norms in his book Folkways (1906), which he labelled as ‘folkways’ and ‘mores’. They represent
modes of procedure in a society or in a group.
They present to us the most frequent or most accepted or most standardized ways of doing this or
that. Folkways are distinguished from mores not by their content but by the degree to which
group members are compelled to conform to them, by the degree of importance, by the severity
of punishment if they are violated, or by the intensity of feelings associated with adherence to
them.
2. MORES: refer to stronger norms with associated moral values. Mores are strict norms that
control moral and ethical behavior. Mores are norms based on definitions of right and wrong.
Unlike folkways, mores are morally significant. People feel strongly about them and violating
them typically results in disapproval. Religious doctrines are an example of mores. For instance,
if someone were to attend church in the nude, he or she would offend most people of that culture
and would be morally shunned. Also, parents who believe in the more that only married people
should live together will disapprove of their daughter living with her boyfriend. They may
consider the daughter’s actions a violation of their moral guidelines. Examples of common mores
found in almost all societies are prohibitions robbery, abusing, snatching, abusing, murder and ill
speaking against religions doctrines.
3. TABOOS: Rituals and customs accepted in one culture may be thought of as downright
bizarre in another. "Taboo" delves into that dichotomy, taking viewers across cultural borders to
explore traditional beliefs and deliberate lifestyle choices, ranging from body modification and
gender decisions to nudity and spiritual quests that test the limits of the human body.
Taboos refer to the strongest types of mores.
Taboos include the belief that certain activities, such cannibalism (flesh eating) , are outside the
bounds of cultural acceptance.

Violations of mores and taboos tend to be treated with strong social disapproval or criminal
consequences. Often times the violator of the taboo is considered unfit to live in that society.
For instance, in some Muslim cultures, eating pork is taboo because the pig is considered
unclean. At the more extreme end, incest and cannibalism are taboos in most countries.
4. LAWS: Laws refer to the mores that are formally enforced by political authority and backed
by the power of the state. Laws may enforce norms or work to change them. Examples of laws
that worked to change existing norms include the liquor prohibition laws of the 1920s or civil
rights legislation of the 1950s.Ultimately, social norms are important, in part, because they
enable individuals to agree on a shared interpretation of the social situation and prevent harmful
social interactions. When individuals transgress against existing norms, they are engaging in a
norm violation. Norm violations refer to public or private instances of transgression and deviance
from culturally-sanctioned behaviors (Kiesler, 1967)
2. VALUES: values are a culture’s standard for discerning what is good and just in society.
Values are deeply embedded and critical for transmitting and teaching a culture’s beliefs.
Values are another important element of culture and involve judgments of what is good or bad
and desirable or undesirable. Values help shape a society by suggesting what is good and bad,
beautiful and ugly, sought or avoided. Values often suggest how people should behave, but they
don’t accurately reflect how people do behave. Values portray an ideal culture, the standards
society would like to embrace and live up to. But ideal culture differs from real culture, the way
society actually is, based on what occurs and exists. A culture’s values shape its norms. In Japan,
for example, a central value is group harmony.
EXAMPLE:
 The Japanese place great emphasis on harmonious social relationships and dislike
interpersonal conflict. When interpersonal disputes do arise, Japanese do their best to
minimize conflict by trying to resolve the disputes amicably.
 People often wanted to have Engineering rather than Doctor or vice versa is value
 People preferring higher education from abroad rather than local institutions is values
 Preferring food from restaurants rather than home is value
 Enjoying foreign trips rather than visiting one’s own country’s places is values
 Preferring family members as business partners is called values
 Reading foreign stuff rather than local stories is called values etc
3. SYMBOLS: Every culture is filled with symbols, or things that stand for something else and
that often evoke various reactions and emotions. Some symbols are actually types of nonverbal
communication, while other symbols are in fact material objects. Symbols make social
interaction possible.Let’s look at nonverbal symbols first. A common one is shaking hands,
which is done in some societies but not in others. It commonly conveys friendship and is used as
a sign of both greeting and departure. Probably all societies have nonverbal symbols we
call gestures, movements of the hand, arm, or other parts of the body that are meant to convey

certain ideas or emotions. However, the same gesture can mean one thing in one society and
something quite different in another society (Axtell, 1998). In our society, for example, if we nod
our head up and down, we mean yes, and if we shake it back and forth, we mean no.
In most of Bulgaria, however, nodding means no, while shaking our head back and forth means
yes! In the United States, if we make an “O” by putting our thumb and forefinger together, we
mean “OK,” but the same gesture in certain parts of Europe signifies an obscenity.“Thumbs up”
in the United States means “great” or “wonderful,” but in Australia it means the same thing as
extending the middle finger in the United States. Certain parts of the Middle East and Asia
would be offended if they saw you using your left hand to eat, because they use their left hand
for bathroom hygiene.Some of our most important symbols are objects. Here the U.S. flag is a
prime example. For most Americans, the flag is not just a piece of cloth with red and white
stripes and white stars against a field of blue. Instead, it is a symbol of freedom, democracy, and
other American values and, accordingly, inspires pride and patriotism.
During the Vietnam War, however, the flag became too many Americans a symbol of war and
imperialism. Some burned the flag in protest, prompting angry attacks by bystanders and
negative coverage by the news media. Other objects have symbolic value for religious reasons.
Three of the most familiar religious symbols in many nations are the cross, the Star of David,
and the crescent moon, which stand for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, respectively. Whereas
many cultures attach no religious significance to these shapes, for many people across the world
they evoke very strong feelings of religious faith. Recognizing this, hate groups have often
desecrated these symbols.As these examples indicate, shared symbols, both nonverbal
communication and tangible objects, are an important part of any culture but also can lead to
misunderstandings and even hostility. These problems underscore the significance of symbols for
social interaction and meaning.
4. LANGUAGE: Perhaps our most important set of symbols is language. In English, the
word chair means something we sit on. In French, the word chaise means the same thing. As
long as we agree how to interpret these words, a shared language and thus society are possible.
By the same token, differences in languages can make it quite difficult to communicate. For
example, imagine you are in a foreign country where you do not know their language and they
do not know yours. As this scenario suggests, language is crucial to communication and thus to
any society’s culture. Children learn language from their culture just as they learn about shaking
hands, about gestures, and about the significance of the flag and other symbols. Humans have a
capacity for language that no other animal species possesses.
Our capacity for language in turn helps make our complex culture possible. In the United States,
some people consider a common language so important that they advocate making English the
official language of certain cities or states or even the whole country and banning bilingual
education in the public schools. Language, of course, can be spoken or written. One of the most
important developments in the evolution of society was the creation of written language. Some
of the preindustrial societies that anthropologists have studied have written language, while
others do not, and in the remaining societies the “written” language consists mainly of pictures,
not words.

5. RITUALS: Different cultures also have different rituals, or established procedures and
ceremonies that often mark transitions in the life course. As such, rituals both reflect and
transmit a culture’s norms and other elements from one generation to the next. Initiation and
commencement ceremonies in colleges and universities are familiar examples of time-honored
rituals. Boys have their own initiation ceremonies, some of them involving circumcision. That
said, the ways in which circumcisions are done and the ceremonies accompanying them differ
widely. Are rituals more common in preindustrial societies than in modern ones such as the
United States? Consider the Nacirema, studied by anthropologist Horace Miner more than 50
years ago (Miner, 1956). In this society, many rituals have been developed to deal with the
culture’s fundamental belief that the human body is ugly and in danger of suffering many
diseases. Reflecting this belief, every household has at least one shrine in which various rituals
are performed to cleanse the body. Often these shrines contain magic potions acquired from
medicine men.
6. WORK ETHICS: Another important value in the most of cultures is the work ethic. A strong
work ethic is vital to a company achieving its goals. Every employee, from the CEO to entry-
level workers, must have a good work ethic to keep the company functioning at its peak. A work
ethic is a set of moral principles an employee uses in his job. Certain factors come together to
create a strong work ethic.
 INTEGRITY: Integrity stretches to all aspects of an employee's job. An employee with

integrity fosters trusting relationships with clients, coworkers and supervisors. Coworkers
value the employee's ability to give honest feedback. Clients trust the employee's advice.
Supervisors rely on the employee's high moral standards, trusting him not to steal from
the company or create problems.
 SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY: A strong sense of responsibility affects how an
employee works and the amount of work she does. When the employee feels personally
responsible for her job performance, she shows up on time, puts in her best effort and
completes projects to the best of her ability.
 EMPHASIS ON QUALITY: Some employees do only the bare minimum, just enough
to keep their job intact. Employees with a strong work ethic care about the quality of their
work. They do their best to produce great work, not merely churn out what is needed. The
employee's commitment to quality improves the company's overall quality.
 DISCIPLINE: It takes a certain level of commitment to finish your tasks every day. An
employee with good discipline stays focused on his goals and is determined to complete
his assignments. These employees show a high level of dedication to the company,
always ensuring they do their part.
 SENSE OF TEAMWORK: Most employees have to work together to meet a company's
objectives. An employee with a high sense of teamwork helps a team meet its goals and
deliver quality work. These employees respect their peers and help where they can,
making collaborations go smoother.
7. ARTIFACTS: Cultural artifact, or artifact, is a term used in the social sciences,

particularly anthropologyand sociology for anything created by humans which gives information
about the culture of its creator and users. Cultural artifact is a more generic term and should be

considered with two words of similar, but narrower, nuance: social artifact and archaeological
artifact.
Cultural artifacts can include objects recovered from archaeological sites, or archaeological
artifacts, but can also include objects of modern or near-modern society, or social artifacts.
Cultural artifacts, whether ancient or current, have a significance because they offer an insight
into: technological processes, economic development and social structure, among other
attributes.The last element of culture is the artifacts, or material objects, that constitute a
society’s material culture. In the simplest societies, artifacts are largely limited to a few tools, the
huts people live in, and the clothing they wear. Although the wheel was a great invention,
artifacts are obviously much more numerous and complex in modern industrial societies.
Because of technological advances during the past two decades, many such societies may be said
to have a wireless culture, as smartphones, netbooks and laptops, and GPS devices now dominate
so much of modern life. The artifacts associated with this culture were unknown a generation
ago. Technological development created these artifacts and also new language to describe them
and the functions they perform.
ETHNOCENTRISM
A World of Diversity Ethnocentric, derived from the Greek words of Ethnos, meaning race,
people or cultural group, and Kentrikos, meaning concentrated about or directed to a center is a
word that greatly describes many cultures on this planet we call Earth.
The official definition of Ethnocentric is “characterized or based on the attitude that one’s own
group is superior” or “having race as a central interest”.
People from other cultures often do things that annoy, frustrate, and offend us, which is also true
in reverse. This is a fact of life—and one which is not confined to cross-cultural interactions;
people from our own culture can also annoy and offend us. While we do not feel bad if we are
upset when someone from our own culture irks us, when the perpetrator is from another culture,
we wonder if we have the right to be upset. Is it really fair to be angry with that person?
Needless to say, when someone violates one of our cultural norms and does something that is
unnatural, this behavior is going to provoke strong responses because abnormal behavior
undermines our norms and thereby threatens what makes interaction possible and holds our
culture together. In short, when we react to or judge the behavior of someone else, we are
performing an essential function for the survival of our culture and society.
Thus, being ethnocentric is human nature. It is only when you’re dealing with people who come
from another ethnos that ethnocentrism doesn’t always work so well. If you happen to be in their
culture, for example, then the burden is on you to figure out their ethnos. But if you’re in your
own ethnos, then it is appropriate—and a very good idea—to be ethnocentric.
If that is true, then where does this idea of trying to be culturally sensitive fit in? It doesn’t mean
not judging the behavior of others but being open to the possibility that the “abnormal” behavior
someone has done may not seem abnormal to them. It is still wrong for you, and it probably

wouldn’t hurt to let that person know, even as you would appreciate knowing when you violated
another culture’s norm.
Being culturally sensitive has very little to do with liking or accepting the strange behaviors of
people from other cultures; it means acknowledging that we’re all strange depending on the
context. Cultural differences and the judgments they provoke aren’t the problem; the problem is
to deny culture, which is just what you do when you ask people not to judge.
This is, admittedly, a rather extreme definition. The usual dictionary definition of ethnocentrism
is "the tendency to regard one’s own group and culture as intrinsically superior to all
others" (Webster’s Dictionary).
Superiority of the own group and culture, however, (psycho) logically implies inferiority of
other groups and cultures. And viewing other groups/cultures as inferior empirically appears to
imply some degree (however small) of contempt, stereotyping, discrimination and
dehumanization of, and at least a modicum of hostility toward, members of those other
groups/cultures.
ETHNOCENTRISM: BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT

'Ethnocentrism' is a major theme in both biological and cultural theories of the causes of
primitive war.
Darwin (1871) had noticed that early humans and contemporary primitive peoples as a rule
confined their sympathy to the own tribe and generally did not regard violence against other
tribes as a crime. He clearly saw the correlation between intergroup competition and intra-
group cooperation, which is the core of the ethnocentrism syndrome, in human evolution.
Thus Tylor viewed ethnocentrism (as well as the obligations of the blood feud) as making sense
within a framework of primitive concepts of law and justice. Furthermore, it is a relatively old
one. Though the term 'ethnocentrism' was to be coined a few decades later, the concept was by
no means unknown among 19th century anthropologists such as Tylor (1871):
Comte: In his Course de la philosophie positive (1830-42) Comte dismissed the notion of a
peaceful golden age at the dawn of history. On the contrary, perennial and savage warfare forced,
according to his rather gloomy view, social solidarity as a defense against enemy groups.
Spencer (1850) thought that war had fostered ’social cohesion’ in ’conquering races’. In 1892-
1893, after half a century of work, Spencer completed his vast system of philosophy with two
volumes on The Principles of Ethics. In his studies of evolution, he had hoped to find a code
which placed human conduct on a scientific footing. Instead, he discovered that evolution, as
seen to work in human communities, spoke with two voices, each enunciating a separate code.
Allama Ibn-e-Khuldoon’s theory of Alasabiya (Social solidarity) contains more or less same
meanings.
DEFINITION:

In simple words, ethnocentrism means considering one’s own culture superior to all other
cultures. Ethnocentrism makes our culture into a gauge with which to measure all other cultures
as good or bad, high or low in the proportion as they resemble ours. Most, if not all, groups
within the society are ethnocentric.
 Sociology. The belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or

culture.
 Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group
 Overriding concern with ethnicity
Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.
Ethnocentric individuals judge other groups relative to their own ethnic group or culture,
especially with concern for language, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions
and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity. Ethnocentrism may be
overt or subtle, and while it is considered a natural proclivity of human psychology, it has
developed a generally negative connotation.
A tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own traditional, deferred,
or adoptive ethnic culture.
SOME EXAMPLES OF ETHNOCENTRISM:
EXAMPLE 1― NAZI GERMANY: This is one of the worst, most extreme, and most tragic
examples of ethnocentrism. Hitler believed that Jews, as well as people belonging to some other
communities were all inferior to his ethnicity, and did not deserve to live. He had thousands and
thousands of innocent people slaughtered in concentration camps, all because they weren't of his
'pure' race, which was, according to him, superior among all. Though ethnocentrism is not
always this extreme, history does tell us stories about how the concept and prejudice that rose
from it, took such a turn for the worse, and had horrible consequences.
EXAMPLE 2― IMPERIALISM: Imperialism is defined as a policy or practice by which a
country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world (Merriam-Webster).
The most famous example of it would be European imperialism, where European countries
believed that the other areas of the world, such as Africa, America, India, etc. needed to be
controlled by them owing to their supposed underdeveloped natures. European countries
establishing their colonies in other parts of the world is an example of ethnocentrism: they
believed that they were superior, civilized, and developed than other countries, which is why
they 'needed' to establish control in order to help these countries come up to their standards, too.
EXAMPLE 3― TERRORISM AND HATE CRIMES: This is again a negative example of
ethnocentrism. Terrorism and hate crimes take place when one religion or community believes
that it is superior, and better than any other religion or community. Ethnocentrism tends to blind
people from seeing things from another perspective― just because another community does
something that yours doesn't― like a particular style of worship, for instance, doesn't make it
inferior to yours, and nor does it make the other community's style of worshiping incorrect.
However, ethnocentrism can make individuals feel as if the other community is bad, or wrong,
and can make them take action in the form of terrorist attacks or hate crimes.

EXAMPLE 4― IN MOVIES: In movies and other sources of entertainment, ethnocentrism is
often, but not always, portrayed in a humorous, light-hearted manner. One example of
ethnocentrism portrayed in a light manner would be the movie, 'The Big Fat Greek Wedding',
where a Greek family believes that being Greek is the one and only acceptable way of living.
However, the makers of the movie took great care to make sure that the Greek culture was never
shown in a negative or pushy manner, and that the audiences took it in the way it was supposed
to be taken.
EXAMPLE 5― IN BUSINESS: Though it is easy to assume that ethnocentrism affects only the
lesser-educated, less aware people in the world, it is not really true. Ethnocentrism can be seen
on a large scale in business, and at the workplace. For instance, an employee may refer to his
client as a 'moron' if the client needed some time to understand whatever the employee was
trying to tell him. A business owner might yell at his foreign employees and call them stupid
because of their different races, cultures, or values that are different from the boss'. Another
business owner based in a developed country may refuse to merge with a company that is
originally based in a developing country because he believes that the developing country is very
inferior to his own. Ethnocentrism thus is a part of business and is experienced at the workplace,
but if it is not controlled, it has the capability to even destroy a company.
EXAMPLE 6― IN SCHOOLS: Ethnocentrism can be witnessed in schools across the world.
Many experts agree that focusing a curriculum, say a world history curriculum, only on the
history of the major developed countries and ignoring the developing and underdeveloped
countries altogether, is an example of ethnocentrism in schools. Children are taught only the
greatness of one country, which might lead them to develop prejudices against other countries.
Sometimes, teachers and teaching patterns can also be slightly discriminatory, which leads to
ethnocentrism. The students belonging to minority communities can feel sidelined, targeted, or
ignored.
EXAMPLE 7― CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM: Consumer ethnocentrism is observed in
those consumers who judge others buying imported goods instead of nationally or locally―
produced goods. Choosing to buy a good is actually an individual choice, and judging someone
on the basis of their taste or preference is not a good idea. Consumer ethnocentrism has become
much more obvious since globalization, and consumers affected by ethnocentrism believe that
purchasing foreign goods is unpatriotic, as it does not support the domestic economy but helps
foreign economies instead.
EXAMPLE 8― IN AMERICAN SOCIETY: The popular belief among American
ethnocentric people is that their country, culture, values, development, and everything else is
superior to every other nation in the world, and that every other nation is inferior to the United
States. This belief has led to political meddling among the matters of other countries, leading to
misunderstandings and miscommunication between different countries in the world. The present-
day politics are a good example of the same. Here, the country as a whole can be considered as
one group, or the in-group.
EXAMPLE 9― ETHNOCENTRISM AND CULTURE: Every culture on earth tends to
impart ethnocentrism, albeit unintentionally. Various aspects of culture such as mythological
tales, folktales, legends, religion, songs, proverbs, language, rituals, etc. promote the superiority
of that one culture over others. Though this is an unintentional kind of promotion of

ethnocentrism, it instills the belief that 'my race/my culture' is really better than the rest, in so
many ways in most of us, especially during childhood or teenage.
EXAMPLE 10― IN DAILY LIFE: Like I said earlier, most of us tend to vehemently deny
this. However, it is true that we're all ethnocentric sometime or the other in our lives, without
even realizing it. For instance, if we see someone dressed according to a style we don't follow,
we immediately develop a biased judgment against them. "God, what is he/she wearing? It's
clear he/she has no sense of fashion." In an instance as small as this, we tend to immediately
conclude that the person we're judging has a bad fashion taste, and we're much better than
him/her.
Few Examples from Political view point :
 Movement for creation of Hazara province

 Movement for creation of Saraiki province
 Movement for creation of Bahawalpur province
 Issues and controversy between religious groups specially in sunni and shiah
 Abomination between the people of different provinces for example: Punjabi and sindhi,
 Punjabi and PathanBaloches want to their own power and rules in their tribes.
 Muhajir (MQM) in Karachi has started movements for their protections
POSITIVE EFFECTS OF ETHNOCENTRISM:
 Ethnocentric group seems to survive better than tolerant groups.

 It justifies sacrifice and sanctifies martyrdom.
 It reinforces nationalism and patriotism
 Without ethnocentrism, a vigor national consciousness is probably impossible.
 It encourages social solidarity in societies
 Forces of cooperation become stronger
 It helps to keep the nations tied to the concept of national sovereignty.
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ETHNOCENTRISM:
 Since no culture is static, every culture must change if it is to survive, but ethnocentrism
do not support change in culture.
 It creates tight boundaries among various groups.
 Prejudice is created.
 Due to prejudice, hatred also takes its place in society.
 Process of social relations get slower.
 Conflict is created among various groups.
 It limits a person to a particular group, to which he belongs.
 Ethnocentric people are not influenced by social changes taking place around them.
 It discourages cultural change and due to this it creates backwardness.

 National development is hampered due to ethnocentrism
XENOCENTRISM
In psychological terms, Xenocentrism is considered a type of deviant behavior because it sways

from the norms of society. It is unexpected that an individual would value the goods, services,
styles, ideas and other cultural elements of another nation. However, in some limited,
circumstances, it has been noted that Xenocentrism can help to shed light on cultural
deficiencies, whether it be ideas or products, and offers the opportunity to fix that which may
legitimately inferior to another country or culture.
It is also noted that self-perception and self-esteem can contribute to Xenocentrism. In certain
circumstances, some individuals may attempt to elevate their perception among others by
eschewing domestic products for foreign ones. By doing so, the individual believes she is
painting herself in a better light as a more educated, worldly and savvy consumer.
The opposite of Xenocentrism is ethnocentrism which is the tendency to overvalue one's own
native cultural beliefs and values and therefore devalues the worth of the elements of other
cultures.
DEFINITION:
In literary sense, Xenocentrism means a preference for the foreign, broadly speaking,
Xenocentrism is the term used that the people have been convinced that any products
developed in their own countries are inferior to those that are produced in more
industrialized nations.
Xenocentrism is the opposite of ethnocentrism which means preferring ideas and things from
other cultures over ideas and things from your own culture.
Or more precisely in sociology term we can define it as that: It is the belief by the people that
the products, styles, or ideas of their own society are inferior to those that originates elsewhere in
any other developed society.
SOME EXAMPLES OF XENOCENTRISM
 Americans' belief that European's produce superior automotive vehicles

 European Renaissance artists desire to emulate ancient Greek artwork
 Americans belief that French or Spanish wine is superior to what is produced by
American vineyards
 The belief that cheeses in France are far superior to those in the United States
 The concept that the quality of Ireland's beer is far superior to that produced domestically
 Coveting the culture of another country such as in Central America where the work day is
set up far differently than in the United States

 The belief that the way of dress by another culture is significantly superior and that those
within one's native country should adopt that same dress
 The belief that other countries produce better children's toys
 The concept that a quality product can't be purchased in one's native country
 The idea that cloth to make clothes is better produced by other nations
CAUSES OF XENOCENTRISM IN PAKISTAN:
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: It is the very duty of educational institutions to develop

pride among the members of the nations that they belong to a respectable and honorable culture.
If this feeling is developed, then nobody will feel inferiority about his/her own culture. But
unfortunately our educational institutions did not perform their duty well. Our education policy is
not such that we realize our own cultural superiority among the masses but it is more towards the
Xenocentrism.
Might be it is one of the reason of our colonial masters who give us British and western culture.
We are neither proper Muslim, nor proper western civilized. We are hanging in between our own
Muslims, Indians or Hindus and western cultures. All this is what we are teaching to our children
and what we are learning in our educational institutions.
Some people of Pakistan are from foreign educational institutions. These institutions inject in
their delicate mind that your own culture is inferior to ours. So if you want to learn civilization,
then salute our culture and hate your own culture.
MEDIA, A CAUSE OF XENOCENTRISM: Media plays an important role in order to develop

the minds of a nation. Western media is promoting their own culture, values and norms and show
other cultures as a deviance. The common example of this is the French media making
propagandas against American media. But in case of Pakistan or other colonial culture the things
are totally opposite our media is showing which should not be there on the screen. They are
playing with our culture, changing the mind of the nation and taken to the masses away from our
own norms and values.
WRONG PICTURE OF SOCIETY BY MEDIA: Sometimes advertisements promotes what
actually lacks in the society, but promoted in a way as if it’s penetrated deep in their roots. This
is why we say media / advertisements are used for propaganda purpose too. The advertisements
that have special messages in terms of glamour, elevates temptation to cause to switch. The
degree of acceptance may vary from individual to individual. It may have ‘macro effects’ and not
‘micro’ ones on the society and sometimes the change comes so gradually that before we realize
it, we are practically into it. Cultural and Social norms are such issues that are at a stake almost
in every society, especially in the developing ones, like Pakistan.
INFLUENCE OF THE WESTERN CULTURE: It is very common in our society when one
wants to impress his/her fellows he says,” oh I bought this from Europe or I went to England and

was amazed to see their lifestyle and if I get I chance I will go there as I am wasting time in
Pakistan”.
Sad but it is a fact that our people prefer imported things over our products although they are
much better. It’s just not the matter of products but each and every aspect of our life
unconsciously influenced by Xenocentrism. Whether it may be the matter of dress, we prefer
theirs and feel confident and fashionable. We talk in their language and imitate their accent,
which we think can help us in making our status high. Even if we want to astound others, we
speak in English.
Once our dramas, talk shows and other programs were famous all over the world and other
countries used to copy our ideas but know the situation has totally changed. All programs have
fallen victim of Xenocentrism. It’s just not the media world but our living style, our politics,
education, culture and even our religion have become an amalgamation of western and eastern.
FEUDALISM: Pakistan is hardly in metaphysical stage. It is among developing countries with
very low development rate. This is particularly so with regard to clichés such as ‘Pakistan is an
agrarian economy’, and the view, that ‘Pakistan is largely rural’ this causes disappointment in
Pakistanis.
ILLITERACY: Pakistan is considered as an illiterate country. Foreigners take it as less civilized
and ill-mannered nation state. Foreigner’s down pay sight of honor to this country. Pakistanis are
considered to be less motivated towards education and those who get education having poor
standard, don’t know its practical implementation. So, in practical life they really failed in the
society.
EFFECTS OF XENOCENTRISM ON PAKISTANI SOCIETY:
DEVALUING OF CULTURE: This is the very effect of Xenocentrism in a society. A

Xenocentrism person always hates all the features of his culture rather all the features are not
bad. But once he has developed Xenocentrism, he always dislikes his cultural characteristics.
CONFLICTS AMONG CIVILIZATIONS: Ethnocentrism and Xenocentrism cause conflicts
among civilizations. For example, cultural conflicts of eastern and western culture are one of the
reason of Xenocentrism among the society.
PRODUCT CHOICES: Xenocentrism has made Pakistanis more brand conscious “Be
Pakistani & Buy Pakistani” concept failed to being adopted. People take Pakistani home product
as substandard cheap and go to buy imported ones
CHANGE OF STYLES, ARCHITECTURE, DRESSES& FOODS: Our eastern and
subcontinent way of construction and architecture are now transferred toward western style. Our
dresses are no more National dresses. We usually use western style of wearing. We are more
towards fast foods from continental foods.

DESTRUCTION OF FAMILY SYSTEM: Xenocentrism has destroyed our family structure.
Earlier we had a pride on our joint family system. But now we don’t like joint family system.
Now Pakistanis are more towards nuclear family system.
DESTRUCTION OF NATIONAL LANGUAGE: Our national language is Urdu. But we feel
shy to speak in Urdu. It is because of Xenocentrism. We feel proud to talk in English. No one
can be successful in life if he is not experts in English. We have destroyed our national valuable
heritage only because of this Xenocentrism.
LOSS OF BUSINESSES IN THE HOME COUNTRY
LOSS OF JOBS IN THE HOME COUNTRY
DEGRADED ECONOMIC SITUATION
OVERALL REDUCTION OF MORALE WITHIN THE NATION
A LOSS OF POPULATION TO EMIGRATION
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE IDENTITY OF OTHERS IN RELATION TO CULTURE
HOW TO REDUCE XENOCENTRISM IN PAKISTAN:
 Institutional Role: Our Institutions must be strong; our social institutions are polluted
with Xenocentrism and are suffering from inferiority complex. So first we need to
strengthen our social institutions.
 Ideological education: Ideology of Pakistan should be properly defined and propagated.
 The concept of being Pakistani: The concept of be Pakistani, buy Pakistani should be
strengthened. We should be proud of be Pakistani.
 Role of Media: Media should portray the real and positive picture of Pakistan rather than
copying the western media. It is the responsibility of media to promote our own cultures,
values rather than others.
 To develop cultural policy: We have to develop certain culture policy so that the
common men are made aware of our true culture. Common man doesn’t know that what
the true national culture of Pakistan is. We are stagnant with our ethical culture. But we
didn’t think what the whole culture of Pakistan is. Even, nowadays we do not have true
ethical culture. We are lacking behind in proper promotion of our culture, the need of the
hour is that Pakistani culture at the international level will be promoted.
CONCLUSION:
In our fast-changing world, the rapid transformations in communication and technology are
bound to influence our culture. If confidence and pride is not restored to our cultural values, it

could result in the adoption of only superficial symbols of these new changes. Such an adoption
would lead neither to any meaningful change in our socio-economic development nor to a
meaningful integration of our social consciousness. It is essential that our cultural structure is
receptive to new ideas to comprehend the technological stimulation of consciousness.
If globalization finds us in cultural confusion and chaos, we are bound to suffer from externally
imposed cultural patterns. Our cultural heritage is one of the oldest in the world and our people
have always shown resilience to new ideas. We need to rehabilitate our cultural pride and to
anticipate its future manifestations so that we emerge as a nation living in the modern world with
a unique, distinct, and proud heritage.
SOCIALIZATION
Culture and Socialization; formal and non-formal socialization, transmission of culture, cultural
relativism. Sub-cultures.
 Young and Mack: the process of introducing the individual into social word is called
socialization. In common sense, socialization is a lifelong training for the adjustment of
one’s life in society. The process of socialization is process of learning norms, roles,
techniques and other social patterns.
 Peter says that socialization is process of transmission of culture, the process whereby
man learns the rules and practices of social groups
 Horton and Hunt said that socialization is the process whereby one internalizes the
norms of groups among whom one lives so that a unique “self” emerges.
FACTORS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONALITY
Biological inheritance: The nature-nurture debate
Physical environment: The climate & geographic conditions
Culture: Components of culture
Group experience: Birds of a feather flock together
Unique experience: Siblings have different personalities
Religion, education, politics: values, beliefs, philosophy, learning of knowledge and skills
Society: society in ourselves
TYPES OF SOCIALIZATION

1) Primary socialization
2) Anticipatory socialization
3) Developmental socialization
4) Re-socialization
SOURCE /AGENCIES OF SOCIALIZATION
The family, Neighbors, Religion, Economics, Politics, Education, Peers or age mates, Social
institutions, Literature and mass media of communication, The community, Media, Folkways,
Mores, Customs, Clubs, Associations, Networks
FUNCTION OF SOCIALIZATION
 Man from biological being to social being

 Development of the personality
 Helps to become disciplined
 Helps to enact different roles
 Provides knowledge and skills
 Helps to develop right aspirations of life
 Contributes to the stability of social order
 Helps to reduce social distance
 Provides scope for bright future
 Helps the transformation of culture
FORMAL AND NON FORMAL SOCIALIZATION
Formal socialization is learning skills, values, and norms with planned and organized
experiences such as in school. Informal socialization is learning without an institution or formal
procedure.
Formal education – Organized, guided by a formal curriculum, leads to a formally recognized
credential such as a high school completion diploma or a degree, and is often guided and
recognized by government at some level. Teachers are usually trained as professionals in some
way.
Non-formal learning – Organized (even if it is only loosely organized), may or may not be
guided by a formal curriculum. This type of education may be led by a qualified teacher or by a
leader with more experience. Though it doesn’t result in a formal degree or diploma, non-formal
education is highly enriching and builds an individual’s skills and capacities. Continuing
education courses are an example for adults. Girl guides and boy scouts are an example for
children. It is often considered more engaging, as the learner’s interest is a driving force behind
their participation.

Informal learning – No formal curriculum and no credits earned. The teacher is simply
someone with more experience such as a parent, grandparent or a friend. A father teaching his
child to play catch or a babysitter teaching a child their ABC’s is an example of informal
education.
These may be overly simplified explanations. There are times when the lines between each type
of learning get blurred, as well. It isn’t always as cut and dry as it seems, but these definitions
give you a general idea of each type of learning.
STAGES OF SOCIALIZATION
 Oral Stage
 Anal Stage
 Genital (Oedipal) Stage
 Latency Stage
 Adolescence Stage.
Erikson (1950) believes that personality continues to be molded throughout the entire lifespan
from birth to death. This period has been divided into eight stages by him. Each stage has its
characteristic features marked and affected by emotional crisis, particular culture of the person
and his interaction with the society of which he is a part.
ORAL STAGE: This stage expands from zero to one-and-a-half years. During this period
mouth is the sensitive zone of the body and the main source of joy and pleasure for the child.
How the infant is being cared for by the mother makes the infant trust or mistrusts the world
(represented by mother) around him. If his wants are frequently satisfied, he develops trust and
believes that the world will take care of him. In case of frequent dissatisfaction, mistrust
develops leading the infant to believe that the people around him cannot be believed, relied on,
and that he is going to lose most of what he wants. After the first six months (sucking period),
the remaining one year (biting period) is fairly difficult for the child and mother because of
eruption of teeth and weaning. If properly handled, infant’s trust gets reinforced and he develops
an in-built and lifelong spring of optimism and hope.
Broken Family: Persons, who had an unpleasant (abandoned, unloved and uncared) babyhood,
are likely to find parenthood as burdensome and may express dependent, helpless, abusive
behavior, and angry outbursts i.e., oral character. To such people, caseworker is like parents,
who helps the client to verbalize his anger and distrust and later provides emotional support and
protective services.
ANAL STAGE: Towards the end of biting period of oral stage, the child is able to walk, talk,
and eat on his own. He can retain or release something that he has. This is true of bowel and
bladder function also. He can either retain or release his bowel and bladder contents. Now, the
child no more depends upon the mouth zone for pleasure. He now derives pleasure from bowel
and bladder (anal zone) functioning, which entails anxiety because of toilet training by parents.

Child is taught where to pass urine and where to go for defecation etc. In this training of bladder
and bowel control, child may develop autonomy, or shame and doubt. The task of anal is to
develop autonomy. If the parents are supportive without being overprotective and if the child is
allowed to function with some independence, he gains some confidence in his autonomy
probably by the age of three and prefers love over hate, cooperation over willfulness, and self-
expression over suppression.
Autonomy, thus, overbalances shame and doubt and leads to development of confidence that he
can control his functions, and also, to some extent, the people around him. Contrary to this, the
child may feel angry, foolish and ashamed if parents criticize his faces and over-control his
bowel and bladder functioning during the training for toilet. Observations of sanskaras convey
acceptance to the child and help the parents to train them in appropriate manner. The children
(with more mistrust and doubt in their share) when adults may need help in accepting failures
and imperfection as an inherent part of one’s life. By accepting the client as he is, the caseworker
can reduce his feeling of self-hatred and perfectionism. Over-demanding adults or those who
express temper tantrums when asked to assume responsibility may need to be helped to control
their impulsive acts. They should be rewarded when they exhibit controls, and one should
reinforce their autonomy and independence when exercised. Autonomy and independence are
totally different from impulsive acts as these involve rationality and not emotionality.
GENITAL (OEDIPAL) STAGE: The task for this period is to develop and strengthen
initiative, failing which the child develops a strong feeling of guilt. This period extends from 3rd
to 6th years of life, i.e., pre-school period. He is now capable of initiating activity, both
intellectual as well as motor on his own. How far this initiative is reinforced depends upon how
much physical freedom is given to the child and how far his curiosity is satisfied. If he is led to
feel bad about his behavior or his interests, he may grow with a sense of guilt about his self-
initiated activities.
Erikson (1950) opines that the child takes first initiative at home when he/she expresses
passionate interest in his/her parent of opposite sex. The parents ultimately disappoint
him/her. They should try to help the child to identify with the same sex parent, e.g., the girl
should be encouraged to identify with mother and the son with the father. In addition to this
initiative, the child also attempts to wrest a place for self in the race of siblings for parent’s
affection. He sees the difference between what he wants and what he is asked to do. This
culminates into a clear-cut division between the child’s set of expanded desires and the parental
set of restrictions. He gradually “turns these values (restrictions, i.e., don’ts) into self-
punishment”.
Slowly and gradually, he extracts more initiative from the conflict and grows happily if his
initiative gets proper and adequate reinforcement. The caseworker encourages the clients
burdened with guilt feelings to take initiative in family as well as in other situations, and works
with his social environment to strengthen his capacity to take initiative.
LATENCY STAGE: This stage covers the period from 6 to 11 years, i.e., school age. The child
can reason out rationally and can use the tools that adults use. The sexual interests and curiosity
(common in genital period) get suppressed till puberty. If encouraged and given opportunity, he
gains confidence in his ability to perform and use adult materials. This leads to feeling of
industry in him. When unable to use adult materials, he develops inferiority feelings. Such

children may develop problems with peers. They need to be encouraged to interact with
classmates and be less dependent upon others. If the child has mastered the task of genital period
(initiative in place of guilt) he will be able to master the tasks of latency (industry in place of
inferiority) also provided he is encouraged to undertake and helped to execute the responsibilities
entrusted to him.
ADOLESCENCE STAGE: This period, regarded as a period of turmoil, usually starts at 12-13
years and can extend up to 18-19 years. The adolescents, during this transitional process from
childhood to maturity, behave something like an adult and sometimes like a child. Parents too
show their ambivalence to accept them in their new role of an adult in-the-making. This stage
exhibits all the psycho-social characteristics of earlier period and only towards the end, all these
get resolved into a new set of role (identity) for the adolescent. In order to develop a personal
identity, he becomes fan of some hero, starts following certain ideologies, and tries his luck with
opposite sex.
Indecision and confusion are not uncommon in this stage. Identification with a wrong person
shall create problems for him. The task of this age is to develop identity, i.e., values, strengths,
skills, various roles, limitations, etc., failing which his identity gets diffused and he fails to know
how to behave in different situations. He needs to be helped to deal with the physiological,
emotional pressures along-with pressures from parents, peers, etc. Group work is more helpful
with problem-adolescents. When showing confusion about their role, they can be helped to
emulate the group leader or identify with group worker. Parents can handle adolescents properly
if educated adequately about the needs and problems of this age.
Similarly, tasks for young adulthood, adulthood and old age are intimacy vs. isolation,
generativity vs. stagnation, and ego-integrity vs. despair. These psycho-analytical concepts are
helpful in understanding behavior of the individuals. Apart from these, there are some other tasks
described by some other scholars for each stage which according to them are to be achieved for a
normal human development.
THEORIES OF SOCIALIZATION
1. THE LOOKING-GLASS SELF
(In 1902, Charles Horton Cooley created the concept of the looking-glass self, which explored
how identity is formed)
The looking-glass self is a social psychological concept created by Charles Horton Cooley in
1902. It states that a person's self grows out of society's interpersonal interactions and the
perceptions of others. The term refers to people shaping their identity based on the perception of
others, which leads the people to reinforce other people's perspectives on themselves. People
shape themselves based on what other people perceive and confirm other people's opinion of
themselves.
The looking-glass self is a social psychological concept, created by C H Cooley in 1902. A
person's self grows out of society's interpersonal interactions and the perceptions of others about
him/her. A social self of this sort might be called the reflected or looking-glass self. C.H. Cooley
has summed it up in his statement: "I am not what I think I am and I am not what you think I am;
I am what I think that you think I am. There are three main components of the looking-glass self:

 First, we imagine how we must appear to others.
 Second, we imagine the judgment of that appearance.
 Finally, we develop our self through the judgments of others.
The self builds only with the help of others. If others start treating a pretty girl as unattractive she
will never feel beautiful. We discover our self through the reactions of others is called “looking-
glass self”. In the looking-glass self a person views himself or herself through others' perceptions
in society and in turn gains identity. Identity, or self, is the result of the concept in which we
learn to see ourselves as others do (Yeung & Martin 2003). The looking-glass self begins at an
early age and continues throughout a person’s life.
In hypothesizing the framework for the looking glass self, Cooley said, "the mind is mental"
because "the human mind is social. " In other words, the mind's mental ability is a direct result of
human social interaction. Beginning as children, humans begin to define themselves within the
context of their socializations. The child learns that the symbol of his/her crying will elicit a
response from his/her parents, not only when they are in need of necessities, such as food, but
also as a symbol to receive their attention. George Herbert Mead described the self as "taking the
role of the other," the premise for which the self is actualized. Through interaction with others,
we begin to develop an identity about who we are, as well as empathy for others.
2. SIGMUND FREUD
(6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939). He is considered to be the founder of the psychodynamic
approach to psychology which looks closely at the unconscious drives that motivate people to act
in certain ways.
Freud’s Model of Personality

Basic drives and influence of society
Basic Human Needs Society in Action
The three parts of personality- operating within human mind

Ego
(the Control Centre)
A person’s conscious efforts to
balance innate pleasure-seeking
drives with the demands of society.
Id Superego
the instinctive and (the Police Force)
unsocialized desires. the operation of
It’s selfish & culture & society
antisocial within the individual

Learning Objectives
Explain the theory of psychosexual stages in the context of adult personality development.
Describe Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality
Key Points
Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality argues that human behavior is the result of
the interactions among three component parts of the mind: the id, ego, and superego. This
"structural theory" of personality places great importance on how conflicts among the parts of
the mind shape behavior and personality. These conflicts are mostly unconscious.
According to Freud, personality develops during childhood and is critically shaped through a
series of five psychosexual stages, which he called his psychosexual theory of development.
During each stage, a child is presented with a conflict between biological drives and social
expectations; successful navigation of these internal conflicts will lead to mastery of each
developmental stage, and ultimately to a fully mature personality. Freud's ideas have since been
met with criticism, in part because of his singular focus on sexuality as the main driver of human
personality development.
THE Id
The id, the most primitive of the three structures, is concerned with instant gratification of basic
physical needs and urges. It operates entirely unconsciously (outside of conscious thought). For
example, if your id walked past a stranger eating ice cream, it would most likely take the ice
cream for itself. It doesn't know, or care, that it is rude to take something belonging to someone
else; it would care only that you wanted the ice cream. In other words, Id is
The id is the only component of personality that is present from birth.
This aspect of personality is entirely unconscious
According to Freud, the id is the source of all psychic energy (libido)
The id is driven by the pleasure principle, which strives for immediate gratification of all desires,
wants, and needs
If these needs are not satisfied immediately, the result is a state of anxiety or tension
However, immediately satisfying these needs is not always realistic or even possible
THE EGO
In contrast to the instinctual id and the moral superego, the ego is the rational, pragmatic part of
our personality. It is less primitive than the id and is partly conscious and partly unconscious. It's
what Freud considered to be the "self," and its job is to balance the demands of the id and
superego in the practical context of reality. So, if you walked past the stranger with ice cream
one more time, your ego would mediate the conflict between your id ("I want that ice cream right
now") and superego ("It's wrong to take someone else's ice cream") and decide to go buy your

own ice cream. While this may mean you have to wait 10 more minutes, which would frustrate
your id, your ego decides to make that sacrifice as part of the compromise– satisfying your desire
for ice cream while also avoiding an unpleasant social situation and potential feelings of shame.
The ego is,
The ego is the component of personality that is responsible for dealing with reality.
According to Freud, the ego develops from the id and ensures that the impulses of the id can be
expressed in a manner acceptable by the society
The ego functions in the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious mind
The ego operates based on the reality principle, which strives to satisfy the id's desires in realistic
and socially appropriate ways
The reality principle weighs the costs and benefits of an action before deciding to act upon or
abandon impulses
THE SUPEREGO
The superego is concerned with social rules and morals—similar to what many people call their
"conscience" or their "moral compass." It develops as a child learns what their culture considers
right and wrong. If your superego walked past the same stranger, it would not take their ice
cream because it would know that that would be rude. However, if both your id and your
superego were involved, and your id was strong enough to override your superego's concern, you
would still take the ice cream, but afterward you would most likely feel guilt and shame over
your actions. The super ego,
The superego is the aspect of personality that holds all of our internalized moral standards and
ideals that we acquire from both parents and society
The superego provides guidelines for making judgments.
According to Freud, the superego begins to emerge at around age five.
There are two parts of the superego:
The ego ideal: includes the rules and standards for good behaviors.
The conscious: includes information about things that are viewed as bad by parents and society.
Culture controls human drives through superego- Freud called it “Repression”
The competing demands of self and society are resolved through compromise- Freud called it
“sublimation” which transforms selfish drives into socially accepted activities.
Freud believed that the id, ego, and superego are in constant conflict and that adult personality
and behavior are rooted in the results of these internal struggles throughout childhood. He
believed that a person who has a strong ego has a healthy personality and that imbalances in this

system can lead to neurosis (what we now think of as anxiety and depression) and unhealthy
behaviors.
Critical Analysis
We appreciate Freud’s idea that early childhood experiences have lasting impact on our
personalities, and
That we internalize social norms, but
Most of the critics of Freud’s era refused to accept sex as basic human need
Recently, Freud’s theory is criticized as male centered thereby devaluing women.
Also Freud made biology a center point of his theory ignoring social, cultural and other
individual aspects.

Chapter 3
SOCIAL RESEARCH
Chapter Topics: Research definition, Characteristics of Social Research, types of research,

salient features of good research, importance of social research, research process, research
methods /techniques (Observation, Questionnaire, Interview, Survey) and other common latest
methods
SCOPE OF SOCIAL RESERACH

1. Social research helps us imagine alternative futures
2. Social research helps us make sense of our socio-cultural
changes
3. Social research helps to contribute to our health and well-
being
4. Social research helps to save human and non-human life
5. Social research helps to make society safer and predictable to
compete with;
6. Social research helps to create social scientists as public
intellectuals
7. Social research helps to change the world for the progress and
prosperity
8. Social research helps to broaden your horizons
9. Understanding Societal units as a web in inter and intra
communal network;
10. The rapid aging of the population;

11. The role of women and the place of international
communication;
12. The economic implications of such domestic problems as a
decaying infrastructure, toxic and nuclear cleanup, the savings-
and-loan bailout, and Medicaid funding;
13. The shift from public-sector to private-sector decision-

making as the most important force in global affairs;
14. Combating drugs and teen ager issues with efficient and
effective solution;
15. Population issues and changing values;

16. Ethics, changes in family life, and shifts in attitudes toward the
environment;
Introduction to Research: We can define research as a systematic and logical pursuit made by

human beings to find out knowledge from any “phenomenon or relationship”. This tendency is
deep rooted in human behavior. Understandably, any human activity, can develop errors and
therefore the pursuit of research should use systematic methods so that errors can be brought to
minimum. There is no single prescribed method in research. In fact there are variety of methods
which can be used seeing the nature of phenomenon or relationship – which we investigate. The
range of research methods and the philosophy behind such methods taken together constitute
research methodology. The success of the research primarily depends upon whether we have
opted for the right kind of methodology to investigate the issue in hand. This tendency, peculiar
to human beings has led mankind from its primitive stage of existence to modern age.
Significance of research is not only limited to satisfying human urge to know the unknown it is
linked to whole process of development. In modern times it is much more relevant. There is no
sphere of human endeavor which is untouched from the influence of research. The
entire economic planning, framing of government policies, business, studying social process,
or marketing is carried out with the help of research tools in our hand. You might have seen how
big business houses project and advertise their products. These advertising tactics are based on
serious research exercise. You will not find any other phase of human history when research
might have played such an important role in our life.i
What is Social Research: Society is an organized group of persons associated together with
shared objective, norms and values pertain to the society. People have social life and social
process. Research is systematic and organized effort to investigate a specific problem that needs
a solution. It contributes to the general body of knowledge. It also corrects human knowledge.

Social research now can be defined as the systematic and objective analysis and recording of
controlled observations that may lead to the development of generalization, principles or theories
resulting in prediction and possibly ultimate control of events in society. It attempts to answer or
solve social problems.
Research is an attempt to know new things, facts and information in a scientific manner. Its main
purpose is to diffuse knowledge and establish theories based on the believable facts. The method
that is followed to carry on research is "scientific method". In general terms, it can be said that
"research" is the aim and the scientific method is the means of attaining it. Research in whatever
science it is carried on, follows the same scientific method.
1. Research is a careful study or investigation, specially to discover new facts or
information.ii
2. Social research method is a systematic method of exploring, analyzing and
conceptualizing social life in order to "extend, correct or verify knowledge, whether that
knowledge aids in the construction of a theory or in the practice or an art. iii
3. Social Research to the structural observation of social behavior iv
4. It is a systematic method of discovering new facts and verifying old ones with their
sequence interrelationship and caused explanationv.
5. It is a continuous investigation for facts is order to solve a problematic situationvi
6. Research is the discovering of facts through systematic and scientific processvii
7. It is the systematic process of pre-planned inquiryviii
8. Social research is a systematized investigation to gain new knowledge about social
phenomenon and problems.ix
9. “Social research is a scientific undertaking which by means of logical methods, aim to
discover new facts or old facts and to analyze their sequences, interrelationships, casual
explanations and natural laws which govern them.”x
In the light of the above definitions & meaning concluded that, research is a systematic &
scientific method of discovering new facts & verifying old ones is order to solve a problematic
situation.
Characteristics of social research:
 It is directed towards the solution of problems. The ultimate goal is to discover cause-
and-effect relationship between social problems.
 It emphasis the development of generalizations, principles or theories that will be helpful
in predicting future occurrences.
 It is based upon observable experience or empirical evidence.
 It demands accurate observations and description. Researchers may choose from a variety
or non-qualitative description of their observations.
 It involves gathering new data from primary sources or using existence data for new
purpose.
 Although social research activities may at time be somewhat random and unsystematic, it
is more often characterized by carefully designed procedure that applies rigorous
analysis.

 It requires expertise. The researcher knows what is already known about the problem and
how others have investigated.
 It strives to the objective and logical applying every possible test to validate the
procedure employed, data collected and conclusion reached.
 It involves the guests for answer to unsolved problems.
 It is characterized by patient and unhurried activity. Researcher must expect
disappointment and discouragement as they pursue the answer to difficult question.
 It is carefully recorded and reported. Each important term is defined, limiting factors are
recognized, procedures are described in detail, reference are carefully documented,
results are objectively recorded and conclusions are presented with scholarly caution and
restraint.
 It is interdisciplinary in nature
 It sometimes requires courage.
Objectives of social research:
 To gain familiarity with a phenomenon or to achieve new insights into it (studies with
this object in view are termed as exploratory or formulative research studies);
 To portray accurately the characteristics of a particular individual, situation or a group
(studies with this object in view are known as descriptive research studies);
 To determine the frequency with which something occurs or with which it is associated
with something else (studies with this object in view are known as diagnostic research
studies);
 To test a hypothesis of a causal relationship between variables (such studies are known as
hypothesis-testing research studies).
Importance of Social Research: In addition to providing a more grounded and quantifiable

way to understand our society and the future of vast societal movements and changes, social
research offers us the ability to look at large issues in a more focused, carefully-presented, and
hopefully, completely objective manner.
While having dissent among works of research is valuable as it communicates alternate ways of

approaching problems, questions, or topics, there is equal value in contributing to a larger body
of scholarship that supports certain commonly-held or hypothetically viable ideas. Furthermore,
the universal body of social research, particularly as it accumulates and branches out across
sectors and subject areas, provides us with a wealth of opportunity to ask “the big questions"
such as what our driving forces are as societies, what propels us to make certain decisions and
distinctions, and most generally, who we are not just as individuals, but as part of the collective
—humanity.
While the focus of my research (or any research, for that matter) is incapable on its own of
achieving the wide goals stated above, it will provide data and analysis that can be implemented
within a practical scenario. While it is only one contribution among an existing wealth of related
data, insight, and observation, it examines an important interaction that can be of benefit
to employers, employees, human resources personnel, and anyone else concerned with personal
and interpersonal dynamics, especially as they relate to hierarchal structures of hierarchy and

subordination in the workplace. This research will not only aid in helping readers to understand
this aspect of society (as it exists in our professional lives) but will allow for suggestions of
possible future trends in the area of supervisory issues as they relate to employee morale.
To be more specific and less “global" in response to this question, this answer is suggesting that
in a desire to achieve the greater overarching needs as a piece of social research, a synthesis of
information and conclusions about how morale is directly related to the supervisory relationship
(on both sides) can be formed and can provide informed speculation on the future of the trends
analyzed while also indirectly suggesting certain truisms about our society at large. For instance,
when reading in the literature that there is an observed lack of correlation between incentives and
morale when compared to morale and a positive supervisory relationship, I need to consider the
larger societal context, which is gleaned from valuable social research in other fields, as well as
that specific to my topic. This collection of information can be absorbed and compared to
conflicting data, as well as that which I have gathered on my own to form a singular conclusion
that simultaneously refutes, corresponds with, and hopefully blazes some new ground. If I am
able to do this effectively, I have achieved some of the most valuable targets in social research.
Importance: Research is carried on in the social field not just with academic interests. It has
both academic and non-academic purposes and importance. Importance of research can be
briefly stated here.
1. Research is essential to diffuse knowledge and to expand its horizon.

2. Research provides practical clues, to undertake measures that lead to social improvement,
social change and social progress.
3. Research by probing into the perplexing problems of the day… provides new insight re-
garding their nature. Research helps us to know the nature and the magnitude of the
problems.
4. Researchers have commercial importance also. Industries, business firms and commercial
establishments can get lot of information and clues about their endeavors in society.
5. Research can provide all the required data and facts to the administrators to adopt and
undertake appropriate policies, plans and programmes.
6. Research has educational importance. It is mainly an intellectual activity. Information ob-
tained through research may have their educational importance.
7. Research motivates interdisciplinary studies. It stresses the interdependence of different
sciences. It thus strengthens the “interdisciplinary approach” which is emerging out these
days.
8. The role of research in several fields of applied economics, whether related to business or
to the economy as a whole, has greatly increased in modern times. The increasingly
complex nature of business and government has focused attention on the use of research
in solving operational problems. Research, as an aid to economic policy, has gained
added importance, both for government and business.
9. Research provides the basis for nearly all government policies in our economic system.
10. Research has its special significance in solving various operational and planning
problems of business and industry
11. Research is equally important for social scientists in studying social relationships and in
seeking answers to various social problems

Other uses and Importance
1) Those working in the academic field can obtain a new degree known as Ph.D. by
successfully carrying out research as per the stipulated rules.
2) Those working in the research department attached to industries, other types of establish-
ments have made research their profession and obtain salary for their service. It provides
job opportunities for a few intellectuals.
3) For the philosophers and scientists research can be intellectually delighting and mentally
satisfying, and
4) Those who are in the field of literature, art, architecture, etc., can seek to establish new
styles and trends through research.
5) To those students who are to write a master’s or Ph.D. thesis, research may mean a
careerism or a way to attain a high position in the social structure;
6) To professionals in research methodology, research may mean a source of livelihood;
7) To philosophers and thinkers, research may mean the outlet for new ideas and insights;
8) To literary men and women, research may mean the development of new styles and
creative work;
9) To analysts and intellectuals, research may mean the generalisations of new theories.
Thus, research is the fountain of knowledge for the sake of knowledge and an important source
of providing guidelines for solving different business, governmental and social problems. It is a
sort of formal training which enables one to understand the new developments in one’s field in a
better way
Salient features of Good Research: The features of good research design is often characterized
by adjectives like flexible, appropriate, efficient, economical and so on. Generally, the design
which minimizes bias and maximises the reliability of the data collected and analyzed is
considered a good design. The design which gives the smallest experimental error is supposed to
be the best design in many investigations. Similarly, a design which yields maximal information
and provides an opportunity for considering many different aspects of a problem is considered
most appropriate and efficient design in respect of many research problems. Thus, the question
of good design is related to the purpose or objective of the research problem and also with the
nature of the problem to be studied. A design may be quite suitable in one case, but may be
found wanting in one respect or the other in the context of some other research problem. One
single design cannot serve the purpose of all types of research problems.
A research design appropriate for a particular research problem, usually involves the
consideration of the following factorsxi:
1. Objective of research: The purpose of the research should be clearly defined and
common concepts be used.
2. Empirical - based on observations and experimentation on theories.

3. Objective of research: The objectives of research should be clearly and précised in its
nature. Further procedural design of the research should be carefully planned to yield
results that are as objective as possible.
4. Systematic - A good research should be a systematic and should follows orderly and
sequential procedure.
5. Controlled - all variables except those that are tested/experimented upon are kept
constant.
6. Employs hypothesis - guides the investigation process
7. Analytical - There is critical analysis of all data used so that there is no error in their
interpretation
8. Unbiased, & Logical - all findings are logically based on empirical. A good research is
always logical and based up evidences and relevant information
9. Employs quantitative or statistical methods - data are transformed into numerical
measures and are treated statistically.
10. Reliability- a good research should have the ability to maximize the reliability of the
data. The analysis of data should be sufficiently adequate to reveal its significance and
the methods of analysis used should be appropriate. The validity and reliability of the
data should be checked carefully.
11. Problem solution- a good research paper should have the ability to
solve a particular problem and a single research design cannot solve the
different problems. A research question is a question that CAN be answered in an
objective way, at least partially and at least for now.
12. Available information- A good research question is one that can be answered using
information that already exists or that can be collected
13. Continuity: The research procedure used should be described in sufficient detail to
permit another researcher to repeat the research for further advancement, keeping the
continuity of what has already been attained.
14. Conclusions should be confined to those justified by the data of the research and limited
to those for which the data provide an adequate basis
15. Integrity& Ethical evidence: Greater confidence in research is warranted if the
researcher is experienced, has a good reputation in research and is a person of integrity.
A research is a comprehensive task and it requires great effort as a researcher on your part. The
first thing that determines the success of your research is your research topic. A good research
topic should have the following qualities. However, some school of thoughts believe that a good
research has few other features such as:-
1. It Has a Base in the Research Literature: Related to the former points, a well-stated
problem will relate to a research literature. Tight problems often relate to a well-defined
body of literature, written by a select group of researchers and published in a small
number of journals. With some problems, it might at first be difficult to establish the
connections and literature base, but there should be a base somewhere.
2. It Has Potential Significance/importance: This is the important ‘so what’ question:

Who cares once you solve the problem? Assume that you have solved the problem and
answered the questions and then ask yourself if you are any further ahead. At the very

least, the problem must have importance to the researcher, but ideally it should also be of
consequence to others.
3. Sufficient Data Are Available or Can Be Obtained: In some cases, there are
insufficient data to address the problem. Historical persons may have died, archival
materials may be lost, or there may be restrictions on access to certain environments. As
noted, it is difficult to conduct research on a distant country unless you can go there and
collect local data. One under-used approach is to use an existing database. Some data
banks have been developed over many years and contain many opportunities for
exploration of new questions and issues.
4. The Problem Can Be Stated Clearly and Concisely: Unless the problem can be stated
clearly and concisely it is probably a poor problem or a non-problem. The best way to
test the problem statement is to write it into a concise sentence or paragraph and to share
it with others. If the problem cannot be stated in a clear paragraph it has difficulties and
will not endure as a suitable problem. Of course, it is not easy to express complex issues
in simplistic terms and it may take many weeks and countless drafts before the statement
is satisfactory. Good critics are essential. If your spouse or mother cannot understand it, it
is probably flaky
5. Clarity is the most important quality of any research topic. The topic should have to be
clear so that others can easily understand the nature of your research. The research topic
should have a single interpretation so that people cannot get distracted. The topic should
have to be very clear in your mind so that you can properly undertake it. The research
topic should have to be free of any ambiguity. Clarity also means that the research topic
should have to be directional and it should set the whole research methodology.
6. Well-defined and well-phrased research topic is a half guarantee of a successful research.

Sometimes researchers phrase the research topic in such a way that it gives a double-
barreled impression. The research topic should have to be well-defined and well-phrased
and it should have to be easy to understand. it should have a single meaning.
7. The language of the research topic should have to be simple. You should use technical
terms only when it is necessary, otherwise use simple words so that everyone can
understand it. keep the ethics of writing in your mind to avoid any unethical term or
sentence. Do not introduce any sort of bias directly or indirectly, willingly or unwillingly
in the research problem or research topic.
8. The titling of the research problem should follow the rules of titling. there are various
rules of titling. You can either use a sentence case or a title case but most of the titles
follow title case. Read the rules of titling titles before writing it down.
Current importance should also be the consideration of the researcher while selecting a

research topic. An obsolete topic will not be beneficial for anyone the topic should have current
importance. You should also assess how much the topic will provide benefit to the field in which
you are conducting the study.

Steps in Research Process: The following seven steps outline a simple and effective strategy for
finding information for a research paper and documenting the sources you find. Depending on
your topic and your familiarity with the library, you may need to rearrange or recycle these steps.
Adapt this outline to your needs. The pictorial evidence of research process is as underxii:-
1. Problem Statement/ Problem Statement: A research problem is a statement about an area

of concern, a condition to be improved, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling question
that exists in scholarly literature, in theory, or in practice that points to the need for
meaningful understanding and deliberate investigation. A problem statement is a clear
description of the issue(s), it includes a vision, issue statement, and method used to solve the
problem. The 5 'W's can be used to spark the discussion about the problem. A problem
statement expresses the words that will be used to keep the effort focused and it should
represent a solvable problem.
2. Literature Review: A literature review is a survey of sources within a field of study, and is
an integral part of a research project. A literature review includes both summary
and synthesis and provides the reader with an overview of the scholarly work that has been
done on a particular topic. A literature review is not an annotated bibliography. The author
must show what has been written in a particular field and prove how his or her research is
going to add to the body of knowledge. A literature review should be considered as one part
of the overall argument of your research paper or project. It is your opportunity to describe
what is already known about your topic, gaps in the body of knowledge, and how your
research fits in to the larger picture. The purpose of a literature review is to: Place each work
in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied. ...
Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research. Locate your own research within
the context of existing literature [very important].
The purpose of a literature review is to

(i) Provide foundation of knowledge on topic.
(ii) Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to
other researchers.
(iii) Place your own research within the context of existing literature making a
case for why further study is needed etc.
3. Hypothesis Generation: A hypothesis ensures the entire research process remains scientific

and reliable. Though hypotheses are essential during the research process, it can produce
complications with regards to probability, significance and errors. A hypothesis is an
educational guess/predication based on observations. A hypothesis is an educated “guess”
about the source of the outbreak. Generating hypotheses enables the investigators to test
these hypotheses in an analytic study. The success of the investigation depends upon the
quality of the hypotheses. The six most common forms of hypotheses are:
1) Simple Hypothesis
2) Complex Hypothesis
3) Empirical Hypothesis
4) Null Hypothesis (Denoted by "HO")
5) Alternative Hypothesis (Denoted by "H1")
6) Logical Hypothesis
7) Statistical Hypothesis
4. Research Methodology: The process used to collect information and data for the purpose of
making business decisions. The methodology may include publication research, interviews,
surveys and other research techniques, and could include both present and historical
information.
5. Data Collection: Data collection is the process of gathering and measuring data, information
or any variables of interest in a standardized and established manner that enables the
collector to answer or test hypothesis and evaluate outcomes of the particular collection
6. Data Analysis: Data Analysis is the process of systematically applying statistical and/or
logical techniques to describe and illustrate, condense and recap, and evaluate data. ... An
essential component of ensuring data integrity is the accurate and appropriate
analysis of research findings
7. Draw Conclusion: A conclusion is, in some ways, like your introduction. You restate your
thesis and summarize your main points of evidence for the reader. You can usually do this in
one paragraph. In the following example, the thesis statement is in bold. Notice that it is
written in 2 sentences.
RESEARCH METHODS/ RESEARCH TECHNIQUES IN RESEARCH: There are four

types of Research Methods such as (i) Observation (ii) Interview (iii) Questionnaire (iv) Survey.
The detail of each is as under:-
1) OBSERVATION: Observation is a systematic data collection approach. Researchers

use all of their senses to examine people in natural settings or naturally occurring situations.
Observation of a field setting involves prolonged engagement in a setting or social situation,

clearly expressed, self-conscious notations of how observing is done, methodical and tactical
improvisation in order to develop a full understanding of the setting of interest, imparting
attention in ways that is in some sense 'standardized' AND recording one's observations.
 Observational research (or field research) is a type of correlational (i.e., non-experimental)

research in which a researcher observes ongoing behavior. There are a variety of types of
observational research, each of which has both strengths and weaknesses. These types are
organized below by the extent to which an experimenter intrudes upon or controls the
environment.
 Observational research is particularly prevalent in the social sciences and in marketing. It is a

social research technique that involves the direct observation of phenomena in their natural
setting. This differentiates it from experimental research in which a quasi-artificial
environment is created to control for spurious factors, and where at least one of the variables
is manipulated as part of the experiment. It is typically divided into naturalistic (or
“nonparticipant”) observation, and participant observation. Cases studies and archival
research are special types of observational research. Naturalistic (or nonparticipant)
observation has no intervention by a researcher. It is simply studying behaviors that occur
naturally in natural contexts, unlike the artificial environment of a controlled laboratory
setting. Importantly, in naturalistic observation, there is no attempt to manipulate variables. It
permits measuring what behavior is really like. However, its typical limitations consist in its
incapability exploring the actual causes of behaviors, and the impossibility to determine if a
given observation is truly representative of what normally occurs. However Observation is
the action or process of closely observing or monitoring something or someone.
Types of Observation:
Non-Controlled Non Participant Observation: Non-participant observation is

observation with limited interaction with the people one observes. For example, some
observational data can be collected unobtrusively (e.g. worn out carpet as indicators of high
use areas in a physical setting). Researchers who study how people communicate often want
to examine the details of how people talk and behave together. Non-participant observation
involving the use of recording devices might be a good choice. This data collection approach
results in a detailed recording of the communication and provides the researcher with access
to the contours of talk (e.g. intonation) as well as body behavior (e.g. facial expression, eye
gaze). Even a great observer cannot record these aspects in detail. Non-participant
observation may provide limited insight into the meaning of the social context studied. If
this contextual understanding is important, participant observation might be needed. These
two data collection techniques can complement each other and be used together.
Non Controlled- Participant Observation: Some researchers draw a distinction between

participant observation and observation. This distinction is murky. Participant observation
"combines participation in the lives of the people being studied with maintenance of a
professional distance that allows adequate observation and recording of data"xiii

Participant observation underscores the person's role as participant in the social setting he or
she observes. The range of roles one may play as a participant observer have been describe
by Gold (1958), Adler and Adler (1984) and others. Bernard (1998) suggests that participant
observation must be learned in the field. However, he identifies several skills associated with
participant observation.
Systematic Observation: an objective, well-ordered method for close examination of some

phenomenon or aspect of behavior so as to obtain reliable data unbiased by observer
interpretation. Systematic observation typically involves specification of the exact actions,
attributes, or other variables that are to be recorded and precisely how they are to be
recorded. The intent is to ensure that, under the same or similar circumstances, all observers
will obtain the same results.xiv
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF OBSERVATION:
2) QUESTIONNAIRE: A questionnaire is a research instrument consisting of a series of

questions (or other types of prompts) for the purpose of gathering information from
respondents. ... Although questionnaires are often designed for statistical analysis of the
responses, this is not always the case. The questionnaire is important in research because a
questionnaire is a research instrument consisting a series of questions and other prompts for the
purpose of gathering information from respondents. Although questionnaire are often designed
for stastical analysis of the responses, this is not always the case. The questionnaire was invented
by Sir Francis Galton. A questionnaire is an instrument for collecting data, and almost
always involve asking a given subject to respond to a set of oral or written question.
Types of Questionnaire :
1) Structured Questionnaire: A structured questionnaire, on the other hand, is one in

which the questions asked are precisely decided in advance. When used as an interviewing
method, the questions are asked exactly as they are written, in the same sequence, using the same
style, for all interviews. Nonetheless, the structured questionnaire can sometimes be left a bit
open for the interviewer to amend to suit a specific context.
Comes under quantitative research. It includes the low number of researchers and the high
number of respondents. They are also called as closed questionnaires. They usually include
answers such as very bad, bad, good, very good and so on.
 They have a definite and concrete questions

 They have to be prepared well in advance so as to ask as much questions and receive
info from the respondent.
 A formal inquiry is initiated.
 Supplements and checks the previously accumulated data.
 Commonly used in for social and economic problems, to study about the changes
caused due to change in policies, laws etc.

There are two types of structured questionnaire such as Close ended and open ended
questionnaire. The detail is as under:-
Open format questions: These are the type of questions that are used to allow the respondents
to express their views in a free flowing manner. By using such questions, the respondents do not
have to follow the criteria for answering questions and he/she can truly express their beliefs and
suggestions. An ideal questionnaire is a type of questionnaire that includes open ended questions
and also have feedback and suggestions for future improvements.
Closed format questions: Multiple choice questions comes under this category. The user is
restricted to answer their opinions through the options that is set by the surveyor. Hence, these
are also called as close ended questions. One of the main advantages of using closed ended
questions is the ease of doing preliminary analysis. These are usually used to find opinion about
known questions and answers. They are usually used to track the status and the improvements of
organizations and companies.
2) Un-Structured Questionnaire: A version of qualitative survey. They are usually based

around more open questions. Open questions also means recording more data as the respondents
can point out what is important for them, in their own words and methods. But it is more difficult
from the researcher’s side, since it does not give the correct idea of the topic and moreover
proper understanding of the data is needed.
 Usually used at the time of an interview.

 Doesn’t require much planning and time.
 More flexible for applying in many areas.
 Usually used to collect data about people and their personal info such as family,
debates, beliefs etc.
Advantages and disadvantages of questionnaire :
Advantages of Questionnaires:
1. Questionnaires are really inexpensive when they are handled properly. They can be
cheaper than taking surveys which requires a lot of time and money.
2. Questionnaires can be of different types, written, postal, telephone and many other
methods.
3. A single question or a topic can be asked to many at the same time without any kind of
delay. Unlike surveys they don’t have to go to each and everyone to get an opinion.
4. It is an effective method to get an opinion from a large number of people.
5. Large number of respondents can be possible varying in age, sex, occupation etc.
6. Question responses can be highly defined and specific, depending upon the type of
questions asked in the questionnaire.

7. These results can also be included as statistical survey, the deciding factor is the nature
of the questionnaire and on what topic was the questionnaire based on.
8. Unlike face to face surveys where the respondent has to answer within that
moment itself, questionnaires gives time to the respondents to think carefully, before
giving the answers.
9. Questionnaires are easily replicable and can be repeated, and if well-constructed and
properly piloted, they can be used as comparative materials for future studies and
projects.
10. Standardized questionnaires can already be validated and can be used to compare
between works and studies.
11. They are easy to administer and manage.
12. These type of data collection are common among all kinds of professions including
teaching and book keeping. Questionnaires have become a part of our daily lives.
13. The format for most type of questionnaires are common to the common people
irrespective of the status.
14. The most important part in a preliminary survey. Usually taken as a step to collect
important data such as feedback, suggestions and constructive criticisms.
15. Questionnaires are usually straightforward in their approach which makes them easier
to analyze and compare with the ideal answers.
16. Questionnaires provide a lot for data analysis and data manipulation. The more the
data that is received, the more accurate will be the analysis.
17. Questionnaires allows people to answer questions when they feel it is convenient. Thus, it
is more applicable than face to face surveys where people are expected to immediately
reply to the question.
18. If anonymous, more honest answers can be expected from the people being
surveyed.
19. Questionnaires can reduce a lot of bias. Since, all the respondents are answering the
same number and the same type of questions.
20. Used for getting answers from a large group of people from a short space of time.
Disadvantages of Questionnaires:
1. The results for questionnaires are based only on the type of question being asked. If the
questions are poorly worded or is biased in nature, then the result analysed will also be of
the same nature.
2. Questionnaires can pose difficulties to the analyst if he/she is not familiar with the system
based on which the questions are being asked. That is, the analyst may not be able to
produce the required questions, and hence the required results cannot be achieved.
3. Questionnaires tend to give an alien feeling to many respondents and hence they are very
impersonal irrespective of the situation. Thus, many people do prefer face to face
conversations than answering questionnaires.
4. The response rate maybe poor in questionnaires, if people do not have time or they don’t
feel any importance in answering them. This is one of the main disadvantages of
questionnaires.
5. Questionnaires do make it impossible for people to answer questions according to their
own opinion. This makes them very constricted in terms of answering such questions.

This feels true particularly when the questionnaires have closed end questions. They limit
the opinions of the respondent by a huge factor. Hence, less honest and detailed answers
can be received.
6. Some participants may forget about the whole issue and tend to forget why such
questionnaire was present in the first place.
7. Open ended questions may take a long time and will produce a large amount of data that
will take time to analyze.
8. Respondents may answer the questionnaire superficially, if it takes time to answer such
questions. This might lead to inadequate and maybe unwanted data to analyze the final
result.
9. Do not try to ask too many question since it might bore the respondent and ultimately it
will lead to incorrect answers.
10. Try to make the questionnaire as anonymous as possible as it will be more beneficial for
the respondent to explain their opinions in detail.
11. Try to state the respondents for what purpose is the survey being taken and how the
questionnaire will be beneficial in the overall process.
12. For a more fruitful approach, try to make sure that the questionnaire is applicable to
individuals who are willing to answer and are ready to give a valid answer.
13. If any doubts in the answers, the analyst cannot trace back to the respondents since most
of the questionnaires are usually anonymous in nature
14. Questionnaires can also give the respondents freedom to lie, hence resulting in vague
answers or opinions that is distant from the main issue.
15. If not administered face to face, that is through telephone or such incentives,
questionnaires can have low response rates.
16. Questionnaires do not explain the questions to the respondents which might lead to
misinterpreted answers and facts.
17. Questionnaires cannot inform about the real meaning and fact of why such data is
collected. Hence, this means that the respondents do not feel obligated to answer such
questionnaires truthfully and specifically. This leads to misinterpretation of data.
18. People can feel biased to certain questions in a questionnaire. This may be due to the fact
that the respondent may be penalized when answering such questions truthfully.
19. Questionnaires provide very less stability with the response processes in taking a survey.
20. Questionnaires may not be suitable for certain people. It may not be suitable for illiterates
or people who have reading problems.
21. Especially from postal questionnaires, it might be difficult to obtain a certain number of
answers within a limited period of time.
22. Respondents may ignore certain questions without giving a proper answer.
23. Questionnaires can be incorrectly filled
24. They are not suitable for collecting and taking information about long and complex
issues.
25. Because of the ambiguous language used, it might be a bit confusing for the respondent
to answer such questions.
26. More than 90% of the questions are in printed or in visual format in a written
questionnaire. Gestures or other visual clues are not present. This can cause problems to
which the questionnaire is being requested to.

27. Too many frequent questionnaires can cause fatigue among the respondent group and can
cause misuse of questionnaires and related surveys.
28. Try to have a simple and intuitive questionnaire format. For example, try to line up
response boxes on the right side of the questionnaire so that it is easy for the respondent
to mark the options.
29. Try to use easy and understandable vocabulary so that the questionnaire can be
understood by all groups of people.
30. Try to make the instructions to the respondents as clear as possible.
3) INTERVIEW: Interviews can be defined as a qualitative research technique which

involves “conducting intensive individual interviews with a small number of respondents to
explore their perspectives on a particular idea, program or situation xv. Interviews are one way to
gather data for research. The data gathered are usually, though not always, qualitative in nature.
Interviews are usually used to explore a topic or topics in considerable depth with a few people.
They are not, in general, very useful for eliciting answers to straightforward questions from large
numbers of people, when a questionnaire may be more useful. Although interviews are useful for
eliciting in-depth information, they do need careful planning. Before you start, you need to be
very clear what areas you want to explore, and that an interview is the best way to do this. In
general, interviews are most useful when you wish to discover someone’s viewpoint
and why they hold that view, especially when the information is likely to be sensitive.
Basically ,an interview is a conversation between two people (the interviewer and the
interviewee) where questions are asked by the interviewer to obtain information from the
interviewee.
TYPES OF INTERVIEWS
1) Direct Interviews: The directed interview is a straightforward, face-to-face question-and-

answer situation. Questions are based on job duties and other facets, including a probe of the
candidate's background information. It measures job knowledge and also provides
opportunity to observe personal characteristics, attitudes, and motivation. However, it is not
the best method for personality assessment. In other words, Directive interview is that one
which is directed through a formal way and plan.
2) Non-Direct Interviews: Nondirective interview is an interview in which questions are not
prearranged. Unstructured or nondirective interviews generally have no set format. The lack
of structure allows the interviewer to ask questions which comes to their mind next as a
follow up and interrogate points of interest as they go on further. While non-directive
interview is the type in which no direction found under formal way or plan paper of
questions.
3) Focused Interviews: Focused (Semi-structured) Interviews. Brief Outline of Method This
technique is used to collect qualitative data by setting up a situation (the interview) that
allows a respondent the time and scope to talk about their opinions on a particular subject.
Stated otherwise, Focus interview is that which find out the degree of focusness attach to a

psychological problem. It is the study of a particular situation focused on the attitudes and
emotions of an individual.
4) Depth Interviews: Depth or in-depth interview is a qualitative research technique which is
used to conduct intensive individual interviews where numbers of respondents are less and
research is focused on a specific product, technique, situation or objective. Stated otherwise,
Depth interview is that in which the degree of intensity is measured felt by a person about a
socio-psychological problem. It is the collection of information’s about the personality
dynamics and motivations
5) Repeated Interviews: Repeat interviews provide opportunities not available within a single-
interview research design and that such an approach is particularly appropriate for research
that deals with vulnerable populations and sensitive issues or research which aims to capture
something about events, experiences
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INTERVEIWS:
ADVANTAGE
1. Easy correction of speech: Any misunderstanding and mistake can be rectified easily in an
interview. Because the interviewer and interviewee physically present before the interview
board.
2. Development of relationship: Relation between the interviewer and the interviewee can be
developed through an interview. It increases mutual understanding and co-operation
between the parties.
3. Selection of suitable candidate: Suitable candidates can be selected through interview
because the interview can know a lot about the candidate by this process.
4. Collection of primary information: Interview can help to collect the fresh, new and
primary information as needed.
5. Sufficient information: Sufficient information can be collected through the interview
process. Because the interviewer can ask any question to the interviewee.
6. Time saving: Interview can help to save time to select the best suitable candidate. Within a
very short time communication can be accomplished with the interview.
7. Less costly: It is less costly than other process of communication. It is very simple, prompt
and low cost method of communication.
8. Increasing knowledge: Any interview increases the knowledge of both the interviewer and
the interviewee. They can interchange their views and ideas.
9. Explore cause behind the problem: In business, executives need to solve different types of
problems. To explore or to find out the actual reasons behind the problem interview method
can be used.
10. In depth analysis: Through planed interviews detailed information can be collected which
enables proper analysis of a problem. Abstract factors like attitudes, feelings, opinion etc.
Can be successfully evaluated or analyzed through interviews.
11. Solving labor problems: Labor unrest and other disputes are very common in the
industries. Sometimes human resource managers use the interview as a means of reveling
actual causes behind the labor deputes.

12. Flexible: One of the major advantages of interview is feasible. That depends on the situation
it can be framed differently.
DISADVANTAGES: There are some limitations of the interview process. It is not free from
defects. The disadvantages of the interview are discussed below:
1. Incomplete process: Suitable candidate cannot be selected by interview only. The

written test is more important than the interview.
2. No record: In the case of the interview some confusion may be arisen in the future as,
there is no evidence actually that have been discussed at interview.
3. Lack of attention: Much attention is required for a good interview. But sometimes it is
observed that both the interviewer and the interviewee are less attentive. That is why real
information cannot be collected.
4. Disappointed: Interviewee may be disappointed while she or he faces the interviewer’s
questions which are not related to the field. That is why suitable candidate may be
neglected.
5. Time consuming: Time constrain is one of the major limitations of the interview
process. Preparation for the interview, taking interviews and interpretation of the responses
required much time, which makes the interview method time consuming.
6. Biases of interviewer: Always there is a possibility that the interview process can be
influenced by the biases of the interviewer.
7. Costly: Generally interview method is expensive.
8. Inefficiency of the interviewer: Interview is a systematic process of data collection. The
success of an interview depends on the efficiency of the interviewer. This inefficiency of an
interviewer can lead to misleading results.
9. Not suitable for personal matters: Personal matters may not be revealed by interview
method.
4) SURVEYS: A survey is conducted by sending a set of pre-decided questions to a sample of

individuals from a target market. This will lead to a collection of information and feedback from
individuals that belong to various backgrounds, ethnicities, age-groups etc. Surveys can be
conducted via online and offline mediums. Due to the improvement in technological mediums
and their reach, online mediums have flourished and there is an increase in the number of people
depending on online survey software to conduct regular surveys and polls. There are various
types of social research surveys. The detail of various types of survey are discussed below:
 Census Survey and Sample Surveys: In census type of survey all the units of the
research universe are contacted for collection of data. On the contrary, in sample surveys,
some representative units are selected for collection of data. If the research universe is
constituted by homogeneous units, sample survey is preferred because it spends less time,
energy and money. But if the research universe is of heterogeneous nature, census survey
is found to be more suitable.

 General and Specialized Surveys: In the general survey the entire community is studied in
a general manner. On the other hand, a specialized survey attempts on unearthing some
particular aspects of the community such as unemployment, child labour, problems of the
slum, hygienic attitude etc.
 Direct and Indirect Surveys: Quantitative description is possible in direct surveys, such as
the demographic surveys. On the other hand, the indirect surveys are not amenable to
quantification. For example surveys on level of nutrition or health condition are of indirect
type. However, both the types of social surveys have their own importance in the study of
social problems.
 Widespread and Limited Surveys: In a widespread survey a very large area is covered
concerning multiple aspects of the purpose of social survey. But when a survey covers a
small area and usually confines itself to some specific questions, it is called a limited survey.
Because of its concern with limited aspects, it maintains greater reliability than the
widespread survey which deals with various aspects depending upon the survey purposes.
 Primary and Secondary Surveys: As the name suggests, the primary surveys are
undertaken afresh and the field workers collect data directly from the field. In primary
surveys the surveyor has got the liberty to set the goals for procuring the relevant facts. On
the contrary, in the secondary surveys, the surveyor only examines the facts which are
already available. It does not necessitate collecting the facts afresh from the field by a fresh
survey. If considered from the view point of reliability, primary surveys are always more
reliable than, the secondary type of surveys.
 Initial and Repetitive Surveys: If a survey is conducted for the first time in an area it is
called an initial survey. Any subsequent surveys on the same social problem covering the
same area are called the repetitive surveys.
 Official, Semi-Official and Private Surveys: Any survey conducted by the governmental
organizations is called an official survey. But when any quasi-governmental institutions like,
boards, corporations, universities, etc. conduct any survey it is called semi-official type of
survey. In the like manner, surveys conducted by private individuals, organizations or
agencies are designated the private surveys.
 Regular and Ad-Hoc Surveys: As is clear from their names, the regular surveys are
conducted at regular intervals without any discontinuity. In India the SBI conducts such
surveys. On the other hand the Ad-hoc surveys are not made periodically without fail. Rather
these are conducted with some specific purpose without regularity.
 Public and Confidential Surveys: The data of some surveys are of general type and no
secrecy is maintained in collecting data or in publishing the findings. Such surveys are
therefore, called the public surveys. On the contrary, in some surveys the data required are of
highly personal nature needing confidentiality. No information is revealed to the public. Such
surveys are called confidential surveys.
 Postal and Personal Surveys: If the data are collected by mailed questionnaires, it is called
postal survey. On the other hand the data collected through direct interview of the informants
come under personal survey.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SURVEY:

Among the different methods of data gathering for research purposes, the survey method is
preferred by many researchers due to its various advantages, strengths and benefits. However,
surveys also have their disadvantages and weak points that must be considered.
ADVANTAGES OF SURVEYS
1. High Representativeness: Surveys provide a high level of general capability in representing

a large population. Due to the usual huge number of people who answers survey, the data being
gathered possess a better description of the relative characteristics of the general population
involved in the study. As compared to other methods of data gathering, surveys are able to
extract data that are near to the exact attributes of the larger population.
2. Low Costs: When conducting surveys, you only need to pay for the production of survey
questionnaires. If you need a larger sample of the general population, you can allot an incentive
in cash or kind, which can be as low as $2 per person. On the other hand, other data gathering
methods such as focus groups and personal interviews require researchers to pay more.
3. Convenient Data Gathering: Surveys can be administered to the participants through a

variety of ways. The questionnaires can simply be sent via e-mail or fax, or can be administered
through the Internet. Nowadays, the online survey method has been the most popular way of
gathering data from target participants. Aside from the convenience of data gathering,
researchers are able to collect data from people around the globe.
4. Good Statistical Significance: Because of the high representativeness brought about by the
survey method, it is often easier to find statistically significant results than other data gathering
methods. Multiple variables can also be effectively analyzed using surveys.
5. Little or No Observer Subjectivity: Surveys are ideal for scientific research studies because
they provide all the participants with a standardized stimulus. With such high reliability
obtained, the researcher’s own biases are eliminated.
6. Precise Results: As questions in the survey should undergo careful scrutiny

and standardization, they provide uniform definitions to all the subjects who are to answer the
questionnaires. Thus, there is a greater precision in terms of measuring the data gathered.
DISADVANTAGES OF SURVEYS
1. Inflexible Design: The survey that was used by the researcher from the very beginning, as
well as the method of administering it, cannot be changed all throughout the process of data
gathering. Although this inflexibility can be viewed as a weakness of the survey method, this can
also be a strength considering the fact that preciseness and fairness can both be exercised in the
study.

2. Not Ideal for Controversial Issues: Questions that bear controversies may not be precisely
answered by the participants because of the probably difficulty of recalling the information
related to them. The truth behind these controversies may not be relieved as accurately as when
using alternative data gathering methods such as face-to-face interviews and focus groups.
3. Possible Inappropriateness of Questions: Questions in surveys are always standardized

before administering them to the subjects. The researcher is therefore forced to create questions
that are general enough to accommodate the general population. However, these general
questions may not be as appropriate for all the participants as they should be.

Chapter four
Society & Community
Chapter Topics: Introduction to Society, some forms (Pre industrial: Hunting & Gathering,
Pastoral & Horticultural, Agrarian, Industrial and Post Industrial Society) and types (nomadic
vs sedentary, rural vs urban, traditional vs modern society), community, types of community
(rural and urban), difference between society and community. The social contact theory and the
organismic theory
Introduction:
A society is a group of individuals involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social
group sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the
same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Societies are characterized by
patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a
distinctive culture and institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of such
relationships among its constituent of members. In the social sciences, a larger society often
exhibits stratification or dominance patterns in subgroups.
Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not
otherwise be possible on an individual basis; both individual and social (common) benefits can
thus be distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap. A society can also consist of like-
minded people governed by their own norms and values within a dominant, larger society. This
is sometimes referred to as a subculture, a term used extensively within criminology.
More broadly, and especially within structuralist thought, a society may be illustrated as

an economic, social, industrial or cultural infrastructure, made up of, yet distinct from, a varied
collection of individuals. In this regard society can mean the objective relationships people have
with the material world and with other people, rather than "other people" beyond the individual
and their familiar social environment.
1. Society: Meaning and characteristics: Some of the important characteristics

of society are as follows:
A comprehensive understanding of society requires a thorough analysis of its characteristics. But
the term society could be understood both from a narrower and broader sense. In a narrower
sense society refers to a group of people but in a broader sense it refers to the whole human
society. However, society has the following characteristics:
A society must have population. Without a group of people no society could be formed. Of
course society refers not to a group of people but to a system of social relationships. But for the
establishment of social relationships a group of people is necessary. This population is a self
perpetuating individual who reproduces itself through some sort of mating relationship. Hence it
is the first requirement of society.

(1) Likeness: Likeness is the most important characteristic of society. Famous sociologist
Maclver opines that society means likeness. Without a sense of likeness, there could be no
mutual recognition of' belonging together' and therefore no society. This sense of likeness was
found in early society on kinship and in modern societies the conditions of social likeness have
broadened out into the principles of nationality.
Society consists of like bodied and likeminded individuals. Friendship intimacy and association
of any kind would be impossible without likeness. It also helps in the understanding of one by
the other. That is why F.H. Giddings opines that society rests on the 'Consciousness of Kind'.
(2) Differences : Along with likeness, differences are another important characteristic of
society. Because society involves differences and it depends on it as much as on likeness. That is
why Maclver opines that "primary likeness and secondary differences create the greatest of all
institutions-the division of labour". Because differences is complementary to social relationship.
If people will be alike in all respect society could not be formed and there would be little
reciprocity and relationship became limited. Family as the first society based on biological
differences and differences in aptitude, interest and capacity. Though differences is necessary for
society but differences by itself does not create society. Hence differences is sub-ordinate to
likeness.
(3) Inter-dependence : Interdependence is another important characteristic of society. This
fact of interdependence is visible in every aspect of present day society. Famous Greek
Philosopher, Aristotle remarked that 'Man is a social animal'. As a social animal he is dependent
on others. The survival and well being of each member is very much depended on this
interdependence. No individual is self sufficient.
He has to depend on others for food, shelter and security and for the fulfillment of many of his
needs and necessities. With the advancement of society this degree of interdependence increases
manifold. Family being the first society is based on the biological interdependence of the sexes.
Not only individuals are interdependent but also the groups, communities and societies.
(4) Co-operation and Conflict: Both co-operation and conflict are two another important
characteristics of society. Because famous sociologist Maclver once remarked that "Society is
Cooperation crossed by conflict". Co-operation is essentially essential for the formation of
society. Without co-operation there can be no society. People can't maintain a happy life without
co-operation. Family being the first society rests on co-operation. Co-operation avoids mutual
destructiveness and results in economy in expenditure.
Like co-operation conflict is also necessary for society. Conflict act as a cementing factor for
strengthening social relations. In a healthy and well developed society both co-operation and
conflict co-exist. Because with the help of these two universal process society is formed. Conflict
makes co-operation meaningful. Conflict may be direct and indirect. However both are necessary
for society.
(5) Society is a network or web of social relationship: Social relationships are the
foundation of society. That is why famous sociologist Maclver remarked that society is a
network of social relationship. Hence it is difficult to classify social relationships. But this social
relationship is based on mutual awareness or recognition to which Cooley call we-feeling,

Giddings call consciousness of kind and Thomas as common propensity. Without these social
relationships no society could be formed.
As social relationships are abstract in nature so also the society is abstract in nature. Different
kinds of social processes like co-operation, conflict constantly takes place in society. And the
relationships established around these create society. Hence a network of social relationships
which created among individuals constitutes society.
(6) Permanent Nature: Permanency is another important characteristic of society. It is not a
temporary organization of individuals. Society continues to exist even after the death of
individual members. Society is a coherent organization.
(7) Society is Abstract: Society is an abstract concept. As Maclver opines society is a web
of social relationships. We can't see this relationship but we can feel it. Hence it is an abstract
concept. Wright has rightly remarked that "society in essence means a state or condition, a
relationship and is, therefore, necessarily an abstraction". Besides society consists of customs,
traditions, folkways, mores and culture which are also abstract. Hence society is abstract in
nature.
(8) Society is Dynamic: The very nature of society is dynamic and changeable. No society is
static. Every society changes and changes continuously. Old customs, traditions, folkways,
mores, values and institutions got changed and new customs and values takes place. Society
changes from its traditional nature to modern nature. Hence it is one of the most important
characteristic of society.
(10) Comprehensive Culture: Culture is another important characteristic of society. Each
and every society has it's own culture which distinguishes it from others. Culture is the way of
life of the members of a society and includes their values, beliefs, art, morals etc. Hence culture
is comprehensive because it fulfills the necessities of social life and is culturally self-sufficient.
Besides each and every society transmits its cultural pattern to the succeeding generations.
(11) Something more than mere collection of individuals: No doubt society consists of
individuals. But mere collection of individuals is not society. It is something more than that and
something beyond the individual. Durkheim is right when he remarked that society is more than
the sum of its parts i.e. individuals.
(12) Accommodation and Assimilation: This two associative social process is also important
for the smooth functioning and continuity of society. Hence it is also another characteristic of
society.
The term society is derived from Latin word “socious” means

companionship or friendship.
Definitions:

1. Horton and Hunt, “A Society is a relatively independent, self-
perpetuating human group which occupies a territory, shares a culture
and has most of its associations within group”.
2. Maclver and page, “society is a system of usages and procedures,

authority and mutual aid, of many groupings and divisions, of human
behavior and of liberties”
3. Prof. Giddings, “society is the union itself, the organization, the sum
of formal relations in which associating individuals are bound
together.”
4. Mike O’Donnell (1997) “A society consists of individuals belonging

to groups which may vary in size.”
5. Anthony Giddens (2000) states; “A society is a group of people

who live in a particular territory, are subject to a common system of
political authority, and are aware of having a distinct identity from
other groups around them.”
6. August Comte the father of sociology saw society as a social

organism possessing a harmony of structure and function.
7. Emile Durkheim the founding father of the modern sociology treated

society as a reality in its own right.
8. According to Talcott Parsons Society is a total complex of human

relationships in so far as they grow out of the action in terms of means-
end relationship intrinsic or symbolic.
9. (J.H. Ficther, Sociology, 1957). “A society may be defined as a
network of interconnected major groups viewed as a unit and sharing a
common culture”
10. G.H Mead conceived society as an exchange of gestures which
involves the use of symbols.
11. Morris Ginsberg defines society as a collection of individuals
united by certain relations or mode of behavior which mark them off
from others who do not enter into these relations or who differ from
them in behavior.
12. Cole sees Society as the complex of organized associations and
institutions with a community.
13. According to Maclver and Page society is a system of usages and
procedures of authority and mutual aid of many groupings and
divisions, of controls of human behavior and liberties.

SOME FORMS OR TYPES OF SOCIETIES SINCE TIMES IMMORAL: -
a) PRE-INDUSTRIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

 PRE-INDUSTRIAL: It refers to specific social attributes and forms of
political and cultural organization that were prevalent before the
advent of the Industrial Revolution. Which occurred from 1750 to 1850.
It is followed by the industrial society.
Some of the features are:
 Use of simplest technology developed locally with the help of indigenous knowledge.
 They are pro-literate knowledge.
 Low division of labor. In pre-industrial societies production was relatively simply and
the number of specialized crafts was limited.
 Joint family structure is prevalent.
 Dominance of religious and superstitions beliefs over peoples day to day life activities
PRE-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY CAN BE SUB DIVIDED INTO FOLLOWING
SUB-TYPES:
HUNTER-GATHERER:
The society we live in did not spring up overnight; human societies have
evolved slowly over many millennia. However, throughout history,
technological developments have sometimes brought about dramatic change
that has propelled human society into its next age. Hunting and Gathering
Societies. Hunting and gathering societies survive by hunting game and
gathering edible plants. Until about 12,000 years ago, all societies
were hunting and gathering societies.
There are five basic characteristics of hunting and gathering
societies:

1. The primary institution is the family, which decides how food is to
be shared and how children are to be socialized, and which provides
for the protection of its members.
2. They tend to be small, with fewer than fifty members.
3. They tend to be nomadic, moving to new areas when the current food
supply in a given area has been exhausted.
4. Members display a high level of interdependence.
5. Labor division is based on sex: men hunt, and women gather.
6. These 1st modern humans were more intelligent and probably
better able to communicate among themselves than were their
hominid forebears, although they inherited a number of valuable
customs and technologies from them. Although the rate of
innovation was slow, hominids accumulated a number of useful tools
and practices in the nearly 5 million yeas that had elapsed between
the time our ancestors diverged from the ancestors of the modern
great apes and modern humans
7. Probably the most important was the domestication of fire. Fire
fostered a technological and social revolution. Most importantly, fire
strengthened the network of interrelationships within societies.
8. The records are sparse, there is nothing to suggest that there were any
major new developments until much later. Living remained
precarious and life expectancy short.
9. Art: Some of the best known innovations from the latter half of this era
occur in the arts. Artistic remains provide many insights into the
evolution of human though and the rapidly growing body of no
technological information. By the close of the hunting and gathering
era (about 8000 BC), human societies possessed a far greater store
of cultural information than they possessed 30,000 years before.
10. Language and symbolic version: The explosive growth in the
rate of technological innovation appears to have resulted in critical
advances in language.
HUNTING AND GATHERING SOCIETIES OF THE RECENT PAST

Even after the emergence of more advanced types of societies, hunting and
gathering societies continued to flourish in many parts of the world. A
hundred years ago there were still larger numbers of them in both the New
World and Australia, and smaller numbers is SW Africa, in parts of the
rain forest in central Africa, in certain remote areas in southeast Asia
and neighboring islands and in Arctic Asia.
1. Population Size & Density: Despite the variations in subsistence
technology, modern hunting and gathering societies have much in common.

Communities are small and the more completely they depend on hunting
and gathering the smaller they are while those that incorporate other means
are larger. The rate of population growth in also very low. This is in part due
to natural causes, but also due to cultural factors. The most important
factors producing equilibrium in growth rates appears to be cultural, such as
delayed marriages and infanticide.
2. Nomadism: Modern hunting and gathering societies are usually

nomadic and an inevitable result of their subsistence technology. They move
for several reasons:
(1) search new food supplies, (2) moved to eat a large kill, (3)
seasonal changes and
(4) conflict within the group.
3. Kinship: Ties of kinship are vitally important in most hunting and
gathering groups and social interaction usually organized around kinship
roles. Kin groups are of two types: nuclear and extended families. A nuclear
family includes a man, his wife or wives, and their unmarried children; an
extended family contains multiple nuclear families linked by a part-child
relationship although the first is often inclusive in the latter. The extended
family is important because it encourages sharing and serves as a welfare
institution.
4. The Economy: Economic institutions are not very complex in hunting
and gathering societies. One reason is that the combination of a simple
technology and a nomadic way of life makes it impossible for most hunting
and gathering peoples to accumulate many possessions. The quest for
food is obviously a crucial activity in every hunting and gathering
society. Since most of these societies have no way to store food for extended
periods, the food quest must be fairly continuous. Prior to the last quarter
century, most studies of hunting and gathering societies emphasized the
uncertainty of the food supply and the difficulty of obtaining it. A number of
more recent studies, however, paint a brighter picture and indicate that they
all secure an ample supply of food without an undue expenditure of
time or energy.
A very few societies do not practice hunting. For the rest, hunting usually
provides less food, in terms of bulk than gathering. According to one
estimate, the gathering done by women accounts for 60-80% of the food
supply of hunters and gathers. Because of the primitive nature of its
technology, the division of labor is determined by age and sex. There are no
full-time occupational specialties, although some part-time specialization.
5. The Polity: The political institutions of modern hunting and gathering
societies are very rudimentary. Because they are so small, they have not
developed political mechanisms of the kind required to control and
coordinate larger or diverse populations. The primitive nature of the political

system of these societies can be seen clearly in their limited development
of specialized political roles and in the equally limited authority
given to people in those roles. Individuals are hardly free, however,
to do as they wish and are restricted by several elements of social
control:
(1) blood revenge,
(2) group pressure, ostracism, or banishment, and
(3) fear of the supernatural.
6. Stratification: The rudimentary nature of the political system and the
primitive nature of the economic system contribute to yet another distinctive
characteristic of modern hunting and gathering societies: minimal inequality
in power and privilege or primitive communism. Many factors are responsible
for this:
 Nomadic way of life prevents accumulation of possessions and
 Ready availability of essential resources.
 The concept of private property has only limited development as things
an individual use constantly are recognized as his own, but land and
natural resources are public.
 Spite near equality in power and wealth, there is, however, inequality
in prestige solely dependent on personal qualities.
7. Religion: In hunting and gathering societies the members grapple
with the problem of explaining the world, especially those aspects that
influence their own lives. Because their store of information is limited,
members quickly reach the limits of their ability to explain things in
naturalistic terms. The basis of their explanations are animistic. The
central element of animism is the belief that spirits inhabit virtually
everything in the world of nature.
8. Education: Socialization of the young in hunting and gathering
societies is largely an informal process in which children learn both
through their play and through observing and imitating their
elders. This informal socialization is often supplemented by a formal process
of initiation that marks the transition from childhood to adulthood. Compared
to horticultural or agrarian societies, education stresses independence.
9. The Arts and Leisure: Modern hunting and gathering peoples have
produced a variety of artistic works. Some of those works include: music,
dance, storytelling, and games.
HORTICULTURALIST OR PASTORAL SOCIETIES:

A horticultural society is one in which people subsist through the cultivation of plants for food
consumption without the use of mechanized tools or the use of animals to pull plows. This makes
horticultural societies distinct from agrarian societies, which do use these tools, and
from pastoral societies, which rely on the cultivate of herd animals for subsistence.
Overview of Horticultural Societies
Horticultural societies developed around 7000 BC in the Middle East and gradually spread west
through Europe and Africa and east through Asia. They were the first type of society in which
people grew their own food, rather than relying strictly on the hunter-gather technique. This
means that they were also the first type of society in which settlements were permanent or at
least semi-permanent. As a result, the accumulation of food and goods was possible and with it, a
more complex division of labor, more substantial dwellings, and a small amount of trade.
There are both simple and more advanced forms of cultivation used in horticultural societies.
The most simple use tools such as axes (to clear forest) and wooden sticks and metal spades for
digging. More advanced forms may use foot-plows and manure, terracing and irrigation, and rest
plots of land in fallow periods. In some cases, people combine horticulture with hunting or
fishing, or with the keeping of a few domesticated farm animals.
The number of different kinds of crops featured in gardens of horticultural societies can number
as high 100 and are often a combination of both wild and domesticated plants. Because the tools
of cultivation used are rudimentary and non-mechanic, this form of agriculture is not particularly
productive. Because of this, the number of people composing a horticultural society is typically
rather low, though can be relatively high, depending on the conditions and technology.
Main Characteristics :
1. Horticultural and pastoral societies both developed about 10,000–

12,000 years ago.
2. In horticultural societies, people use a hoe and other simple
hand tools to raise crops.

3. In pastoral societies, people raise and herd sheep, goats,
camels and other domesticated animals and use them as their major
source of food and also, depending on the animal, as a means of
transportation. Some societies are either primarily horticultural or
pastoral, while other societies combine both forms. Pastoral
societies tend to be at least somewhat nomadic, as they often
have to move to find better grazing land for their animals.
4. Horticultural societies, on the other hand, tend to be less nomadic,
as they are able to keep growing their crops in the same location for
some time.
5. Both types of societies often manage to produce a surplus of
food from vegetable or animal sources, respectively, and this
surplus allows them to trade their extra food with other
societies.
6. It also allows them to have a larger population size (often reaching
several hundred members) than hunting and gathering societies.
7. In pastoral societies, wealth stems from the number of animals a
family owns, and families with more animals are wealthier and
more powerful than families with fewer animals.
8. In horticultural societies, wealth stems from the amount of land a
family owns, and families with more land are more wealthy and
powerful. In horticultural and pastoral societies, however, their wealth,
and more specifically their differences in wealth, leads to disputes and
even fighting over land and animals.
9. Whereas hunting and gathering peoples tend to be very peaceful,
horticultural and pastoral peoples tend to be more aggressive.
10. The invention of the plow during the horticultural and pastoral societies
is considered the second social revolution, and it led to the
establishment of agricultural societies approximately five thousand to
six thousand years ago.
11. Members of an agricultural or agrarian society tend crops with an
animal harnessed to a plow. The use of animals to pull a plow
eventually led to the creation of cities and formed the basic structure
of most modern societies.
The development of agricultural societies followed this general

sequence:
 Animals are used to pull plows.

 Larger areas of land can then be cultivated.
 As the soil is aerated during plowing, it yields more crops for longer
periods of time.
 Productivity increases, and as long as there is plenty of food, people do
not have to move.

 Towns form, and then cities.
 As crop yields are high, it is no longer necessary for every member of
the society to engage in some form of farming, so some people begin
developing other skills. Job specialization increases.
 Fewer people are directly involved with the production of food, and the
economy becomes more complex.
To conclude, ten to twelve thousand years ago, a new technology began to

change the lives of people. They discovered horticulture, the use of hand
tools to cultivate crops. Human first planted gardens in the fertile regions of
middle east and then in Latin America and Asia. With the spread of
knowledge of horticulture throughout the world, people inhabiting and
regions, such as Sahara in western Africa found horticulture a little value.
Those people turned to domestication of animals.
1. AGRARIAN SOCIETY:
An agrarian society (or agricultural society) is any society whose economy is based on producing
and maintaining crops and farmland. Another way to define an agrarian society is by seeing how
much of a nation's total production is in agriculture. In an agrarian society cultivating the land is
the primary source of wealth. Such a society may acknowledge other means of livelihood and
work habits but stresses the importance of agriculture and farming. Agrarian societies have
existed in various parts of the world as far back as 10,000 years ago and continue to exist today.
They have been the most common form of socio-economic organization for most of recorded
human history.

 Agrarian societies are societies in which the primary means of
subsistence is the cultivation of crops using a mixture of human and
non-human means (i.e., animals and/or machinery).
 Agriculture is the process of producing food, feed, fiber, and other
desired products by the cultivation of plants and the raising of
domesticated animals (livestock). Agriculture can refer to subsistence
agriculture or industrial agriculture.
 Subsistence agriculture is agriculture carried out for the production of
enough food to meet just the needs of the agriculturalist and his/her
family.
 Subsistence agriculture is a simple, often organic, system using saved
seed native to the eco-region combined with crop rotation or other
relatively simple techniques to maximize yield.
 Historically most farmers were engaged in subsistence agriculture and
this is still the case in many developing nations.
 In developed nations a person using such simple techniques on small
patches of land would generally be referred to as a gardener; activity
of this type would be seen more as a hobby than a profession. Some
people in developed nations are driven into such primitive methods by
poverty. It is also worth noting that large scale organic farming is on
the rise as a result of a renewed interest in non-genetically modified
and pesticide free foods.
Main Characteristics
1. What cause horticultural societies to extinguish, were the late

agricultural inventions around the 8,000’s.
2. With the new inventions, food supplies increased and people

settled together.
3. Population grew up rapidly, villages came up and farmers,

land owners and also warriors who protect farms in
exchange for food against enemies aroused firstly.
4. In these societies, social inequality solidly showed itself.
5. A rigid caste system developed; slavery and ownership started

to be too different concepts in those lives. Caste system
developed the differentiation between the elite and agricultural
laborers including slaves.

6. Lands started to be so important, especially from ninth to
fifteenth centuries, after the understanding of feudalism
developed, every small land owner saw themselves as kings
and owners of people who live for them as well.
7. Concept of social classes spread through the Europe and not

only land owners, but also religious leaders did not have to try to
survive because workers had to give them everything that they
had.
8. Art, literature and philosophy were in religious leaders´

hands because of this, time of feudalism is known as the dark
ages. Due to existing monarchy, owners set up their own rules in
their lands and each lord led the society with different rules and
all of them depended on the King.
9. This stratification prevented slaves from rebellion,

workers were sweated and classes and inequalities in
Europe continued until the industrial revolution.
To conclude, about five thousand years ago, another technological

revolution was underway in the middle East and eventually transformed
most of the world. This was the discovery of agriculture in which large scale
cultivation using plows harnessed to animals or more powerful energy
sources.
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

An industrial society uses advanced sources of energy, rather than
humans and animals, to run large machinery. Industrialization began in the
mid-1700s, when the steam engine was first used in Great Britain as a
means of running other machines. By the twentieth century, industrialized
societies had changed dramatically:
 People and goods traversed much longer distances because of

innovations in transportation, such as the train and the steamship.
 Rural areas lost population because more and more people were
engaged in factory work and had to move to the cities.
 Fewer people were needed in agriculture, and societies
became urbanized, which means that the majority of the population
lived within commuting distance of a major city.
 Suburbs grew up around cities to provide city-dwellers with alternative
places to live.
The twentieth century also saw the invention of the automobile and the
harnessing of electricity, leading to faster and easier transportation, better
food storage, mass communication, and much more. Occupational
specialization became even more pronounced, and a person’s vocation
became more of an identifier than his or her family ties, as was common in
nonindustrial societies.
Features of industrial societies
1. With usage of the steam power, human beings started to use

machines and advanced technologies to produce and
distribute goods and services.
2. Industrial revolution process began in Britain and then spread
through Europe and to the rest of the world, industrial societies
started to develop.
3. The growth of technologies led to advances in farming
techniques, so slavery lost its significance, economy developed
quickly and understanding of social charity and
governments’ aids grew up.
4. Feudal social classes removed but then societies divided
into two parts as workers and non-workers. Karl Marx
explained that non-workers are composing capitalist class and
they hold all money and also set up rules.
5. Considering this explanation, it is easily understood that non-
workers are the same with non-survivors like lords and religious
leaders in preindustrial societies. Thus, the industrial
revolution brought only the slavery extinction and there
is only worker class.

6. Learning from previous mistakes rulers gave more opportunities
for social mobility and also gave more rights than they gave to
the slaves. With changes in social inequalities people started to
want their rights and freedom as citizens and then kingdoms
and autocracy lost their power on citizens.
7. Democracy seemed more beneficial and necessary with
French and American Revolutions.
8. Nationality became more important and so, citizens won
their rights and classes existed as just economic differences.
9. Politically everyone seemed equal but, of course, inequalities
between money owners and sellers of their own labors to
survive, unstoppably increased.
10. Villages lost their significance and towns became places
where occupation opportunities were supplied. Leads to the rise
of very large cities and surrounding suburban areas with a high
rate of economic activity
11. With the industrial technology, societies began to change
faster and industrial societies transformed themselves
more in one century than they had during the past thousand
years
12. Industrialization draws people away from home to factories
situated near energy sources.
13. Occupation specialization has become more pronounced
andDivision of labor becomes over exhibited.
14. Rapid change and movement from place to place also generate
anonymity, cultural diversity and numerous subculture and
counter cultures.
Sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies divided societies into two large categories:
Gemeinschaft societies and Gesellschaft societies.
Gemeinschaft societies consist primarily of villages in which everyone knows

everyone else. Relationships are lifelong and based on kinship.
A Gesellschaft society is modernized. People have little in common with

one another, and relationships are short term and based on self-interest,
with little concern for the well-being of others.
POST-IN DUSTRIAL:

 A post-industrial society is a society in which the primary means of
subsistence is derived from service-oriented work, as opposed to
agriculture or industry. It is important to note here that the term post-
industrial is still debated in part because it is the current state of
society; it is difficult to name a phenomenon while it is occurring.
 Post-industrial societies are often marked by:
 an increase in the size of the service sector or jobs that perform

services rather than creating goods (industry)
 either the outsourcing of or extensive use of mechanization in
manufacturing
 an increase in the amount of information technology, often
leading to an Information Age
 information, knowledge, and creativity are seen as the new raw
materials of the economy
The Industrial Revolution transformed Western societies in many unexpected

ways. All the machines and inventions for producing and transporting goods
reduced the need for human labor so much that the economy transformed
again, from an industrial to a postindustrial economy.
A postindustrial society,
the type of society that has developed over the past few decades, features
an economy based on services and technology, not production. There are
three major characteristics of a postindustrial economy:

1. Focus on ideas: Tangible goods no longer drive the economy.
2. Need for higher education: Factory work does not require advanced training, and the
new focus on information and technology means that people must pursue greater education.
3. Shift in workplace from cities to homes: New communications technology allows
work to be performed from a variety of locations
4. Economic Development,
5. Innovation,
6. Technological Change and Growth
7. Industrialization,
8. Manufacturing and Service Industries,
9. Choice of Technology.
10. People work with other people to deliver a service:
11. Transformation of working class to professional middle class:
12. Emergence of knowledge elites:
13. Growth of multiple networks:
14. Divide in society:
15. Majority sell labour at cheap rates:
16. Post-industrial turn: Towards social and economic polarization:
17. Sharp gender division:
18. New character of modern economy: Globalization:
19. Interaction between the informational mode of development and the restructuring of
capitalism:
20. Organizational mode of development.
21. It increases the rate of profit.
22. The result of information is the flexible production.
23. Flexibility is also a necessary condition for the formation of the new world economy.
24. Post-industrialism: Dynamics and trends:
25. Multi-national corporations,
26. Information technologies,
27. Informational mode of development,
28. Information occupations,
29. Think work,
30. Knowledge elites,
31. New servile class,
32. Uneven global development, and
33. New social movements.

Mass Society
As industrialized societies grow and develop, they become increasingly

different from their less industrialized counterparts. As they become larger,
they evolve into large, impersonal mass societies. In a mass society,
individual achievement is valued over kinship ties, and people often feel
isolated from one another. Personal incomes are generally high, and there is
great diversity among people.
 According to common view, in those societies, there is neither

social inequality nor classification. People won their own
freedom by working hard, if there are any differences or
discrimination, this is caused by capitalist and global world,
not the governments´ mistakes.
 That is, rather than being driven by the factory production of
goods, society is being shaped by the human mind, aided by
computer technology.
 Although factories will always exist, the key to wealth and power
seems to lie in the ability to generate, store, manipulate, and sell
information. Sociologists speculate about the characteristics of
postindustrial society in the near future.
 They predict increased levels of education and training, consumerism,
availability of goods, and social mobility. While they hope for a decline
in inequality as technical skills and “know-how” begins to determine
class rather than the ownership of property, sociologists are also
concerned about potential social divisions based on those who have
appropriate education and those who do not.
 Sociologists believe society will become more concerned with the
welfare of all members of society. They hope postindustrial society will
be less characterized by social conflict, as everyone works together to
solve society’s problems through science. (Andersen & Taylor, 2006:
118)
To conclude, in history, there have been very different societies in terms of
their level of development, levels of inequality, political organizations and
cultural factors but only those six types explain easily which stages we
passed. Moreover, in today´s world almost all types of societies exist but
each of them approaches through postindustrial society even if they are not.
From this research paper, it is proved that how technology is important in
shaping and characterizing society among the economy, social inequalities
and classes.
Nature and character of society
 Largest social group of people

 Composed of social groups (profession, age, caste, sex, literacy,
residence etc)
 Social institutions are the main organs
 Society changes with the rate depending upon the culture
 Dynamism
 Rural, urban composition
 Presence of culture
 Fulfilment of human needs
 Consciousness of kindness (loyalty with each other)
 Organized in nature
 Limited geographical boundary
 Presence of social system
 Socialization of individuals
 Permanent social groups
Elements of society
 Society is abstract: (Maclver argued, “we may see the people but
cannot see society or social structure, but only its only external
aspects”. Social relationships are invisible and abstract.
 Cooperation and conflict in society: Society is a process and not a
product: Society exists only as a time sequence. It is becoming, not a
being; a process and not a product” (Maclver and Page, 1956).
 Society as a system of stratification: Society provides a system of
stratification of statuses and classes that each individual has a
relatively stable and recognizable position in the social structure.
 A big aggregate of people
 Living together since long
 Having a sense of belonging to one other
 More or less permanent association and
 Having a common culture
Types of society : Human societies can be divided into the following three
sets
 NOMADIC VS SEDENTARY SOCIETIES

 TRADITIONAL VS MODERN SOCIETIES
 RURAL VS URBAN SOCITIES

NOMADIC SOCITIETIES: Nomadic societies have no permanent place of
settlement. The people roam from place to place with their luggage on the
backs of camels, horses and donkeys in search of fodders and water for their
animals and food for themselves. They have no hereditary property. They
are more a tribe and have tribal culture. The cultural traditions have very
forceful binding upon the members
Characterizes of nomadic societies:
i. Population size
ii. Geographical mobility
iii. Absence of ownership
iv. Traditional way of living
v. Strict social norms
vi. Local culture
vii. Profession
viii. Resistance to social change
THE SEDENTARY SOCIETY: The sedentary is the society other than the
nomadic having permanent settlement in rural and urban areas:
Characterizes of sedentary societies:
i. Permanent settlement
ii. Transfer of ancestral land
iii. Stratified social change
iv. Presence of sub culture
v. Presence of tribal group
vi. Low geographical mobility
vii. Social reforms
viii. Ethnocentrism
ix. Less social change
TRADITIONAL SOCIETY: Traditional is that society which has fewer social

institutions. simple culture with old ways of life exists. Means of
communication are very slow and old. Urban life is very rarely found. Social
changes are minimum almost invisible. The population in such society is not
much and homogeneous social life is found.
Characterizes of traditional societies:
i) Non-industrial structure
ii) Simple economic institutions
iii) Simple way of living
iv) Kacha tracks and roads

v) Lack of modern communication facilities
vi) Slow social interaction
vii) Limited social institutions
viii) Small population
ix) Lack of invention
x) Less social change
xi) Lack of basic civic facilities
xii) Protection of religious and cultural values
MODERN SOCIETY: A modern society is based on expansion of education,

technology, industry and urban life. It has a complex culture changing with
the time. Due to diverse social conditions heterogeneous life is found. Social
problems are too much in such type of society:
Characterizes of modern societies:
i) Advance industry and technology

ii) Urbanization
iii) High population pressure
iv) Sub social institutions
v) Job opportunities
vi) Better income opportunities
vii) Social stratification
viii) Urban facilities
ix) Source of communication
x) Social mobility
xi) International relations
xii) Crime rate
xiii) Women status
RURAL SOCIETY: Rural is the society which is sparsely populated with

emphasis on agricultural professions. Simple culture with natural
environment and informal social life are the conditions. Homogeneity in
profession, dress, language and customs of social life is usually found in such
people. The rate of change is slow due to slow means of communication.
Agriculture is main profession
Characterizes of rural Societies:
i. Open settlement
ii. Mud constructed houses
iii. Agriculture
iv. Informal social norms

v. Informal social groups
vi. Informal social interaction
vii. Informal social control
viii. Low literacy rate
ix. Less social change
x. Attachment with religion
xi. Poor urban facilities
THE URBAN SOCIETY: An urban society is similar to having the facilities of

modern social life. Social interaction is fast and formal. The rate of social
change is faster due to education, technology, industry and urbanization. A
complex social life is found in which the people or different races,
professions, castes and religions live together. Anonymity is an important
trait:
Characterizes of urban societies:
i) Dense settlement pattern

ii) Pakka houses
iii) Urban facilities
v) Formal social interaction
v) Formal group life
vi) Division of labor
vii) Shortage of houses
viii) Social institutions are organizations
ix) Social change
x) Anonymity \
xi) High standard of living
2) COMMUNITY; MEANING AND CHARACTERISTICS.
What is Community: Socrates had said about the person who is independent of his fellow
beings and is unable to live in community or society is either Beast or God. Community is the
combination of two Latin words i.e. 'cam' means together and 'munis' means serve i.e. .serve
together is called community.
Men are like trees need roots therefore they must have a soil to root themselves where groups of
men living together can create some attachment to a particular locality. Men have never lived
alone. A basic requirement of existence has been the social bonds that unite each man to others,
the closest being those of the family and close kin groups. But other wider social bonds have
ever been needed to linkman to more extensive social arrangement. The structure developed
from these more public ties has been called communities.

The members of any group small or large, liver together in such a way that they share, not this or
that particular interest, but the basic conditions of a common life. The basic condition of the
concept is that one can live a whole life within a community i.e. city, tribe or village. It may be
self-sufficient in fulfillment of basic needs. Small communities exist within larger communities
as cities within district, within a province the provinces within larger communities as cities
within district, the districts within a province, the provinces within the whole state and the states
within the whole world.
In simple terms a community is a population rooted in one place where the daily life of each
member involves contact with and dependence on other members. Taken together, the wide
variety of tasks performed by members within are an attempt to ensure that ensure that social and
economic needs will be met in a stable and predictable way.
Definitions of Community
Bogardes: It is a social group with some degree of "we feeling and living in a given area"
W. Ogburn: "Total organization of social life with in a limited area"
Definition of community according to Davis: "It is the smallest territorial group that can
embrace all aspects of social life"
Bertrand definition of community is a functionally related aggregate of people who live in a

particular geographical locality at a particular time, show a common culture, are arranged in a
social structure, exhibit an awareness of their uniqueness and separate identity as a group.
Talcott Parsons defined community as collectivity the members of which share a common
territorial area as their base of operation for daily activities.
According to Tonnies community is defined as an organic natural kind of social group whose
members are bound together by the sense of belonging, created out of everyday contacts
covering the whole range of human activities. He has presented ideal-typical pictures of the
forms of social associations contrasting the solidarity nature of the social relations in the
community with the large scale and impersonal relations thought to characterize industrializing
societies.
Kingsley Davis defined it as the smallest territorial group that can embrace all aspects of social
life.
For Karl Mannheim community is any circle of people who live together and belong together
in such a way that they do not share this or that particular interest only but a whole set of
interests.
We can list out the characteristics of a community as follows:
1. Territory

2. Close and informal relationships
3. Mutuality
4. Common values and beliefs
5. Organized interaction
6. Strong group feeling
7. Cultural similarity
Types of Communities
1) Rural Community:
 Natural phenomenon
 Present almost in every society of the world having distinct culture and
pattern of social life
 It is actually a product of natural free will of people having extreme
similarity in their objectives and ambitions of life
 Agriculture as a main source of identity and income
 Face to face interaction
 Higher degree of homogeneity
 Basic urban facilities like school, hospital, market, municipal office,
police station are usually missing in this community
2) Characteristics of Rural Communities:

 Small population
 Lack in administrative organizations
 Lack in modern facilities
 Absence of big social institutions
 Agrarian in nature
 Scattered housing pattern
 Equal division of labor
 Informal interaction
 Slow interaction and social change
 Celebration of events and rituals
 Homogeneity
 Traditional recreations
 Endogamy
Urban Community:
 Opposite of rural community
 In such community people are highly impersonal alongwith high
degree of complexity and heterogeneity in their living style and
identities

 Actual product of rational choice
 A complex division of labor with specialization in their jobs
 Modern civic facilities etc
Characteristics of Urban Communities:
 Large population with administrative organizations

 Presence of modern facilities
 Modern recreation
 Expanding social institutions
 Division of labor and specialization
 Heterogeneity
 Fast interaction
 Changing behavior
 Rapid social change
 Frequent social mobility
 Least importance of caste
 Religious beliefs as a part of social life
 Anonymity
 Exogamy
Difference between society and community
Society Community
1. Population: Population is one of the most essential characteristics of a
community irrespective of the consideration whether people have or do not have
conscious relations. Society is a large aggregate of people while
community is comparatively a small group of people. Population is
important but here the population is conditioned by a feeling of
oneness. Thus conscious relations are more important than the
mere population for a society.
2. Geographical boundary: The society has limited geographical

boundary while community has no such rigidity in area.
3. Interaction: The people in society form a large group because

social interaction due to high population is not possible, whereas
in community, people are very close to each other and have
frequent social interaction which develops group and strong social
solidarity
4. Relationship: The people in a society have mutual relationship

on the basis of common culture which may be lost at any time,
whereas in community people have sentiments of loyalty with

each other which creates “we feeling” sense.
5. Sense of belongingness: A sense of belonging to one another is

commonly found in communities but such traits lacks in societies.
For community area or locality is very essential and that perhaps
is the reason that the community had a definite shape. Society is
area less and shapeless and for a society area is no consideration.
6. Culture: A local culture dominates in social life in community,

whereas in society people have different cultures as well
7. Self Sufficiency: The community is more or less self-sufficient in

its needs. The society on the other hand depends upon other
societies in the satisfaction of its various needs.
8. Interaction: The interaction in community is mostly face to face

while face to face interaction in society is not possible among all
people.
9. Institutions: The number of institutions in a community is limited

while the society as a huge networks of institutions.
10. Cooperation: The cooperation and mutual aid are more effective
in community than in the people of a society
11. Scope: A community has comparatively narrow scope of

community sentiments and as such it cannot have wide
heterogeneity. A society has heterogeneity and because of its
wide scope and field can embrace people having different
conflicts.

a) The social contact theory and
b) The organismic theory
Theory of Social Contract:
It is the most important theory on the origin and nature of the state.
According to this theory, the state came into existence as the result of a
contract between the people and the sovereign at a particular period in
human history.
Social Contract theory: The social contract theory throws light on the
origin of the society. According to this theory all men are born free and
equal. Society came into existence because of the agreement entered into
by the individuals. The classical representatives of this school of thought are
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau.
1. Thomas Hobbes: Thomas Hobbes was of opinion that society came

into being as a means for the protection of men against the consequences of
their own nature. Man in the state of nature was in perpetual conflict with his
neighbors on account of his essentially selfish nature. 'The life of man was
solitary poor, nasty, brutish and short'. Every man was an enemy to
every other man.
Hobbes in his book Leviathan has made it clear that man found nothing but
grief in the company of his fellows. Since the conditions in the state of nature
were intolerable and men longed for peace, the people entered into a kind of
social contract to ensure for themselves security and certainty of life and
property.
By mutual agreement they decided to surrender their natural rights into the
hands of a few or one with authority to command. The agreement was of
each with all and of all with each other. The contract became binding on the
whole community as perpetual social bond. Thus in order to protect himself
against the evil consequences of his own nature man organized himself in
society in order to live in peace with all.
2. John Locke: John Locke believed that man in the state of nature was
enjoying an ideal liberty free from all sorts of rules and regulations.
The state of nature was a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and
preservation. But there was no recognized system of law and justice. Hence
his peaceful life was often upset by the corruption and viciousness of
degenerate men. The men were forced to live in full of fears and continual
dangers.
In order to escape from this and to gain certainty and security men made a
contract to enter into civil society or the state. This contract Locke called

social contract. This contract put an end to the state of nature and
substituted it by civil society. The social contract was no more than a
surrender of rights and powers so that man's remaining rights would be
protected and preserved. The contract was for limited and specific purposes
and what was given up or surrendered to the whole community and not to a
man or to an assembly of men. According to Locke the social contract later
on contributed to the governmental control. The governmental contract was
made by the society when it established a government and selected a ruler
to remove the inconveniences of ill –condition.
3. Jean Jacques Rousseau: Rousseau the French writer of the 18th
century in his famous book The Social Contract wrote that man in the state
of nature was a noble savage who led a life of primitive simplicity and idyllic
happiness. He was independent, contented, self-sufficient, healthy, fearless
and good. It was only primitive instinct and sympathy which united him with
others. He knew neither right or wrong and was free from all notions of virtue
and vice.
Man enjoyed a pure, unsophisticated, innocent life of perfect freedom and
equality in the state of nature. But these conditions did not last long.
Population increased and reason was dawned. Simplicity and idyllic
happiness disappeared. Families were established, institution of property
emerged and human equality was ended. Man began to think in terms of
mine and yours.
When equality and happiness of the early state was lost, war, murder,
conflicts became the order of the day. The escape from this was found in the
formation of a civil society. Natural freedom gave place to civil freedom by a
social contract. As a result of this contract a multitude of individuals became
a collective unity- a civil society. Rousseau said that by virtue of this contract
everyone while uniting himself to all remains as free as before.
There was only one contract which was social as well as political. The
individual surrendered himself completely and unconditionally to the will of
the body of which he became a member. The body so created was a moral
and collective body and Rousseau called it the general will. The unique
feature of the general will be that it represented collective good as
distinguished from the private interests of its members.
The theory of social contract has been widely criticized as historically there is
nothing to show that the society has ever been deliberately created as a
result of voluntary agreement or contract. Nor can we suppose that man
could ever think of entering into a contract with others when he lived under
conditions of extreme simplicity, ignorance and even brutality. The theory
seemed to be mere fiction as state of nature never existed. The most
primitive people even lived in some form of society however rudimentary or
unorganized. There are always two parties to the contract. There cannot be a
one-sided contract as was conceived by Hobbes. The advocates of the theory

hold that the early individuals entered into the contract for their individual
safety and security of property. But history tells us the other way.
Early law was more communal than individual and the unit of society was not
the individual but the family. Society has moved from status to contract and
not from contract to status as the theorists of the social contract argued.
According to Sir Henry Maine contract is not the beginning of society but the
end of it.
Organismic Theory of Society

Man is a social animal. He lives in social groups in communities and in
society. Human life and society almost go together. Man cannot live without
society. Man is biologically and psychologically equipped to live in groups, in
society. Society has become an essential condition for human life to arise
and to continue.
The relationship between individual and society is ultimately one of the
profound of all the problems of social philosophy. It is more philosophical
rather than sociological because it involves the question of values.
Man depends on society. It is in the society that an individual is surrounded
and encompassed by culture, a societal force. It is in the society again that
he has to conform to the norms, occupy statuses and become members of
groups.
The question of the relationship between the individual and the society is the
starting point of many discussions. It is closely connected with the question
of the relationship of man and society. There is two main theories regarding
the relationship of man and society. They are the social contract theory and
the organismic theory.
Interrelationship Between Individual and Society

According to Peter Berger society not only controls our movements but
shapes our identity, our thought and our emotions. The structures of society
become the structures of our own consciousness. Society does not stop at
the surface of our skins. We are entrapped by our own social nature.
Peter Berger says the walls of our imprisonment were there before we
appeared on the scene but they are ever rebuilt by ourselves. We are
betrayed into the captivity ourselves. We are betrayed into the captivity with
our own co-operation.

Durkheim says society confronts us as an objective fact. Society is external
to ourselves. It encompasses our entire life. The institutions of society
pattern our actions and even shape our expectations.
We are located in society not only in space but also in time. Our society is an
historical entity that extends beyond the temporary life of any individual.
Peter Berger says it was there before we were born and it will be there after
we are dead. Our lives are but episodes in its majestic march through time.
In sum society is the walls of our imprisonment in history.

Chapter five
Social Stratification, Social Mobility, Social Deviance & Social

Control
Chapter Topics: Social Stratification, Origin of social stratification, functions

and characteristics of social stratification
Case Study (Global Poverty):

1. The End of Poverty: How We Can Make It Happen In Our Lifetime by
Book by Jeffrey Sachs
2. A World of Three Zeros: The New Economics of Zero Poverty, Zero
Unemployment, and Zero Net Carbon Emissions by Muhammad Yunus
3. Economic Development: Michael P. Todaro
1. SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Social stratification is the division of large numbers of people into layers according to their
relative power, property, and prestige. It applies to both nations and to people within a nation,
society, or other group. Although they may differ as to which system of social stratification they
employ, all societies stratify their members. In addition, gender is a basis for stratifying people in
every society of the world. The four major systems of social stratification are slavery, caste,
estate, and class.
Slavery is defined as a form of social stratification in which some people own other people. It
has been common in world history with references to slavery being made in the Old Testament,
the Koran, and Roman and Greek history. Slavery was usually based on debt, as a punishment
for a crime, or a matter of war. Racism was not associated with slavery until southern plantation
owners developed a new ideology to justify their enslavement of Africans in the seventeenth
century.
Today, slavery is known to be practiced in the Sudan, Mauritania, Niger and the Ivory Coast.
The enslavement of children for work in sex is a problem in Africa, Asia, and South America.
The caste system is a form of social stratification based on ascribed status that follows an
individual throughout his or her life. India provides the best example of a caste system.
Based on religion, India’s caste system has existed for almost three thousand years. Although the
Indian government formally abolished the caste system in 1949, it still remains a respected
aspect of Indian tradition and is strictly followed by a significant portion of the population.
In the class system, social stratification is based on the possession of money or material
possessions. A major characteristic of the class system is that it allows social mobility, or
movement up and down the class ladder. Another method by which all societies stratify their
members is by gender. Cutting across all systems of stratification, these gender divisions
universally favor males over females.

Karl Marx and Max Weber disagreed on the meaning of social class in industrialized societies.
According to Marx, people’s relationship to the means of production is the sole factor in
determining their social class. They either belong to the bourgeoisie (those who owned the
means of production) or the proletariat (those who work for the owners).
According to Weber, Marx’s typology is too limiting because social class, as well as people’s
social class standing, consists of three interrelated components: property, prestige, and power.
Although all sociologists agree that social stratification is universal, they disagree as to why it is
universal.
The functionalist view of social stratification, developed by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore,
concludes that stratification is inevitable because society must make certain that its positions are
filled; ensure that the most qualified people fill the most important positions; and finally, to
motivate the most qualified individuals to fill the most important positions, society must offer
them the greatest reward to fill the most important positions.
Melvin Tumin identified three problems with the functionalist view:
first, how does one determine which positions are more important than others?
Second, to what degree are societies really meritocracies (promoting people on the basis
of their achievements)?
Third, if social stratification is so functional, why is it dysfunctional for so many?
Conflict theorists contend that conflict, not function, is the basis of social stratification. Italian
sociologist Gaetano Mosca argued that in every society groups compete for power. The groups
that gain power use that power to manipulate, control, and exploit the groups “beneath them.”
Members of the ruling elite in every society develop ideologies that justify their society’s social
stratification system. By dominating their society’s major social institutions and, thereby,
controlling information and ideas, members of the ruling elite are able to socialize other group
members into accepting their “proper places” in the social order.
Marx believed the elite maintained their position at the top of the stratification system by
seducing the oppressed into believing their welfare depended on keeping society stable.
Gerhard Lenski suggested the key to understanding stratification is based on the accumulation of
surplus. Depending on the political climate and resources available to those in power and those
who are ruled, the stratification system is maintained by various means. These means include
controlling ideas, information, criticism, and technology, and the use of force. The use of force is
the least efficient. Stratification is universal, although the methods for stratification vary from
culture to culture.
Social stratification is one of the outcomes of the continuous occurring of
social processes. Every society is segmented in to different hierarchies. In
virtually all societies, some people are regarded as more important than

others (more worthy of respect than others), either within the society as a
whole or in a certain situations.
Social stratification is the segmentation of society into different hierarchical

arrangement or strata. It refers to the differences and inequalities in the
socioeconomic life of people in a given society. It represents the ranking of
individuals or social positions and statuses in the social structure. The term
is borrowed from geology where it is used to explain the
hierarchical arrangement of rocks and mineral in the earth’s
surface.
Sociologists use the term social stratification to describe the system of social standing. Social
stratification refers to a society’s categorization of its people into rankings of socioeconomic
tiers based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, and power.
You may remember the word “stratification” from geology class. The distinct vertical layers
found in rock, called stratification, are a good way to visualize social structure. Society’s layers
are made of people, and society’s resources are distributed unevenly throughout the layers. The
people who have more resources represent the top layer of the social structure of stratification.
Other groups of people, with progressively fewer and fewer resources, represent the lower layers
of our society.
In the United States, people like to believe everyone has an equal chance at success. To a certain
extent, Aaron illustrates the belief that hard work and talent—not prejudicial treatment or
societal values—determine social rank. This emphasis on self-effort perpetuates the belief that
people control their own social standing.
However, sociologists recognize that social stratification is a society-wide system that makes
inequalities apparent. While there are always inequalities between individuals, sociologists are
interested in larger social patterns. Stratification is not about individual inequalities, but about
systematic inequalities based on group membership, classes, and the like. No individual, rich or
poor, can be blamed for social inequalities. The structure of society affects a person’s social
standing. Although individuals may support or fight inequalities, social stratification is created
and supported by society as a whole.
To conclude Social differentiation is a universal characteristic because the

division of some functions is necessary in a society. Some of these are
biological but most of these are socially fixed. in every society, individuals
are different in terms of profession, material possession, honour, prestige,
authority, beliefs and other characteristics. This difference of individuals
provides a mechanism of dividing into different classes which is called
stratification. According to sociologists, this study is very important because
it seriously affects the institutional relations and social interaction.
Stratification is the product of social inequality and is a relatively permanent
position of the society, is transmitted from one race to another, limits the
chances of progress. Its ways are different in different societies and are

changeable with social changes and sometimes this stratification becomes a
cause of revolution.
The Importance of Studying Social Stratification: The study of social

stratification is particularly important for sociologists. Some of the reasons
for this may include (Giddens, 1995):
a) Analysis of understanding type of people: To investigate the class

membership of individuals in society with the aim of understanding the
type of life people live. That is, knowing what type of life individuals in
a given social group or stratum live is very important for sociological
analysis
b) To explore the bases for the assignment of individuals into
various hierarchies of the social structure. What are the bases for
stratifying individuals into a specific stratum?
c) To understand the relationship between individuals assigned
into different hierarchies. What kind of interaction and relationship
exist between individuals located into different strata?
d) To investigate the relationship between individuals or groups
belonging to the same hierarchy. What kinds of relationship exist
between people in the same stratum?
e) To understand what type of social system givesrise to what or
which types of hierarchies. That is, the type of social stratification
varies across cultures, times and types of social systems.
Definitions of social stratification:
1. Ogburn and Nimkoff: ‘The process by which individuals and groups are
ranked in more or less enduring hierarchy of status is known as
stratification”
2. Lundberg: “A stratified society is one marked by inequality, by

differences among people that are evaluated by them as being “lower”
and “higher”.
3. CH. Persell : “Social stratification is the fairly permanent making of

position in a society in terms of unequal power, prestige or privileges.” He
further says that "The unequal opportunities or rewards are for people in
different social positions."
4. RT. Schaefer : Stratification, a structure ranking of entire groups of

people that perpetuate unequal economic rewards and powers in a
society.

5. Ian Robertson: Social stratification is the structured inequality of entire
categories of people, who have different access to social rewards as a
result of their status in social hierarchy."
6. Augburn and Nimkoff: “Social stratification is a class division of society

of permanent group position which is admitted by the superior or inferior
individual of a society."
7. Gilbert: Social stratification is group division of a society and there is

difference of superiority or inferiority among the individual."
8. Williams: Social Stratification refers to “The ranking of individuals on a

scale of superiority-inferiority-equality, according to some commonly
accepted basis of valuation.
9. Raymond W. Murray: Social stratification is horizontal division of

society into “higher” and “lower” social units.”
10. Melvin M Tumin: “Social stratification refers to “arrangement of any

social group or society into hierarchy of positions that are unequal with
regard to power, property, social evaluation and psychic gratification”.
The people in different societies have different ranks and high and low. the
distribution of people of a society in groups on the basis of their status is
called social stratification. This distribution may be on the basis of
occupation, caste, education, source of income, prestige and political power.
Social stratification differs from society to society. It is classification of
people within a society.
Sociologists recognize that social stratification is a society-wide system that

makes inequalities apparent. While there are always inequalities between
individuals, sociologists are interested in larger social patterns.
Stratification is not about individual inequalities, but about systematic

inequalities based on group membership, classes, and the like. No individual,
rich or poor, can be blamed for social inequalities. A person’s social standing
is affected by the structure of society.
Origin of Stratification: Regarding the origin of stratification many views

have been given.
1. According to Davis, social stratification has come into being due to

the functional necessity of the social system.
2. Professor Sorokin attributed social stratification mainly to
inherited difference in environmental conditions.

3. According to Karl Mrax, social factors are responsible for the
emergence of different social strata, i.e. social stratification.
4. Gumplowioz and other contended that the origin of social

stratification is to be found in the conquest of one group by another.
5. According to Spengler, social stratification is founded upon

scarcity which is created whenever society differentiates positive in
terms of functions and powers.
6. According to Daherndorf: Stratification is always a rank order in

terms of prestige and not esteem which can be thought of
independently of their individual incumbents.
7. Melvin defines that social stratification refers to arrangements of

any social group or society into hierarchy of positions that are
unequal with regard to power, property, social evaluation and
psychic gratification.
8. Hogan says that stratification is relatively permanent ranking of

statues and roles in a social system ( ranging from small group to a
society) in terms of differential privileges, prestige, influence and
power is called social stratification.
9. Racial differences accompanied by dissimilarity also leads to

stratification.
10. Sociologists use the term social stratification to describe the system
of social standing. Social stratification refers to a society’s
categorization of its people into rankings of socioeconomic tiers
based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, and power.
11. Social stratification is a system in which groups of people are divided

into layers according to their relative property, power, and prestige.
It is important to emphasize that social stratification does not refer
to individuals. It is a way of ranking large groups of people into a
hierarchy according to their relative privilege
ORIGIN OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Theoretical perspective Major assumptions

Functionalism Stratification is necessary to induce people with special
: intelligence, knowledge, and skills to enter the most
important occupations. For this reason, stratification is

necessary and inevitable.
Conflict: Stratification results from lack of opportunity and from
discrimination and prejudice against the poor, women,
and people of color. It is neither necessary nor
inevitable.
Symbolic Stratification affects people’s beliefs, lifestyles, daily
interactionism interaction, and conceptions of themselves.
:
Determinants of Social Stratification:
Determinants of social stratification:
According to Max Weber
 Economic resources
Occupations
Prestige
Power
Caste
Education
Political power’ Are the determinants of social divisions.
1. Economic resources: The size of landholdings in rural areas belong to upper classes. While
the tenants, blacksmiths, cobblers, barbers belong to the lower class.
2. Occupation: Landowners, industrialists, businessmen, high government officials, corporate
officials belong to the upper class. Servicemen, small businessmen, whose income equals to
their expenditures, are the middle class. Manual workers, carpenters, blacksmiths, washer
men all constitute the lower class.
3. Prestige: Respect of an individual in society is related to the level of prestige that he enjoys.
Prestige includes nobility, harmlessness, participating in social welfare projects, helping the
needy etc.
4. Power: Power gains one respect. In Pakistan, following characteristics could be important:
Outspoken in public, educated, well off in financial resources, interest in solving people’s
problems, active, religious oriented etc.
5. Cast: Caste system in Pakistan is an important element in social stratification. Some castes
are considered high, some are low.
6. Education: Education like all other societies in the world, defines social status in Pakistan
too. Educated people are better rated and respected socially owing to their occupations,
professions and status while illiterate people always belong to lower class.
Characteristics of Social Stratification:

On the basis of the analysis of the different definitions given by eminent
scholars, social stratification may have the following characteristics.
(a) Social stratification is universal: There is no society on this world

which is free from stratification. Modern stratification differs from
stratification of primitive societies. It is a worldwide phenomenon. According
to Sorokin “all permanently organized groups are stratified.”
(b) Stratification is social: It is true that biological qualities do not

determine one’s superiority and inferiority. Factors like age, sex, intelligence
as well as strength often contribute as the basis on which statues are
distinguished. But one’s education, property, power, experience, character,
personality etc. are found to be more important than biological qualities.
Hence, stratification is social by nature.
(c) It is ancient: Stratification system is very old. It was present even in the
small wondering bonds. In almost all the ancient civilizations, the differences
between the rich and poor, humble and powerful existed. During the period
of Plato and Kautilya even emphasis was given to political, social and
economic inequalities.
(d) It is in diverse forms: The forms of stratification is not uniform in all

the societies. In the modern world class, caste and estate are the general
forms of stratification. In India a special type of stratification in the form of
caste is found. In Hindu society, the ancient Aryas were divided into four
varnas: the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras.
The ancient Greeks were divided into freemen and slaves and the ancient
Romans were divided into the patricians and the plebians. So every society,
past or present, big or small is characterized by diversed forms of social
stratification.
(e) Social stratification is Consequential: Social stratification has two

important consequences one is “life chances” and the other one is “life
style”. A class system not only affects the “life- chances” of the individuals
but also their “life style”.
The members of a class have similar social chances but the social chances
vary in every society. It includes chances of survival and of good physical
and mental health, opportunities for education, chances of obtaining justice,
marital conflict, separation and divorce etc.
Life style denotes a style of life which is distinctive of a particular social

status. Life-styles include such matters like the residential areas in every
community which have gradations of prestige-ranking, mode of housing,
means of recreation, the kinds of dress, the kinds of books, TV shows to

which one is exposed and so on. Life-style may be viewed as a sub-culture in
which one stratum differs from another within the frame work of a commonly
shared over-all culture.
FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION:
1. Encourages hard work

2. Ensures circulations of elites ( when too much respect is given to
people based on status or position, people tend to get it again and
again). People start competition which is called circulations of elites
3. Serves as an economic function (ensure rational use of available talent
4. Prevents waste of resources
5. Stabilizes and reinforces the attitude and skills
6. Helps to pursue different professions and jobs
7. Social control
SOCIAL CLASS.
Definition
 P. Gisbert: A social class is a category or group of persons haveing a

definite status in a society which permanently determines their relation
to other groups.
 Ogburn and Nimkof: A social class is the aggregate of persons
having essentially the same social status in a given society.
 A social class large numbers of people who have similar amounts of
income and education and who work at jobs that are roughly
comparable in prestige.
 A social class is a large group of people who occupy a similar position
in an economic system. There are several different dimensions of
social class, including income, wealth, power, occupation, education,
race, and ethnicity. While defining social classes in the U.S. is difficult,
most sociologists recognize four main categories: upper class, middle
class, working class, and the lower class.
 A social class is a group of people of similar status, commonly sharing
comparable levels of power and wealth. In sociology, social classes
describe one form of social stratification. When a society is organized
by social classes, as opposed to by castes, it is theoretically possible
for people to attain a higher status than the status with which they
started. This movement is possible because social classes are not
based on birth but on factors such as education and professional
success. For example, someone born into a low-income family can
achieve a higher status through education, talent, and work, or

perhaps through social connections. A society organized according to
social classes, then, allows for some social mobility.
 A status hierarchy in which individuals and groups are classified on the
basis of esteem and prestige acquired mainly through economic
success and accumulation of wealth. Social class may also refer to any
particular level in such a hierarchy.
Four common social classes informally recognized in many societies
are:
(1) Upper class, (2) Middle class, (3) Working class, and the (4) Lower
class.
Sociologists have given three-fold classification of classes which consists of -

upper class, middle class and lower class.
i. Sorokin has spoken of three major types of class stratification -they

are economic, political and occupational classes.
ii. Lloyd Warner shows how class distinctions contribute to social
stability.
iii. Veblen analyzed the consumption pattern of the rich class by the
concept of conspicuous consumption.
iv. Warner has classified classes into six types- upper-upper class,
upper-middle class, upper-lower class, lower-upper class, the lower
middle class and lower class.
Social class is conceptualized in various ways as a function of the theoretical

or political orientation of the writer, much like “personality” is defined
differently by psychologists who hold different theoretical perspectives.
How many social classes are there in our society? Disagreement within the
field on both the number and the composition of these classes.
Upper Class – Elite: Represent institutional leadership, heads of

multinational corporations, foundations, universities, Capitalist elite – owners
of lands, stocks and bonds and other assets – wealth derived from what they
own Forbes magazine publishes a list of the 400 wealthiest families in
America. In 1997, net worth had to be at least $475 million. Bill Gates, in that
year, had net worth pf 39.8 billion. Of all the wealth represented on the
Forbes list, more than half is inherited. Newly acquired wealth, nouveau
riche, have vast amounts of money but not often accepted into “old money”
circles.
Upper Middle Class: Represent scientific and technical knowledge –

engineers, accountants, lawyers, architects, university faculty, managers and
directors of public and private organizations. Have both high incomes and
high social prestige. Well-educated. Difficult to define a “middle class” (i.e.

upper middle, middle middle and lower middle) probably the largest class
group in the United States – because being middle class is more that just
income, about lifestyles and resources, etc.
Lower Middle Class:
1. Clerical-administrative
2. Provide support for professionals
3. Engage in data collection., record-keeping
4. Paralegals.\, bank tellers, sales
5. Blue-collar workers in skilled trades
Working Class
1. Craft workers
2. Laborers in factories
3. Restaurant workers
4. Nursing home staff
5. Repair shops, garages
6. Delivery services
Poor
1. Working poor – work full-time at wages below poverty line

2. Social services
3. Underclass
The nature and characteristics of Social Class:
1. Class a status group

2. Social class is achieved status not ascribed status
3. The class system is a universal
4. Mode of feeling (inferiority and equality feeling in class system)
5. Element of prestige (due to knowledge, evaluation, purity of race and
descent, religion, wealth, heroism, bravery etc)
6. Element of stability: (relatively a stable group)
7. Mode of living
8. Social Class an open group (vertical or horizontal mobility)
9. Social class an economic group
10. Classification of Social Classes: (upper, middle and lower etc)
11. Class consciousness ( the sentiment that characterizes the
relations of men towards the members of their own and other classes)
CAST:

Cast is a complex phenomenon which is difficult to define writers and
thinkers are not unanimous in their opinion regarding caste. however, caste
has been defined as under:
Definition:
(i) Sir Herbert Risely: Caste is a “collection of families, bearing a common

name, claiming a common descent, from a mythical ancestor, human and
divine, professing to follow the same hereditary calling and regarded by
those who are competent to give an opinion as forming a single homo-
geneous community.”
(ii) MacIver and Page: “When status is wholly predetermined so that men
are born to their lot without any hope of changing it, then the class takes the
extreme form of caste.”
(iii) C.H. Cooley: “When a class is somewhat strictly hereditary, we may

call it a caste.”
(iv) A. W. Green: “Caste is a system of stratification in which mobility up

and down the status ladder, at least ideally may not occur”.
(v) Ketkar: “A caste is a group having two characteristics; (i) membership

is confined to those who are born of members and includes all persons so
born, (ii) the members are forbidden by an inexorable social law to marry
outside the group.”
Characteristics of Caste:
The caste system is highly complex in nature. As Dr. G.S. Ghurye says, any
attempt to define caste is ‘bound to fail because of the complexity of the
phenomenon.’ He describes the characteristics of caste in his ‘ Caste and
Class in India ‘-1950-56 [also in his Caste, Class and Occuption-1961 and
Caste and Race in India-1970]. The following have been the main traditional
features of the caste system.
1. Caste—As a Hierachical Division of Society:
The Hindu society is gradational one. It is divided into several small groups
called castes and subcastes. A sense of ‘highness’ and ‘lowness’ or
‘superiority’ and ‘inferiority’ is associated with this gradation or ranking. The
Brahmins are placed at the top of the hierarchy and are regarded as ‘pure’,
supreme or superior.
The degraded caste or the so called ‘untouchables’ [Harijans] have occupied

the other end of the hierarchy. All over India neither the supremacy of the

Brahmins nor the degraded position of the Harijans or ‘outcastes’ has been
questioned. It is taken for granted, but regarding the exact position of the
intermediary castes there are disputes on the part of the members.
2. Caste-As a Segmental Division of Society:
The Hindu society is a caste-ridden society. It is divided into a number of

segments called ‘castes’. It is not a homogeneous society. Castes are groups
with defined boundary of their own.
The status of an individual is determined by his birth and not by selection nor
by accomplishments. No amount of power, prestige and pelf can change the
position of man. The membership of the caste is hence unchangeable,
unacquirable, inalienable, unattainable and nontransferable.
Further, each caste in a way has its own way of life. Each caste has its own
customs, traditions, practices and rituals. It has its own informal rules,
regulations and procedures. There were caste councils or ‘caste panchayats’
to regulate the conduct of members also. The caste used to help its
members when they were found in distress. Indeed, ‘the caste was its own
ruler’.
Caste Panchayat:
During the early days in every village every caste used to have its own caste
Panchayat. It consisted of five chosen members who enjoyed much social
privilege and respect. The caste panchayat used to perform a number of
functions. It used to make the members comply with caste rules and
regulations.
Settling caste disputes and giving its final verdict on the issues referred to it,
were also its other functions. It was giving punishments to those who
violated caste rules and obligations.
Matters such as – breaking the marriage promise, refusal on the part of the
husband to take the wife to his house, cruelty to wife, adultery on the part of
wife, killing the cows, insulting the Brahmins, having illicit sex relations with
other caste people, etc., were dealt with by the panchayat. It was giving
punishments such as-arranging dinner party for the fellow caste-men,
imposing fine, purification, pilgrimage, out casting etc., for the offenders.
The caste panchayat was also striving to promote the welfare of the caste
members. Safeguarding the interests of the caste members was yet another
function of the panchayat. These caste panchayats have become weak and
ineffective nowadays.

The castes and subcastes together make up the Hindu social system. Still in
some respects each is isolated from the other. It is in a way semi sovereign.
The castes are a ‘complete world’ in themselves for their members. The
members are expected to be loyal to the caste. Caste feeling is hence very
strong. It is very much stronger in rural areas than in the urban area. It is
because of this the amount of community-feeling is restricted.
3. Restrictions on Food Habits (Hindu culture specially):
The caste system has imposed certain restrictions on the food habits of the
members; they differ from caste to caste. Who should accept what kind of
food and from whom? is often decided by the caste.
For example, in North India, a Brahmin would accept ‘pakka’ food [cooked in
ghee] only from some castes lower than his own. But he would accept
‘kachcha’ food [prepared with the use of water] at the hands of no other
caste except his own.
As a matter of rule and practice, no individual would accept ‘kachcha’ food

prepared by an inferior caste man. Generally, any kind of food that is
prepared by the Brahmins is acceptable to all the caste people.
This factor explains as to why the Brahmins dominated the hotel industry for
a long time. Further, restrictions are also there still on the use of certain
vegetables for certain castes. Even today, some traditional Brahmins do not
consume onions, garlic, cabbage, carrot, beatroot, etc. Eating beef is not
allowed except for the Harijans.
4. Restrictions on social Relations:
The caste system puts restrictions on the range of social relations also. The
idea of ‘pollution’ makes this point clear. It means a touch of a lower caste
man (particularly Harijan) would pollute or defile a man of higher caste. Even
his shadow is considered enough to pollute a higher caste man. In Kerala for
a long time, a Nayar could approach a NambudariBrahamin but would not
touch him.
Further, a Tiyan was expected to keep himself at a distance of 36 steps from

the Brahmin and apulaya at a distance of 96 paces. In Tamilnadu the Shanar
toddy tapper was expected to keep a distance of 24 paces while approaching
a Brahmin. This has resulted in the practice of untouchability. This practice
has made the lower caste people to be segregated completely from the
higher caste.
5. Social and Religious Disabilities of Certain Castes:

In the traditional caste society some lower caste people [particularly, the
Harijans] suffered from certain civil or social and religious disabilities.
Generally, the impure castes are made to live on the outskirts of the city or
the village. In south India, certain parts of the towns or the villages are not
accessible to the Harijans.
It is recorded that during the Peshwa rule in Maharashtra the Mahars and
Mangs were not allowed within the gates of Poona before 9.00 A.M. and after
3.00 P.M. The reason was during that time their bodies would cast too long
shadows which, if they were to fall on the Brahmins, would defile them.
Socially, Harijans or the so called ‘untouchables’ are separated from other

members. Even today, in many places they are not allowed to draw water
from the public wells. During the early days, public places like hotels,
hostels, public lecture halls, schools, temples, theatres were not kept open
for the lower caste people.
Entrance to temples and other places of religious importance was forbidden

for them. Educational facilities, legal rights and political representation were
denied to them for a long time. In South India, restrictions were placed on
the mode of constructing houses of the lower caste people, and their types
of dresses and patterns of ornamentation.
The toddy-tappers of Malabar were not allowed to carry umbrellas, to wear

shoes or golden ornaments and to milk cows. They were forbidden to cover
the upper part of their body.
6. The Civil and Religious Privileges of Certain Castes:
If the lower caste people suffer from certain disabilities, some higher caste
people like the Brahmins enjoy certain privileges. Nowhere the Brahmins
suffered from the disabilities cited above. They are given more liberty,
because they are believed to be born ‘pure’ and ‘superior’.
The Brahmins never saluted others, but they always had the privilege of
being saluted by others. They never even bowed to the idols of the lower
caste people. Education and teaching were almost the monopoly of the
higher caste people. Chanting the Vedic Mantras was great privilege of the
Brahmins. The upper caste people in general, enjoyed social, political, legal
and religious privileges.
7. Restrictions on Occupational Choice:
In the caste-ridden society there is a gradation of occupations also. Some

occupations are considered to be superior and sacred while certain others
degrading and inferior. For a long time, occupations were very much

associated with the caste system. Each caste had its own specific
occupation. The caste members were expected to continue the same
occupations. Occupations were almost hereditary.
Weaving, shoe-making, oil-grinding, sweeping, scavenging, curing, hides

tanning, washing clothes, barbering, pottery, etc., were considered to be
somewhat ‘degrading’. Learning, priesthood, teaching were the prestigious
professions which mostly the Brahmins pursued.
Individual talents, aptitudes, interests, enterprise, abilities, and

achievements were neglected. But agriculture, trade and labouring in the
field were thrown open to all the castes. At the same time, no caste would
allow its members to take up to any profession which was either degrading
or impure.
8. Restrictions on Marriage:
The caste system imposes restrictions on marriage also. Caste is an

endogamous group. Endogamy is a rule of marriage according to which an
individual has to marry within his or her group. Each caste is subdivided into
several subcastes, which are again endogamous.
Main differences between class and caste systems:
S# Cast Class
1. Particular Universal
2. Ascribed status (by birth) Achieved status
3. Closed system Open system
4. Divine origin (religious oriented or Secular (nothing to do with tradition or
traditional) religion)
5. Purity and impurity (untouchable in Feeling of disparity
Hindus)
6. Regulation of relations Limits relations
7. Greater social distance Less social distance
8. Conservative Progressive
9. Endogamy group Not endogamous
10. Complexity ( a number of castes are Simplicity
in Pakistan)
11. Caste consciousness (more Class consciousness (less dangerous)
dangerous)
SOCIAL MOBILITY:
every society has social mobility, but the rate of social mobility is different in
all the societies depending upon their cultural conditions.

Social mobility refers to the movement within the social structure, from one
social position to another. It means a change in social status. All societies
provide some opportunity for social mobility. But the societies differ from
each other to extent in which individuals can move from one class or status
level to another.
It is said that the greater the amount of social mobility, the more open the
class structure. The concept of social mobility has fundamental importance
in ascertaining the relative “openness” of a social structure. The nature,
forms, direction and magnitude of social mobility depends on the nature and
types of social stratification. Sociologists study social mobility in order to find
out the relative ‘openness’ of a social structure.
Any group that improves its standard will also improve its social status. But
the rate of social mobility is not uniform in all the countries. It differs from
society to society from time to time. In India the rate of mobility is naturally
low because of agriculture being the predominant occupation and the
continuity of caste system as compared to the other countries of the world.
Definition:
i. According to Fairchild " social mobility is a movement from one

condition to another"
ii. Stephensen says that "social mobility is moving of an individual or

group of people from one status to another"
iii. Horton and Hunt " social mobility may be defined as the act of moving
from one social class to another"
from the above definitions, social mobility can be defined:
 is a movement of an individual or group of people from one condition

to another
 is adoption of change which may be social progress or
 is rejection of previous social conditions and adjusting into the new

changes of life
types of social mobility:
1) Territorial mobility: from Karachi to Islamabad etc

2) Vertical mobility: (Upward & downward
3) horizontal mobility ( change of job within same grade)

4) intergenerational mobility: ( mobility between generations for
example a son of taxi driver gets education and becomes doctor is
intergenerational mobility
5) intra-generational mobility: (a change or change of social status of
an individual or group of individuals within the same generation i.e
among four brothers one is CSP, Doctor, Businessman and Clerk)
Causes of social mobility:
 Dissatisfaction from previous condition
 adoption of new conditions
 industrial and technological conditions
 education
 urbanization
 means of communication and transportation etc

Chapter 5
(Major school of thought (Scholars) in Sociology
Introduction: Allama Ibn e Khuldoon (Al Muqaddimah & Al Asabiyyah
Theories), August Comte (Comtean Positivism, Law of Three stages & Religion of
Humanity), Herbert Spencer (Social Evolution, Organic Analogy & Militant /
Military Society Vs Industrial Society), Emile Durkheim (Theory of Suicide), Karl
Marx (Conflict Theory & Labor Theory), Max Weber (Theory of Bureaucracy),
Robert Martin (Strain Theory), Talcott Parsons: Structural Functionalism, CH
Cooly (Self Looking Glass.)
1. ALAMA IBN E KHALDOON

Early life: Ibn Khaldoon was born in Tunisia in 732 A.H. to a fairly well-to-do family who had
earlier migrated from Seville in Muslim Spain. His lineage goes to Yemen which land our hero's
family had left in the company of the army that conquered Spain.
Intellectual life: During his childhood in Tunis, Ibn Khaldoon must have had his share in his
family's active participation in the intellectual life of the city, and to a lesser degree, its political
life, the household in which Ibn Khaldoon was raised was frequented by the political and
intellectual leaders of Western Islam (i.e. North Africa and Spain), many of whom took refuge
there and were protected against angry rulers.
Active political life: Ibn Khaldoon led a very active political life before he decided to write his
well-known masterpiece on history. He worked for rulers in Tunis and Fez (in Morocco),
Granada (in Muslim Spain) and Baja (in Tunisia) successively. At the age of forty-three, Ibn
Khaldoon finally succeeded in crossing over once more to Muslim Spain, not with ambitious
designs of his youth, but as a tired and embittered man with no purpose save escaping the turmoil
of North Africa." Unfortunately, the ruler of Granada caused Ibn Khaldoon's friend, Ibn Al-
Khateeb, to flee to North Africa. When he learnt of Ibn Khaldoon's attempts to help his friend, he
was expelled from Granada. So he went back to North Africa to spend four years in seclusion to
do some thinking in peace.
Great Scholar: Intellectually, Ibn Khaldoon was well-educated, having studied (in Tunis first
and Fez later) the Quran, Hadeeth and other branches of Islamic studies such as dialectical
theology, Sharee'ah (Islamic Jurisprudence). He also studied Arabic literature, philosophy,
mathematics and astronomy. But we can safely say that Ibn Khaldoon learnt very much from the
school of life in which he actively participated, moving from place to place and from one royal
court to another, sometimes at his own will, but often forced to do so by plotting rivals or
despotic rulers.
Intellectual gatherings with other scholars: Ibn Khaldoon learnt much from his meetings with
all sorts of rulers, ambassadors, politicians and scholars, he came in contact with in North Africa,
Muslim Spain, Egypt and other parts of the Muslim World. All of these circumstances and
experiences seem to have contributed to the formation of his views on history, culture and
society, neatly expressed in his book on history and concisely summed up in his well-known
master-piece “Al-Muqaddimah (‘Prologue’).”

A) the Muqaddimah:
1. Chapter I: Human civilization in general
2. Chapter II: Bedouin civilization, savage nations and tribes and their conditions of
life, including several basic and explanatory statements
3. Chapter III: On dynasties, royal authority, the caliphate, government ranks, and all
that goes with these things. The chapter contains basic and supplementary
propositions
4. Chapter IV: Countries and cities, and all other forms of sedentary civilization. The
conditions occurring there. Primary and secondary considerations in this connection
5. Chapter V: On the various aspects of making a living, such as profit and the crafts.
The conditions that occur in this connection. A number of problems are connected
with this subject
6. Chapter VI: The various kinds of sciences. The methods of instruction. The
conditions that obtain in these connections. The chapter includes a prefatory
discussion and appendices
7. Concluding Remarks
Who Should Read “The Muqaddimah”? And Why?

 If you are history lover, or eager to study the process of evolution from another
standpoint, then this is the book for you.
 The ability of thinking.
 Teaching is a Craft
 The ability to plunge into a discussion, interact, and think of solutions distinguish us as
human beings from other species. That’s the basis of survival that aided the humankind
for centuries and continues in the same fashion.
 Introduction to history, he discussed historical method and provided the necessary criteria
for distinguishing historical truth from error
 Considered one of the most phenomenal works on the philosophy of history ever written
where he related the social impact of community or event
 An important role in providing conceptual and paradigmatic frameworks as well as an

epistemological foundation of the study of human society.
 This impressive document is a gist of his wisdom and hard earned experience.

 Use his political and first had knowledge of the people of Maghrib to formulate many of
his ideas.
 Discussion of Tribal societies and social forces would be the most interesting part of his
thesis.
 His theories of the science of Umran(sociology) are all pearls of wisdom
Ibn Khaldun starts the Muqaddimah with a thorough criticism of the mistakes regularly

committed by his fellow historians and the difficulties which await the historian in his work. He
notes seven critical issues:
"All records, by their very nature, are liable to error...
1. ...Partisanship towards a creed or opinion...

2. ...Over-confidence in one's sources...
3. ...The failure to understand what is intended...
4. ...A mistaken belief in the truth...
5. ...The inability to place an event in its real context
6. ...The common desire to gain favor of those of high ranks, by praising them, by
spreading their fame...
7. ...The most important is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformation
of human society."
Against the seventh point (the ignorance of social laws) Ibn Khaldun lays out his theory of
human society in the Muqaddimah.
Sati' al-Husri suggested that Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah is essentially a sociological work,

sketching over its six books a general sociology; a sociology of politics; a sociology of urban
life; a sociology of economics; and a sociology of knowledge.
Scientific method: Ibn Khaldun often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance
of historical data." As a result, he introduced the scientific method to the social sciences, which
was considered something "new to his age", and he often referred to it as his "new science" and
developed his own new terminology for it.
His historical method also laid the groundwork for the observation of the role
of state, communication, propaganda and systematic bias in history, leading to his
development of historiography.
Historical method: In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun warned of seven mistakes that he

thought that historians regularly committed. In this criticism, he approached the past as strange
and in need of interpretation. The originality of Ibn Khaldun was to claim that the cultural
difference of another age must govern the evaluation of relevant historical material, to
distinguish the principles according to which it might be possible to attempt the evaluation, and

lastly, to feel the need for experience, in addition to rational principles, in order to assess a
culture of the past. Ibn Khaldun often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of
historical data.
"As a result, he introduced a scientific method to the study of history, which was
considered something "new to his age", and he often referred to it as his "new science",
now associated with historiography. His historical method also laid the groundwork for the
observation of the role of state, communication, propaganda and systematic bias in history, and
he is thus considered to be the "father of historiography or the "father of the philosophy of
history".
Ibn Khaldun' makes the following comments on his scientific historical method in
his Muqaddimah:
 "History is a science"
 "History has a content and the historian should account for it"
 "The historian should account for the elements that gather to make the human history"
 "He should also work according to the laws of history"
 "History is a philosophical science"
 "History is composed of news about the days, states and the previous centuries. It is a
theory, an analysis and justification about the creatures and their principles, and a science
of how the incidents happen and their reasons"
 "Myths have nothing to do with history and should be refuted"
 "To build strong historical records, the historian should rely on necessary rules for the
truth comparison"
The revolutionary views of Ibn Khaldoon have always attracted not only Arab scholars’
attention but the attention of many a Western thinker as well. In his study of history Ibn
Khaldoon was a pioneer in subjecting historical reports to the two basic criteria of (1) reason and
(2) social and physical laws. He considered the following four points worthy of consideration in
studying and analyzing historical reports:
1) Relating events to each other through cause and effect.

2) Drawing analogy between the past and the present.
3) Taking into consideration the effect of the environment.
4) Taking into consideration the effect of inherited and economic conditions.
But Ibn Khaldoon's work was more than a critical study of history. It was, in fact, a study of
human civilization in general, its beginning, factors contributing to its development, and the
causes of its decline. Thus, unwittingly, Ibn Khaldoon founded a new science: The science of
social development or sociology, as we call it today.
B) Asabiyyah:
Àsabiyya or asabiyyah (Arabic: ‫بيّة‬HH‫ )عص‬refers to social solidarity with an emphasis on unity,
group consciousness and sense of shared purpose, and social cohesion, originally in a context of
"tribalism" and "clanism".

It was a familiar term in the pre-Islamic era, but became popularized
in Khaldoon’s Muqaddimah where it is described as the fundamental bond of human society and
the basic motive force of history.
Àsabiyya is neither necessarily nomadic nor based on blood relations; rather, it resembles
philosophy of classical republicanism.
In the modern period, the term is generally analogous to solidarity. However, it is often
negatively associated because it can sometimes suggest loyalty to one's group regardless of
circumstances, or partisanship.
Ibn Khaldun also argued that Àsabiyya is cyclical and directly related to the rise and fall of
civilizations: it is strongest at the start of a civilization, declines as the civilization advances, and
then another more compelling Asabiyyah eventually takes its place to help establish a different
civilization
 Ibn Khaldun uses the term Asabiyyah to describe the bond of cohesion among humans
in a group forming community. The bond, Asabiyyah, exists at any level of civilization,
from nomadic society to states and empires.
 Asabiyyah is most strong in the nomadic phase, and decreases as civilization
advances. As this Asabiyyah declines, another more compelling Asabiyyah may take its
place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of Asabiyyah as
they play out.
 Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its
own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of
great empires and use the much stronger Àsabiyya present in those areas to their
advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership.
 First barbarians but later on……This implies that the new rulers are at first considered
"barbarians" by comparison to the old ones. As they establish themselves at the center of
their empire, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful,
and more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle at the center of the
empire—i.e., their internal cohesion and ties to the original peripheral group, the
Àsabiyya, dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a
political unit. Thus, conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the
periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the
cycle anew.
Ibn Khaldun also further states in the Muqaddimah that "dynasties have a natural life span like
individuals", and that no dynasty generally lasts beyond three generations of about 40 years
each.
 In the first generation, the people who established the civilization are used to "privation
and to sharing their glory (with each other); they are brave and rapacious. Therefore, the
strength of group feeling continues to be preserved among them".

 In the second generation, when the dynasty moves from "privation to luxury and plenty",
the people "become used to lowliness and obedience ... But many of the old virtues
remain" and they "live in hope that the conditions that existed in the first generation may
come back, or they live under the illusion that those conditions still exist."
 By the third generation, the people have forgotten the period of toughness "as if it had
never existed ... Luxury reaches its peak among them, because they are so much given to
a life of prosperity and ease. They become dependent on the dynasty ... Group feeling
disappears completely. People forget to protect and defend themselves and to press their
claims ... When someone comes and demands something from them, they cannot repel
him."
Examples
Nomadic invaders have on many occasions ended up adopting the religion and culture of the
civilizations they conquered, which was true for various Circassians, Berber, some of
the Crusades and Mongol invaders that invaded the medieval Islamic world and ended up
adopting Islamic religion and culture.
According to Khaldun, the Asabiyyah cycle was also true for every other pre-modern
The very first form and foundation of social evolution was the philosophy of organic society.
Organic society is the prospective that societies are really living organisms that experience cyclic
birth, growth, maturity, decline, and ultimately death due to universal causes that undergo many
of the same stages and developments that animals and humans go through.
The very first of these philosophies can be traced back to the 14 th century in the writings of Ibn
Khaldun, an Islamic scholar. Ibn Khaldun uses the term Asabiyyah to describe the bond of
cohesion among humans in a group forming community. The bond, Asabiyyah, exists at any
level of civilization, from nomadic society to states and empires. Asabiyyah is most strong in the
nomadic phase, and decreases as civilization advances. As this Asabiyyah declines, another more
compelling Asabiyyah may take its place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes
these cycles of Asabiyyah as they play out.
The Asabiyyah cycle described by Ibn Khaldun was true for nearly all civilizations before the
modern era. Nomadic invaders had always ended up adopting the religion and culture of the
civilizations they conquered, which was true for various Arab, Berber, Turkic and Mongol
invaders that invaded the medieval Islamic world and ended up adopting Islamic religion and
culture. Beyond the Muslim world, the Asabiyyah cycle was also true for every other pre-modern

2. AUGUST COMETE:
The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857)—often called the
“father of sociology”—first used the term “sociology” in 1838 to refer to the
scientific study of society. He believed that all societies develop and progress
through the following stages: religious, metaphysical, and scientific. Comte
argued that society needs scientific knowledge based on facts and evidence
to solve its problems—not speculation and superstition, which characterize
the religious and metaphysical stages of social development. Comte viewed
the science of sociology as consisting of two branches: dynamics, or the
study of the processes by which societies change; and statics, or the study of
the processes by which societies endure. He also envisioned sociologists as
eventually developing a base of scientific social knowledge that would guide
society into positive directions.
A) Comtean Positivism
B) Law of Three Stages
C) Religion of humanity
Thinkers occupy a prime position in the development of any discipline,

especially so in the social sciences. Sociology 'is no exception to this rule,
and in its emergence and develop a plethora of social thinkers have made
their contributions. Systematic study of sociology a science, particularly, as a
separate discipline, originated with Insider Auguste Francois M Xavier Comte
during nineteenth century. It is during this period modern sociology emerged
the places like France, Germany and England. Since then, galaxies of
thinkers and writ have contributed to the development of sociological
thought. Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer Emile Durkheim and Max Weber
are the four men who are regarded as the central figures founding fathers
and the great masters of sociological thought in the. Development of mod
sociology.'
Auguste Comte, a volatile Frenchman, philosopher, moralist and sociologist,

traditionally regarded as the father of sociology. He coined the term
sociology and bee father of sociology. He tried to create a new science of
society, which would not only explain the past of mankind but also predict its
future course. Auguste Comate was born in France the year 1798. He
invented a new discipline which he called at first social physics and changed
it to sociology thereafter. "Auguste Comte may be considered as first and
foremost, sociologist of human and social unity" so writes the French
sociologist Raymond Aron. Important works are:
(1) Positive Philosophy (1830-42).
(2) Systems of positive polity (1851 -54)
(3) Religion of Humanity (1856).
His contribution to sociology can be divided into four categories. They are namely: -

(1) Classification and ordering of social sciences.
(2) The nature, method and scope of sociology.
(3) The law of three stages.
(4) The plan for social reconstruction.
(5) Positivism.
LAW OF THREE STAGES:
Auguste Comte was the first person to proclaim Law of Three stages, which
became the corner stone of his thought. Of course, this famous law had been
borrowed from R. J. Turgot, Y. B.Vico and Saint-Simon. The law states that
human thought has undergone three separate stages in its evolution and
development. According to him human thought as well as social progress
pass through three important stages. These three stages are the universal
law of human progress. These three stages are common in case of the
development of human knowledge as well as social evolution. Human
individual is a staunch believer during childhood, then becomes a critical
metaphysician in adolescence and becomes a natural Philosopher during
manhood. A similar case of development takes place in case of human
society. Law of Three Stages not only talks about the progressive
transformation of society but also explain the transformation in minds of the
people. The evolution of human mind goes hand in hand with a typical form
of organization of society. The period of growth and development in society
is known as:
(1) Theological or Fictitious stage.
(2) Metaphysical' or Abstract stage.
(3) Positive or Scientific stage.
Comte stated that each succeeding stage is superior to the earlier stage.
4. Theological or Fictitious Stage:
During the primitive stage, the early man believed that all phenomena of
nature are the creation of the divine or supernatural. The primitive man and
children do not have the scientific outlook, therefore it is characterized by
unscientific outlook. They failed to discover the natural causes of various
phenomena and hence attributed them to supernatural or divine power. For
example, primitive men saw God everywhere in nature. They supposed that
excess or deficiency of rain due to Godly wrath; such a casual explanation
would be in terms of theological or fictitious explanation. The theological
stage of thinking may be divided into three sub-stages such as
a) Fetishism.
b) Anthropomorphism
c) Polytheism.
d) Monotheism.

e) Fetishism was the primary stage of theological stage of
thinking. During this period primitive people believed that there is a
living spirit in the nonliving objects. This is otherwise known as
animism. People worshipped inanimate objects like tress, stones, a
piece of wood, etc. These objects are considered as Fetish.
f) Anthropomorphism: At certain stages, man thought that how all non-living

objects contain living objects. They got a doubt about the existence of gods in all
non-living organisms.
g) Polytheism means believing in many Gods. Primitive people

believed that different Gods control different natural forces. Each God
had some definite function and his scope and area of action was
determined. For example, God of water, God of rain and God of fire,
God of air, etc.
h) Monotheism is the last and the most developed form of

theological thinking. Monotheism means believing in one God or
God in one.
Book namely Homo Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is a book by Yuval Noah Harari first
published in Hebrew in Israel in 2011, and in English in 2014. The book surveys the history of
humankind from the evolution of archaic human species in the Stone Age up to the twenty-first
century, focusing on Homo sapiens. The account is situated within a framework provided by
the natural sciences, particularly evolutionary biology.
Harari's work situates its account of human history within a framework provided by the natural sciences,
particularly evolutionary biology: he sees biology as setting the limits of possibility for human activity,
and sees culture as shaping what happens within those bounds. The academic discipline of history is the
account of cultural change.
Harari surveys the history of humankind from the evolution of archaic human species in the Stone
Age up to the twenty-first century, focusing on Homo sapiens. He divides the history of Sapiens into
four major parts:
5. The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BC, when Sapiens evolved imagination).

6. The Agricultural Revolution (c. 10,000 BC, the development of agriculture).
7. The unification of humankind (the gradual consolidation of human political organizations
towards one global empire).
8. The Scientific Revolution (c. 1500 AD, the emergence of objective science).
5. Metaphysical or Abstract stage: -
Metaphysical stage is an extension of theological stage. During this period,

reason and rationality was growing. Reason replaced imagination. People
tried to believe that God is an abstract being. Soul is the spark of divine

power i.e. inform of abstract forces. It is believed that an abstract power or
force guides and determines the events in the world. Metaphysical thinking
discards belief in concrete God. The nature of enquiry was legal and rational
in nature. For example; Classical Hindu Indian society where the principle of
transmigration of soul, the conception of rebirth, notions of pursuant has
were largely governed by metaphysical uphill.
Metaphysical -- thought substitutes abstractions for a personal will. Here,

causes and forces replace desires. The world is one great entity in which
Nature prevails. And finally Positive -- the search for absolute knowledge, the
first cause, is abandoned. In such a scheme, each stage corresponds to a
specific form of mental development. There is also a corresponding material
development.
Comte believed that historical development revealed a matching movement

of ideas and institutions. In the COURSE OF POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY, Comte
attempted to demonstrate that each science is necessarily dependent on the
previous science, that is, science can only be understood historically as the
process of greater perfection. For example, before there can be an effective
physics, there must be astronomy. Furthermore, the history of the sciences
reveals the law that as the phenomenon become more complex, so to do the
methods of those sciences. In contrast to Descartes who saw only one right
method of inquiry -- the geometrical method -- Comte believed that each
science develops by logic proper to itself, a logic that is revealed only by the
historical study of that science. Comte, of course, claimed to go beyond
Descartes -- after all, hadn’t everybody else done the same thing? Like Vico,
Herder, Hegel and Condorcet, Comte studied the mind historically. The mind
can only be explained in terms of what it has done in the past.
6. Positive or Scientific Stage:
This positive stage is also known a scientific stage. The dawn of 19th century
marked the beginning of this stage. It is characterized by scientific
knowledge. In this stage, human mind gave up the taken for granted
approach. At this stage, human mind tried to establish cause and effect
relationship. Scientific knowledge is based on facts. Facts are collected by
observation and classification of phenomena.
The final science which Comte claimed to have discovered and one which
had not yet entered its positive stage was sociology. It was sociology, he
claimed, that would give ultimate meaning to all the other sciences -- it was
the one science which held the others together. Only sociology would reveal
that man is a developing creature who moves through three stages in each
of his sciences. With this profound assertion, Comte argued that we could
finally understand the true logic of mind. And in the 47th lesson of the fourth
volume of the Course of Positive Philosophy, Comte proposed the word

sociology for this new science rather than the current expression, physique
sociale (or social physics).
Positivism is a purely intellectual way of looking at the world. Positivism

emphasizes on observation and classification of data and facts. One can
observe uniformities or laws about natural as well as social phenomena.
Positivistic thinking is best suited to the need of industrial society.
Criticisms: The concept rational doesn't have universal meanings, what is

rational to one society may not be to society another.
Max Weber advocates that the nature of progress of society should not be
studied by the preconceived philosophical outlines rather they should be
studied form objective and empirical stand point.
C) RELIGION OF HUMANITY
Comte’s “theory of religion of humanity "though can considered one of his

contribution to the realm of social thought, it is only an insignificant place in
the study of sociology or sociological thought. Comte after successfully
establishing the intellectual supremacy of positivism in his earlier works,
devoted his later writing to moral and religious consideration rather than to
scientific and sociological inquiries.
Religion of Humanity as a product of Comte’s Idealistic Imaginations.
Comte purported to establish a new religion a “Scientific Religion” or a

“Religion of Humanity”.
Comte sincerely believed that he was to establish such a religion on a firm
scientific foundation.
The “Theory of Religion of Humanity” Represent a Radical Change in the

Development of Comte’s Rational Thinking.
Comte a great champion if science or positivism could transform himself into

an advocate of a new religion, a religion of humanity. Comte says that a
scientist requires the thirst for knowledge and not the divine grace. Some
biographical accidents did play an important role in this transformation in his
thinking
SOME SALIENT FEATURES OF COMTEAN RELIGION OF HUMANITY
 A Religion Without God: Comte’s “Religion of Humanity” is based on

morality and religion and upon a belief in a divine force. The main

slogan of the Comtean Religion thus reads “We should have religion
but not God.
 New Religion Destined to a New Epoch: Comte claimed himself to be

the high priest of this new religion committed to “institute a reign of
harmony, justice and equity
 A Social Religion Based Upon Morality. Comte considered himself

primarily founder of a new religion that promised salvation for all the
ailment of mankind. Comte thus tried to create a purely “social
religion”.
 Comte Not in Favor of Traditional Christianity. Comte did not see in

Christianity a social keynote. Hence he attempted to create a purely
social religion.
Comtean Religion is virtually a Religion of Human Unity. Comte is the

sociologist of human unity and he wanted men to be united by
common conviction and by a single object of their love.
CRITICAL COMMENTS
1. Comte Religion of Humanity is widely criticized Christian Scholars

say that the religion of humanity is nothing more than a mixture of
science and catholic religion
2. Some have commented that it is not at all a religion but primarily a
code of morality.
3. J.S. Mill rightly remarked that Comtean ideas of religion, instead of
protecting his mental health made him lead an isolated life and
develop strange thoughts
4. Thomas Huxley called Comte’s religion “Catholicism minus
Christianity.
Conclusion:Overall it is concluded that comate religion is based on

humanity. It means to say that the main them is to combine and help each
other on the basis of humanity. Therefore, it will not be said that it more
based on morality.
3. HERBERT SPENCER:
The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857)—often called the

“father of sociology”—first used the term “sociology” in 1838 to refer to the
scientific study of society. He believed that all societies develop and progress
through the following stages: religious, metaphysical, and scientific. Comte
argued that society needs scientific knowledge based on facts and evidence

to solve its problems—not speculation and superstition, which characterize
the religious and metaphysical stages of social development. Comte viewed
the science of sociology as consisting of two branches: dynamics, or the
study of the processes by which societies change; and statics, or the study of
the processes by which societies endure. He also envisioned sociologists as
eventually developing a base of scientific social knowledge that would guide
society into positive directions.
A) Social Evolution
Social Evolution Theory: Two of the main books written by Spencer namely,
(i) “The Study of Sociology “, (ii) “The Principles of Sociology”, provide us
more details about his “theory of social evolution.” Just as “the theory of
organic evolution” analyses the birth, development, evolution and finally
death of the organism, in the same manner “the theory of social evolution”
analyses the genesis, development, evolution and finally the decay (?) of the
society.
Spencer was of the opinion that the evolutionary principle could be applied
to the human society for he treated human society as an organism. Both the
organism and the society grow from simple to complex and from
homogeneous to heterogeneous.
As Abraham and Morgan have pointed out “Spencer’s Theory of Evolution”

involves two essential but interrelated trends or strains of thought:
(i) Change from simplicity to complexity or movement from simple society to

various levels of compound societies; and
(ii) Change from military society to industrial society.
(i) Change from Simplicity to Complexity, or Movement from Simple

Society to Various Levels of Compound Society:
As Spencer repeatedly argued all phenomena in all fields proceed from
simplicity to complexity. Societies also undergo evolutionary stages of
development. Spencer identified four types of societies in terms of stages of
their evolutionary development – simple, compound, doubly compound and
trebly compound.
e) Simple Society: This is the most primitive society without any

complexities and consisting of several families.
f) Compound Society: A large number of above mentioned simple
societies make a compound society. This is clan society.
g) Doubly Compound Society: These consist of several clans compounded
into tribes or tribal society.

h) Trebly Compound Society: Here the tribes are organized into nation
states. This is the present form of the world.
The master trend in this process of universal evolution is the increased

differentiation of social structures which leads inevitably to better integration
and adaptation to environment.
(ii) Change from Military [Militant] Society to Industrial Society:

According to Spencer, evolution proceeds from military society to industrial
society. The type of social structure depends on the relation of a society to
other societies in its significant characteristics.
(i) Thus while the military society is characterized by compulsory co-

operation, industrial society is based on voluntary co-operation.
(ii) While the military society has a centralized government, the industrial
society has a decentralized government.
(iii) Military society has economic autonomy whereas it is not found in

industrial society.
(iv) There is the domination of the state over all other social organizations in
the military society whereas in the industrial society the functions of the
states are very much limited;
Some Observations Relating to Spencer’s “Theory of Social

Evolution”:
1. No modern sociologist subscribes to the “theory of social evolution” in its

original form as put forward by Spencer. His attempt to equalize evolution
with progress is totally rejected. But its modified form known as “Theory of
Neo-Evolutionism” advocated by the anthropologists like, Leslie A. White, V.
Gordon Childe and others, is getting some publicity in the anthropological
circles.
2. Bargardus is unhappy with Spencer’s theory of social evolution for it

underestimates the importance of man. He writes: “The emphasis upon
‘man’ as a primary unit neglects the importance of the ‘group’ in the social
evolutionary process. Moreover, Spencer underrated the intellectual nature
of primitive man; he denied to early man the qualities involving
exclusiveness of thought, imagination, and original ideas.”

3. Spencer had spoken of uniformity in the process of evolution. He “did not
realize that societies at the same stage of evolution do not necessarily
possess identical politics, ethics, art and religion.”
4. “While Spencer believed that social part exists for the social whole, today,
society is believed to exist for the welfare of the individuals.
B) Organic Analogy
Organic Analogy
Spencer is popularly known for his treatment of the organic analogy. The

evolutionary doctrine was no doubt the foundation of Spencer’s sociological
theory. He, however, presented the organic analogy, as a secondary doctrine
which also played a vital role in his thought system.
“He established the hypothesis that society, is like a biological organism and
then proceeded to defend it against all objections with great logical force.”
But his logic proved to be his sociological downfall, for it spoiled his scientific
insight.
Herbert Spencer came to sociology via biology. Therefore, he drew analogy

between the society and the biological organism. “So completely is society
organized on the same system as an individual that we may perceive
something more than an analogy between them, the same definition of life
applied to both [biological and social organism]
Spencer believed that the social structure is a living organism. He took great
pains to elaborate in great detail the organic analogy which is the
identification of society with a biological organism. Indeed, he regarded the
recognition of similarity between society and organism as a major step
towards a general theory of evolution.
He concentrated on bringing forth wonderful parallels between organic and

social evolution, between similarities in the structure and evolution of
organic and social units. In fact, biological analogies occupy an important
role in all of Spencer’s sociological reasoning.
Similarities between Biological and Social Organism – As visualized by

Spencer:
Spencer wanted to explain the nature of social structure by the help of the
organismic theory. He observed some similarities between biological and
social organisms.
1. Similarity in Visible Growth: Both society and organism are distinguished

from inorganic matter by means of their visible growth. Thus both society

and the organism are subject to growth. Example: A child grows up to be a
man; a tiny community becomes a metropolitan area; a small state becomes
an empire, and so on.
2. An Increase in the Complexity of Structure: As both society and organisms

grow in size they also increase in complexity of structure. Primitive
organisms [like amoeba] are simple whereas the highest organisms [like the
mammals] are very complex. Primitive community was very simple whereas
the modern industrial society is highly complex.
3. Differentiation of Structure Leading to Differentiation of

Functions: In societies and in organism’s progressive differentiation of
structure is accompanied by progressive differentiation of functions. It is
quite obvious. The primitive living organism was a unicellular creature; but
with the increase in the cells, differentiation of organs resulted, at the
highest levels of evolution the structure of the body is quite complex.
Similar is the case with society. In the case of an organism that has very
complex organs, each organ performs a specified function. Similarly, in the
case of complex society subdivided into many different organizations, each
organization carries on a specified function.
4. Change in Structure Leads to Change in Functions: When change

takes place in the structure of organs and communities, there results a
change in their functions. The function becomes more and more specialized.
This applies to the body of a living creature as well as to the society.
5. Differentiation as well as Harmony of Organs: Evolution establishes

for both societies and organisms, differences in structure and function that
make each other possible. Evolution leads to development of greater
differentiation of the organs of society as also that of an individual. Along
with this differentiation there is also the harmony between various organs.
Each organ is complementary to the other and not opposed. This holds true
both in the body of a living organism and society.
6. Loss of an Organ does not necessarily Result in the Loss of

Organism: Both society and the individual are organisms. It is common to
both that a loss of one organ or the other does not necessarily result in the
death of an organism. For example, if an individual loses his leg he does not
necessarily meet with his death. Similarly, in society if some association or a
political party disintegrates it does not invariably lead to the decay of the
society.
7. Similar Process and Methods of Organization: In discussing the

organic analogy further Spencer compared —

(i) The alimentary system of an organism to the productive
industries, or the sustaining system in the society.
(ii) There is a strong parallelism between the circulation system of

an organism and the distributing system in society with its
transportation lines and with its commercial classes and
media of exchange.
(iii) In both the cases there are developed regulating systems. In

society, there is the social control mechanism to fulfill the
regulative function. In an organism there are dominant centers and
subordinate centers, the senses, and a neural apparatus to perform
the tasks of the regulating system.
These parallelisms throw only a small measure of light upon the nature of
society. But they become ridiculous when carried to an extreme.
Differences between Organism and Society – As Visualized by

Spencer:
Spencer had recognized important differences between societies and

organisms. He said, “The parts of an animal form a concrete whole, but the
parts of society form a whole which is discrete. While the living units,
composing the one are bound together in close contact; the living units
composing the other, are free, are not in contact, and are more or less
widely dispersed.” In simple words, the organism is a concrete, integrated
whole whereas society is a whole composed of discrete and dispersed
elements.
The main differences between the society and a living organism which
cannot be overlooked were noted by Spencer. They are listed below:
1. Organs are organized, but Parts of Society are Independent: As

Spencer has observed various organs of the body are incapable of
independent existence, whereas various parts of society can exist
independently.
Example: Limbs of the organism such as legs, hands, face, etc., cannot have
existence outside the physical body of the organism. But the parts of society
such as family, school, army, police, political parties, etc., are relatively
independent and are not organically fixed to the society. The movement of
the parts is relatively free here.
2. Society does not have a Definite Form as does the Organism:

Unlike organisms, societies have no specific external form, such as a physical

body with limbs or a face. Organisms have an outward form or shape [for
example, dog, donkey, monkey, deer and so on] whereas societies such as
Indian society or American society do not have any definite and externally
identifiable form. Society is only a mental construct. It is abstract and exists
in our mind only in the form of an idea.
3. Manner of Difference in the Dependence of Organs or Parts on the

Organism or Society: According to Spencer, parts or organs of the body
[such as legs, hands, nose, eyes, head, etc.] of the organism are dependent
upon the body itself. They exist for the sake of the body. On the other hand,
in the case of society the parts [such as individuals, families, groups, etc.]
are more important than the society.
In fact, society exists for the benefit of its parts, that is, individuals. Spencer
as a champion of the philosophy of individualism very strongly felt that the
state and society exist for the good of the individual and not vice versa.
4. Difference Regarding the Centrality of “Consciousness”: In an

organism, there exists what is known as “consciousness” and it is
concentrated in a small part of the aggregate. The parts of the body do not
have this. But in the case of the society consciousness is diffused throughout
the individual members.
5. Differences Regarding the Structure and Functions: In the case of

organism each of its parts performs a definite and fixed function. The parts
perform their functions incessantly. This certainty relating to the functions of
the parts, we do not find in society. Functions of the parts of society such as
institutions often get changed. Some of the functions of family, for example,
have changed. On the contrary, the eyes, heart, nerves, ears, tongue and
other organs of the organism cannot change their functions.
It is quite interesting to note that Spencer made an elaborate effort to

establish the similarities and differences between organic and social life. He
persistently endeavored to establish the organic analogy as the central
theme of the second part of his “Principles of Sociology.” But at one stage he
denied that he held to this doctrine of organic analogy.
Replying to critics he made statements such as the following: “I have used

analogies, but only as a scaffolding to help in building up a coherent body of
sociological induction. Let us take away the scaffolding: the induction will
stand by themselves.”
Critical Comments:

 Spencer used his organic analogy in a ridiculous manner when he
compared the King’s Council to the medulla oblongata, the House of
Lords to the cerebellum, and the House of Commons to the cerebrum
He failed to understand the limitations of his analogy.
 Spencer used his analogy in a very dogmatic manner, but later

referred to it as merely scaffolding for building a structure of
deductions. He actually proceeded as if the scaffolding were the real
building. “Unfortunately, he consistently and conspicuously used the
terminology of organisms.
 The organic analogy was used by thinkers in their discussions even

prior to Spencer. But Spencer was the first to give to that analogy the
value of scientific theory. But he was very definitely taken a prisoner
by the ghost he had evoked.
 If a society is like an organism, it experiences a natural cycle of birth,

maturity, old age, and death. But the death of a society does not come
with organic inevitableness. A society need not die.
 Whether we accept or reject Spencer’s comparisons between the

human society and the organism, we are bound to acknowledge the
fact that he popularized the concept of “system” in our sociological
discussion. Present-day sociology profusely uses Spencer’s concept of
“system”, of course, in a modified form.
C) Militant or Military Society Vs Industrial Society
Essay on Types of Society – Classification and Comparison – Spencer’s clear

conception of the nature of society helped him develop models to classify
and compare societies. Two models which he followed could be identified
from this analysis.
A. Classification of Societies on the Basis of the “Degree of Composition”:

Spencer’s evolutionary law suggested that societies could be classified on
the basis of their “degree of composition.” On this basis he classified
societies into four types.
1. Simple Society,
2. Compound Society,
3. Doubly Compound Society,
4. Trebly Compound Society.
B. Classification Based on the Method of constructing priests:

“Models” or “Types” of Society:
According to Ronald Fletcher, Spencer also classified societies into (i) Military
Society, and (ii) Industrial Society, on the basis of the relative preponderance
of one or the other of the “Regulating”, “Sustaining” and “Distributive”
systems.
Military Society and Industrial Society: Spencer thought of constructing two

extremely dissimilar “types” or “models” to classify societies into two
categories. He called the types as “militant societies” and “industrial
societies.” The first was a type in which the “Regulating System” was
dominant over all the other aspects of society.
The second was one in which the “Sustaining System” was emphasized, and
all the other aspects of society were subordinated to its service. Spencer
developed the construction of “two polar types” mainly for the sake of a
clear understanding of societies which possessed a relative preponderance
of one or other of the two systems.
Spencer described his “two types” of society as follows:
A. The Militant [Military]
Society: Military Society is any form of society in which the military exerts a
dominant or pervasive role. Its main characteristics may be noted below:
1. Organization for Offensive and Defensive Military Action: The

militant society is a type in which organization for offensive and defensive
military action is predominant. It is the society in which the army is the
nation mobilized and the whole nation is regarded as a silent army. Here, the
entire structure of society is molded into military structure. It reflects a
military organization.
2. Centralized Pattern of Authority and Social Control: Here the

military head is also the political head. He has a despotic control over life
and property of all his subjects. Absolute control of the ruler makes
necessary a clear, precise and rigid hierarchy of power throughout society.
The officials at each level are completely subservient to that above. Spencer
wrote: “All are slaves to those above and despots to those below.
3. Rigid Social Classes: This rigid hierarchy of power necessarily involves a

rigid grading of social statuses. Hence it gives rise to rigid social classes in
economic life. The distribution of property, and the distribution of material
rewards in society, is meticulously linked with the order of social ranks.

4. Religious Beliefs and Doctrines relating to the Hierarchical Power
of Gods: This authoritarian and hierarchical nature of the society is also
reflected in the prevailing system of ideas and beliefs. There exists a set of
doctrines, myths, and rituals which portray a supernatural authority and
government. The gods are also pictured in terms of a hierarchy of power.
The religion itself is a hierarchical organization, and the Ecclesiastical Head

himself possesses supreme, despotic authority. In such a society, the
despotic head is, at the same time, not only the military and political head,
but also the Ecclesiastical one. His central power over government, army,
and all civil and economic affairs, is sanctified and given justification by
religion.
Here, the societies are normally in antagonism with other societies. Thus
Spencer said: “Ever in antagonism with other societies the life is a life of
enmity and the religion a religion of enmity.”
Life is Subject to Rigorous Discipline: The whole tenor of life in a military

society is characterized by rigorous discipline. Virtually there is no difference
between the public life and the private life. No element of the private life of
the citizen is closed to the state. The state can invade and interfere in the
private lives of citizens whenever it is felt necessary or desirable to do so.
There is the lack of individual rights in the relationship between individual
and the state. Thus the prevailing belief is – “that its members exist for the
benefit of the whole and not the whole for the benefit of its members. The
loyalty of the individual to the state has to be unquestioning.
Human Relationship Based on Compulsory Co-operation: Human

relationships are characterized in this kind of society by a state of
“compulsory co-operation.” Spencer, however, has not elaborated this point
much.
It is clear from the above description that Spencer’s “Militant type” of society
could be used as a basis of interpretation not only to the despotic societies of
the ancient world, but also to the totalitarian societies in the contemporary
world. As Ronald Fletcher says, as a “type”, the “militant society” could be
seen to be of wide use for the purpose of comparative societies. It is relevant
to the societies of both the past and the present.
B. The Industrial Society: The concept of “Industrial society” refers to

“that form of society or any particular society, in which industrialization and
modernization have occurred. The general term “industrial society”
originates from Saint Simon who chose it to reflect the emerging central role

of manufacturing industry in 18th century Europe, in contrast with the
previous pre-industrial society and agrarian society.
Spencer’s “Industrial Society” is one in which military activity and

organization exists but it is carried on at a distance. It takes place in the
periphery of the society and the greater part of the social organization is
peaceful. It concentrates upon the increase and improvement of all aspects
The characteristics of “industrial society” in this way contrast strongly with

those of the “militant type.” They are briefed below.
1. Recognition of Personal Rights: In the industrial society the members

hold “personal rights” as citizens of the community. There is also an active
concern on the part of the members for the maintenance of these rights.
Hence they insist upon an effective means of representative government.
Any dispute or mutual claims and counter-claims relating to the rights are to
be resolved here through an impartial procedure or institutional
arrangement.
2. “Sustaining System” Possessing a Large Degree of Freedom: In

this society, the “sustaining system” possesses a large degree of freedom
from the “regulatory system.” Here the control and governance of the
economic affairs is deliberately separated from the political government.
It is assumed here that the intelligent individuals concerned with their own
economic activities are more capable of making their own decisions than the
administrative officials. They are not only allowed, they are actively
encouraged, to do so.
3. Opportunity for the Growth of Free Associations and Institutions:

The growth of agriculture, commerce and industrial manufacture within a
fixed geographic territory is given military security. The peaceful atmosphere
leads to the growth of free associations and institutions. In all such
associations, forming committees, laying down rules and procedures,
conducting elections, etc. become a common practice.
4. A Less Rigid Class Structure: “These factors bring about a much less
rigid and less tyrannical class structure……….” [Ronald Fletcher – 285]. In
this type of class structure human relationships become contractual and
free. Further, the gradations of status and rank are less precisely marked. As
Spencer puts it “There is a growth…………. of “combinations of workmen and
employers “to resolve, particular disputes, quite separately from central
authority of law.”
5. In the Industrial Society, Religious Organizations and Religious

Beliefs Lose their Hierarchical Structure and Power: Individual faith

and sectarian discrimination, enters into religion. Religion instead of working
as a means of social control remains only as a matter of individual faith and
commitment. Religious institutions and practices become more and more
secular in nature.
6. Here the Members of the Society do not exist for the Good of the
State; but the Well-being of the Individuals becomes the Supreme
Objective of the Government: The doctrine that the members of the
society exist for the good of the state slowly disappearing. The idea that the
will and the well- being of the individual citizens which is of supreme
importance in the society, prevails upon the previous one. Hence all forms of
governmental control exist merely to manifest their wishes and to serve
them.
7. Awareness of the Duty to Resist Irresponsible Government: In such

a society the despotic government is considered to be irrelevant and wrong.
It becomes a positive duty on the part of the citizens to resist the
irresponsible government. “There is always a tendency to disobedience
amongst minorities and individuals, and such a critical tendency is positively
encouraged.”
8. Dominance of Free and Contractual Type of Human Relationships:

It is clear from the above explanation that the “Human relationships in the
industrial society are, therefore, wholly different from those in the militant
society. Free, responsible, contractual relationships between individuals
require voluntary co-operation, not the compulsory co-operation which
characterizes relationships in the militant type.
Characteristics of Military and Industrial Societies: A Contrast
Concluding Remarks:
It must be noted that “Spencer did not believe that societies actually existed
in the world with the sharp clarity of distinction that he described in drawing
these “models.” [Ronald Fletcher – 286].
Spencer was aware that he was presenting those two “models” to help
comparison of societies. Spencer was of the opinion that this mode of
classification would help to interpret and understand some of the crucially
important trends of social evolution. These trends, according to him were of
great importance as the traditional societies get radically transformed by the
process of industrialization.
This mode of classifying societies helped Spencer in undertaking a very

detailed comparative study of each major social institution within each
“type” of society. “This gave him a picture of what, in the whole field of

social institutions had actually occurred in the past, and what was happening
in the present.”
In this classification of societies, it appears that Spencer was too optimistic

about the industrial society. Bargardus thus points out: “In the coming
industrial order Spencer foresaw an era in which the main business of society
will be to defend the rights of “Individuals.” Spencer forecast an epoch of
industrial states which have abolished war. Experience would tell us that the
wars have not yet become the things of the past.
Bargardus further writes: “Spencer’s industrialism, however, had

fundamental weaknesses. It implies that social organization is more
important than social process. It neglects to provide sufficiently for inherent
psychical changes. It assumes that an industrial society, as such, will be
peaceful. It underestimates the importance of socializing motives”
[Bargardus]
Times have changed, but once again his work seems to commend itself to
our age as it searches for answers to age-old questions about how to live in
community while maintaining individuality.
The Contrast Between Militant and Industrial Societies

Characteristic Militant Society Industrial Society
Dominant Corporate defensive and Peaceful, mutual
function or offensive activity for rendering of individual
activity preservation and services
aggrandizement
Principle of Compulsory cooperation; Voluntary cooperation;
social regimentation by enforcement regulation by contract
coordination of orders; both positive and and principles of justice;
negative regulation of activity only negative regulation
of activity
Relations Individuals exist for benefit of State exists for benefit

between state state; restraints on liberty, of individuals; freedom;
and individual property, and mobility few restraints on
property and mobility
Relations Private organizations
between state All organizations public; private encourage
and other organizations excluded
organizations
Structure of Centralized Decentralized

state
Structure of Fixity of rank, occupation, and Plasticity and openness

social locality; inheritance of positions of rank, occupation, and
stratification locality; movement
between positions
Type of Economic autonomy and self- Loss of economic
economic sufficiency; little external trade; autonomy;
activity protectionism interdependence via
peaceful trade; free
trade
Valued social Patriotism; courage; reverence; Independence; respect
and personal loyalty; obedience; faith in for others; resistance to
characteristic authority; discipline coercion; individual
s initiative; truthfulness;
kindness
4. Emile Durkheim
Despite their differences, Marx, Spencer, and Comte all acknowledged the
importance of using science to study society, although none actually used
scientific methods. Not until Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) did a person
systematically apply scientific methods to sociology as a discipline. A French
philosopher and sociologist, Durkheim stressed the importance of
studying social facts, or patterns of behavior characteristic of a particular
group. The phenomenon of suicide especially interested Durkheim. But he
did not limit his ideas on the topic to mere speculation. Durkheim formulated
his conclusions about the causes of suicide based on the analysis of large
amounts of statistical data collected from various European countries.
Durkheim certainly advocated the use of systematic observation to study

sociological events, but he also recommended that sociologists avoid
considering people's attitudes when explaining society. Sociologists should
only consider as objective “evidence” what they themselves can directly
observe. In other words, they must not concern themselves with people's
subjective experiences.
A) THEORY OF SUICIDE
Essay on Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide – Durkheim’s third famous book
“Suicide” published in 1897 is in various respects related to his study of
division of labor. “Suicide”, the act of taking one’s own life, figures
prominently in the historical development of sociology because it was the
subject of the first sociological data to test a theory.
Durkheim’s theory of suicide is cited as “a monumental landmark in which
conceptual theory and empirical research are brought together.

Durkheim’s book “Suicide” is an analysis of a phenomenon regarded as
pathological, intended to throw light on the evil which threatens modern
industrial societies, that is, “anomie.” Suicide is an indication of
disorganization of both individual and society. Increasing number of suicides
clearly indicates something wrong somewhere in the social system of the
concerned society. Durkheim has studied this problem at some length.
Durkheim’s study of suicide begins with a definition of the phenomenon. He

then proceeds to refute the earlier interpretations of suicide. Finally, he
develops a general theory of the phenomenon.
Definition of Suicide:
According to Durkheim, suicide refers to “every case of death

resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative death
performed by the victim himself and which strives to produce this
result.”
It is clear from the definition of Durkheim that suicide is a conscious act and
the person concerned is fully aware of its consequences. The person who
shoots himself to death, or drinks severe poison, or jumps down from the
10th story of a building, for example, is fully aware of the consequences of
such an act.
Brief Evaluation of Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide Comments in

Appreciation of the Theory:
1. As L.A. Coser stated, Durkheim’s study of “suicide” could be cited as a

monumental land work study in which conceptual theory and empirical
research are brought together in an imposing manner.”
2. As Abraham and Morgan have said “the larger significance of suicide lies
in its demonstration of the function of sociological theory in empirical
science”.
3. A successful attempt is made in this theory to establish logically the link

between social solidarity, social.
4. Durkheim has thrown light on the various faces of suicide. He is, indeed,
the first person in this regard.
Two Main Purposes behind this Study:

Durkheim used a number of statistical records to establish his fundamental
idea that suicide is also a social fact and social order and disorder are at the
very root of suicide. As Abraham and Morgan have pointed out, Durkheim
made use of statistical analysis for two primary reasons. They are stated
below:
(a) To refute theories of suicide based on psychology, biology,

genetics, climate, and geographic factors,
(b) To support with empirical evidence his own sociological

explanation of suicide.
Durkheim Displays an Extreme Form of Sociological Realism:
Durkheim is of the firm belief that suicide is not an individual act or a private
and personal action. It is caused by some power which is over and above the
individual or “super-individual.” It is not a personal situation but a
manifestation of a social condition. He speaks of suicidal currents as
collective tendencies that dominate some vulnerable persons. The act of
suicide is nothing but the manifestation of these currents. Durkheim has
selected the instance or event of suicide to demonstrate the function of
sociological theory.
Durkheim Chooses Statistical Method to Know the Causes of Suicide:

Durkheim wanted to know why people commit suicide, and he chooses to
think that explanations focusing on the psychology of the individual were
inadequate. Experiments on suicide were obviously out of question.
Case studies of the past suicides would be of little use, because they do not
provide reliable generalizations, about all suicides. Survey methods were
hardly appropriate, because one cannot survey dead people. But statistics on
suicide were readily available, and Durkheim chose to analyze them.
Durkheim Rejects Extra-Social Factors as the Causes of Suicide:
Durkheim repudiated most of the accepted theories of suicide.
1. His monographic study demonstrated that heredity, for example, is not

a sufficient explanation of suicide.
2. Climatic and geographic factors are equally insufficient as explanatory
factors.
3. Likewise, waves of imitation are inadequate explanations.
4. He also established the fact that suicide is not necessarily caused by
the psychological factors.

Social Forces are the Real Causes of Suicide: Durkheim:
Suicide is a highly individual act, yet the motives for a suicide can be fully
understood only by reference to the social context in which it occurs. In his
attempts to substantiate this fact he came to know that the incidence of
suicide varied from one social group or set up to another and did so in a
consistent manner over the years.
Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics; people in

large cities were more likely to commit suicide than people in small commu-
nities; people living alone were more likely to commit suicide than people
living in families.
Durkheim isolated one independent variable that lay behind these

differences: the extent to which the individual was integrated into a social
bond with others. People with fragile or weaker ties to their community are
more likely to take their own lives than people who have stronger ties.
Durkheim’s Threefold Classification of Suicide:

Having dismissed explanations of extra-social factors, Durkheim proceeds to
analyse the types of suicide. He takes into account three types of suicide:
(a) Egoistic Suicide which results from the lack of the integration of the
individual into his social group.
(b) Altruistic Suicide is a kind of suicide which results from the over-
integration of the individual into his social group.
(c) Anomie Suicide results from the state of normlessness or degeneration

found in society.
Having analyzed the above mentioned three types of suicide, Durkheim

concludes that “suicide is an individual phenomenon whose causes are
essentially social.”
Suicide – An Index to Decay in Social Solidarity:
Durkheim has established the view that there are no societies in which
suicide does not occur. It means suicide may be considered a “normal”, that
is, a regular, occurrence. However, sudden increase in suicide rates may be
witnessed.
This, he said, could be taken as “an index of disintegrating forces at work in

a social structure.” He also came to the conclusion that different rates of
suicide are the consequences of differences in degree and type of social
solidarity. Suicide is a kind of index to decay in social solidarity.

Three Types of Suicide:
On the basis of the analysis of a mass of data gathered by him on many

societies and cultures, Durkheim identified three basic types of suicides.
They are Egoistic Suicide, Altruistic Suicide and Anomic Suicide.
According to Durkheim, all these occur as an expression of group breakdown

of some kind or the other. These three types of suicide reveal different types
of relations between the actor and his society.
1. Egoistic Suicide: Egoistic suicide is a product of relatively weak group

integration. It takes place as a result of extreme loneliness and also out of
excess individualism. When men become “detached from society”, and when
the bonds that previously had tied them to their fellow beings become loose
– they are more prone to egoistic suicide.
According to Durkheim, egoistic suicides are committed by those individuals

who have the tendency to shut themselves up within themselves. Such
individuals feel affronted, hurt and ignored. Introversive traits gain upper
hand in them.
Egoistic persons are aloof and cut off from the mainstream of society and do
not take full interest in social matters. Such persons get alienated and find it
difficult to cope with social alienation and feel impelled to commit suicide.
Durkheim’s belief is that lack of integration of the individuals into the social
group is the main cause for egoistic suicide. Durkheim studied varying
degrees of integration of individuals into their religion, family, political and
national communities.
He found that among the Catholics suicides were comparatively less than
among the Protestants. He also found that Catholicism is able to integrate its
members more fully into its fold.
On the other hand, Protestantism fosters spirit of free inquiry, permits great
individual freedom, lacks hierarchic organizations and has fewer common
beliefs and practices. It is known that the Catholic Church is more powerfully
integrated than the Protestant church.
It is in this way the Protestants are more prone to commit suicide than the
Catholics. Hence, Durkheim generalized that the lack of integration is the
main cause of egoistic suicide.
2. Altruistic Suicide: This kind of suicide takes place in the form of a

sacrifice in which an individual ends his life by heroic means so as to
promote a cause or an ideal which is very dear to him. It results from the

over- integration of the individual into his group. In simple words, altruistic
suicide is taking off one’s own life for the sake of a cause. It means that even
high level of social solidarity induces suicide.
Examples:
(i) In some primitive societies and in modern armies such suicide takes
place.
(ii) Japanese sometimes illustrate this type of suicide. They call it “Harakiri.”
In this practice of Harakiri, some Japanese go to the extent of taking off their
lives for the sake of the larger social unity. They consider that self-
destruction would prevent the breakdown of social unity.
(iii) The practice of “sati” which was once in practice in North India is another
example of this kind.
(iv) The self-immolation by Buddhist monks, self-destruction in Nirvana under

the Brahmanical influence as found in the case of ancient Hindu sages
represent other variants of altruistic suicide. Wherever altruistic suicide is
prevalent, man is always ready to sacrifice his life for a great cause,
principle, ideal or value.
3. Anomie Suicide: The breakdown of social norms and sudden social

changes that are characteristic of modern times, encourage anomie suicide.
When the collective conscience weakens, men fall victim to anomie suicide.
“Without the social backing to which one is accustomed, life is judged to be
not worth continuing.”
Anomie suicide is the type that follows catastrophic social changes. Social
life all around seems to go to pieces. According to Durkheim, at times when
social relations get disturbed both personal and social ethics become the
causalities. Values of life come down and outlook of some persons changes
radically. There are then certain dangerous developments in the society.
A sudden change has its vibrations both in social life and social relationship,
which paves way for suicide. If the change is sudden, adjustment becomes
difficult and those who do not get adjusted to changes commit suicide.
It is this social disruption which leads to suicide. According to Durkheim, not

only economic disaster and industrial crisis but even sudden economic
prosperity can cause disruption and deregulation and finally suicide.
Critical Comments:

1. Durkheim has given importance only to social factors in suicide. In doing
so, he has neglected the role of other factors, especially the psychological.
Hence this is a one-sided view.
2. The theory is based upon a very small sample of data concerning suicide.
3. As criminologists have pointed out, economic, psychological and even

religious factors may lead to suicide. But Durkheim did not give any
importance to these factors.
Concluding Remarks: These three kinds of suicide understood as social

types also correspond approximately to psychological types. “Egoistic suicide
tends to be characterized by a kind of apathy, an absence of attachment to
life; altruistic suicide, by a state of energy and passion; anomie suicide is
characterized by a state of irritation or disgust” – Raymond Aron.
Raymond Aron pointed out that Durkheim in his study of “suicide” has been
successful in establishing a social fact that there are “specific social
phenomena which govern individual phenomena. The most impressive, most
eloquent example is that of the social forces which drive individuals to their
deaths, each believing that he is obeying only himself.”
B) ORGANIC SOLIDARITY AND MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY

Key Difference – Mechanic vs Organic Solidarity

Mechanic and Organic Solidarity are two concepts that emerge in the field
of sociology between which a key difference can be identified. These
concepts were first introduced by Emilie Durkheim, a key figure in Sociology.
Durkheim was a functionalist who was rather optimistic about the division of
labor in the society. His view is captured in the book titled ‘The division of
labor in society’ which was first published in 1893. In this book, he presented
two concepts known as mechanic solidarity and organic solidarity. The key
difference between mechanic and organic solidarity is that while mechanic
solidarity is visible in pre-industrial societies, organic solidarity is
visible in industrial societies.
What is Mechanic Solidarity?
The concept of solidarity is used in sociology to highlight the agreement and

support that exists in a society where people share their belief systems and
work together. Durkheim uses the term mechanic solidarity to refer to
societies governed by similarities. Most of the pre-industrialized societies
such as hunting and gathering societies, agricultural societies are examples
of mechanic solidarity.

The key characteristics of such societies are that people share common
belief systems and work with others in cooperation. Communal activities are
at the heart of such societies. There is a lot of homogeneity among people in
their thought, actions, education and even in the work that they perform. In
this sense, there is very little room for individuality. Another feature of
mechanic solidarity is that there exist repressive laws. Also, there is very
little interdependence among people as all are involved in similar types of
work.
What is Organic Solidarity?
Organic solidarity can be seen in societies where there is a lot of

specialization which leads to high interdependence among individuals and
organizations. Unlike in mechanic solidarity, where there is a lot
of homogeneity among the people, a contrasting image can be seen in
organic solidarity. This is visible in industrialized societies such as many of
the modern societies, where people have specific roles and specialized work.
Since every individual is engaged in a special role, this leads to a high level
of interdependence because a single individual cannot perform all tasks.
Some of the key characteristics of organic solidarity are high individuality,

constitutional and organizational laws, secularization, high population and
density. Durkheim points out that although there is a high division of labor in
organic solidarity, this is necessary for the functioning of the society because
the contribution that each individual makes to the society enables the
society to function as a social unit.
What is the difference between Mechanic and Organic Solidarity?
Definitions of Mechanic and Organic Solidarity:
Mechanic Solidarity: Mechanic solidarity to refer to societies governed by

similarities.
Organic Solidarity: Organic solidarity can be seen in societies where there

is a lot of specialization which leads to high interdependence among
individuals and organizations.
Characteristics of Mechanic and Organic Solidarity:
Focus:
Mechanic Solidarity: Mechanic solidarity focuses on similarities.
Organic Solidarity: Organic solidarity focuses on differences.
Individuality:
Mechanic Solidarity: There is little room for individuality.

Organic Solidarity: Individuality is promoted.
Laws:
Mechanic Solidarity: Laws are repressive.
Organic Solidarity: Constitutional, organizational laws can be seen.
Division of Labor:
Mechanic Solidarity: Division of labor is low.
Organic Solidarity: Division of labor is very high as specialization is at the
heart of organic
solidarity.
Beliefs and Values:
Mechanic Solidarity: Beliefs and values are similar.
Organic Solidarity: There is a great variety of beliefs and values
5. Karl Marx
Not everyone has shared Spencer's vision of societal harmony and stability.
Chief among those who disagreed was the German political philosopher and
economist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who observed society's exploitation of the
poor by the rich and powerful. Marx argued that Spencer's healthy societal
“organism” was a falsehood. Rather than interdependence and stability,
Marx claimed that social conflict, especially class conflict, and competition
mark all societies.
The class of capitalists that Marx called the bourgeoisie particularly enraged

him. Members of the bourgeoisie own the means of production and exploit
the class of laborers, called the proletariat, who do not own the means of
production. Marx believed that the very natures of the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat inescapably lock the two classes in conflict. But he then took his
ideas of class conflict one step further: He predicted that the laborers are not
selectively “unfit,” but are destined to overthrow the capitalists. Such a class
revolution would establish a “class‐free” society in which all people work
according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.
Unlike Spencer, Marx believed that economics, not natural selection,

determines the differences between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He
further claimed that a society's economic system decides peoples' norms,
values, mores, and religious beliefs, as well as the nature of the society's
political, governmental, and educational systems. Also unlike Spencer, Marx
urged people to take an active role in changing society rather than simply
trusting it to evolve positively on its own.

A) Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value
Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value
Outline
Introduction
Theory of surplus value
• Labor
• Understanding labor under capitalism
• Meaning of Surplus Value
Impacts
Karl Marx Theory of surplus value in the contemporary affairs Conclusion
Karl Marx theories and the books revolutionized the world. His concepts on
the equality for all gave birth to a new system of governance.
Introduction:
Heinrich Karl Marx was a renowned sociologist of the 19th century (1818-
1883). He presented several theories, books and essays which later led to
socialism. Marx was exponent supporter of creating a balance between the
'Petit bourgeoisie' and 'Lumpen Proletariat'. Thus, he overwhelmingly
objected the capitalism. His work like The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital
and political economy revolutionized the whole world. Communist were all
Marxist in nature. The theory of Surplus Value is part of political economy,
written by Karl Marx. Karl Marx’s theory of class conflict, theory of alienation
and theory of surplus value are interrelated as all these theories speak
against the capitalism or market economy. The further detail will only
illustrate the Marx theory of surplus value and its validity in the
contemporary affairs.
THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE
The price of commodity produced is determined by the labor involved in that

commodity. In the complex capitalist environment laborer provides his
services to his boss in order to produce a commodity but in response to it he
just gets a small chunk of the profit. The remaining profit goes to the boss or
who is responsible to conducting that business. The theory of surplus value
says that this laborer, his efforts are helpful, meaningful to the owner of that
business as the surplus amount goes to the boss instead of that laborer who
is actually responsible for carrying out the whole business. Thus, Karl Marx is
of the view that a laborer and the person who is carrying out the business be
treated on the equal grounds but the capitalist economy does not take care
of this fact.

Labour
Labour is a domain between a man and the nature. The content of labour
may remain the same at different stages of man's history but the character
of labour, however, undergoes revolutionary changes whenever one mode of
production is superseded by another. Therefore, objectively to man's vital
activity, labour is his eternal companion. Labour is a most important factor in
the evolution of world civilization.
Understanding labour under capitalism
This means that the means of production are owned by the capitalist and the
labour will have an association with the production of the commodity only.
Furthermore, the product of the labour is capitalist property by all means. He
is just contributing his efforts for the well-being of the capitalist.
Meaning of Surplus Value
 To understand the importance of value, it is important to brief about

Marx's theory of Surplus Value. According to this theory, the main
postulates emphasized by Karl Marx are:
 Commodity production is the outcome of a specific division of labour:
“Only such products can become commodities with regard to each
other, as result from different kinds of labour, each kind being carried
on independently and for the account of private individuals.”

The value of commodities expresses what private labors have in
common: it is a socially necessary quantity of labour.
Impacts
Karl Marx criticized this concept of dividing the class between the 'haves' and
'have-nots'. In the Marx theory of class conflict he enunciated the impacts of
theory of surplus value. Surplus value generates a handsome income for the
'owner' however it gives the diminishing returns to the labour. Hence, this
gives birth to petit bourgeois and lumpen proletariat. The former are those
who are rich, wealthy and influential in the society and the latter are those
who are weak, poor and remain at the discretion of the influential persons.
Therefore, surplus value generates a class conflict between the different
strata of the people.
Secondly, surplus value gives birth to alienation. This means that a person
who is capable and talented yet, he cannot impart his full abilities to the

work, led him to alienation. The reason behind is that the boss is just
concerned about his product regardless of the talent in the labour and on the
other hand, the labour being at the mercy of poor environmental conditions,
he is supposed to do the work under the wage system. The poor laborer does
not have any other option to make his livelihood.
Thirdly, the theory of alienation, class conflict and surplus value give birth to
the polarization in the society. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are
getting richer. Thus, such kind of exploitation paralyses the society. So
polarization creates a sense of deprivation amongst the members of the
society.
Fourthly, according to Marxist, surplus value gives birth to wars and arm
conflict. The reason is that the additional amount or profit earned by the big
cartels is utilized on the wars. Thus, gives birth to chaos and anarchy.
Therefore, the Marxist school of thought believes in the closed economy.
Karl Marx theory of surplus value in the contemporary affairs Karl Marx
theories and the books revolutionized the world. His concepts on the equality
for all gave birth to a new system of governance, i.e. communism. However,
the communist could not refrain themselves from aggressive design as
Marxist believe that the surplus money in the capitalism is utilized for
fighting wars. But, history shows that the Russians also had an aggressive
ideology. “Only such products can become commodities with regard to each
other, as result from different kinds of labour, each kind being carried on
independently and for the account of private individuals.” Another point is
that Marxist totally negates the liberalization of the economy. It talks about
the closed economy however; the capitalist economy is based upon the
opening up the market for all. Globalization is the essence of the capitalist
economy. In doing so, it is noteworthy that China is second largest economy
of the world. The growth rate of China is 8%. She has surpassed Germany. It
is a well-established fact that China was never been able to reach such an
apogee prior to abolishing socialism. Now Chinese economy is open for the
entire world.
Similarly, Indian economy was also a closed economy prior to bringing

economic reforms by the then finance minister Manmohan Singh. Now, the
country is making rapid progress in the economic field. America wants to
capture the Indian market. Therefore, the future of the world lies in the
globalization. One cannot remain aloof from the entire world.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, Karl Marx theories are right in the sense of giving relief to the

labour. This was also good during that century. Russian and the Chinese who
were the greatest exponent of the communism also failed to convince the
people for that economic system. Competitive markets have made a rapid
progress in the economic field. The competitive markets are making the
things cheaper for the people. This is also a good example of the market
economy. The 21st century is facing many other challenges to make this
planet a peaceful place to live. World has pledged to reduce poverty,
improve maternal conditions and enhance global trade in the Millennium
Development Goals during World Summit. This can only be achieved by
globalization.
B) LABOR THEORY
Karl Marx's labor theory of value asserts that the value of an object is solely
a result of the labor expended to produce it. According to this theory, the
more labor or labor time that goes into an object, the more it is worth. Marx
defined value as "consumed labor time", and stated that "all goods,
considered economically, are only the product of labor and cost nothing
except labor".
The labor theory of value is the fundamental premise of Marx's economics

and the basis of his analysis of the free market. If it is correct, then much of
Marx's critique of capitalism is also correct. But if it is false, virtually all of
Marx's economic theory is wrong.
Here is an example of how the labor theory of value works: A worker in a

factory is given $30 worth of material, and after working 3 hours producing a
good, and using $10 worth of fuel to run a machine, he creates a product
which is sold for $100. According the Marx, the labor and only the labor of
the worker increased the value of the natural materials to $100. The worker
is thus justly entitled to a $60 payment, or $20 per hour.
If the worker is employed by a factory owner who pays him only $15 per
hour, according to Marx the $5 per hour the factory owner receives is simply
a rip-off. The factory owner has done nothing to earn the money and the $5
per hour he receives is "surplus value", representing exploitation of the
worker. Even the tools which the factory owner provided were, according to
Marx, necessarily produced by other workers.
According to the labor theory of value, all profits are the rightful earnings of
the workers, and when they are kept from the workers by capitalists, workers
are simply being robbed. On the basis of this theory, Marx called for the
elimination of profits, for workers to seize factories and for the overthrow of
the "tyranny" of capitalism. His call to action has been heeded in many
countries throughout the world.

DURKHEIM & WEBER THEORIES:
COMPARISON AND RELEVANCE TODAY Introduction Classical, seminal

sociological theorists of the late 19th and early 20th century such as
Durkheim and Weber were greatly interested in religion and its effects on
society. Like those of Plato and Aristotle from ancient Greece, and
Enlightenment philosophers from the 17th through 19th centuries, the ideas
posited by these sociologists continue to be examined today.
Durkheim and Weber had very complex and developed theories about the
nature and effects of religion. Of these, Durkheim and Weber are often more
difficult to understand, especially in light of the lack of context and examples
in their primary texts. Religion was considered to be an extremely important
social variable in the work of these two.
Emile Durkheim: Emile Durkheim was a French sociologist with a
background in anthropology, and became known as ‘the father of sociology’.
He lived from 1858-1917 and was educated in both France and Germany.
Durkheim viewed religion as an essential part of one’s social life and went as
far as to say that without religion society could not possibly exist cohesively.
Religion, as ‘the cement of society’, is entirely a social concept.
Durkheim’s method in studying religion was based on the scientific method.

It does not take into account specific beliefs or the origins of religions.
Matters regarding the truth of religion are not accounted for, nor is there any
such thing as a false religion. The fact that a religion has survived for so long
gives the religion meaning, and that is central to the social dimension of
religion.
Unlike most other sociologists of religion, Durkheim did feel that religion was
real, and will survive. There was nothing illusion or deceptive of religion, and
a strong religion will simply ensure social solidarity.
Max Weber: Max Weber was a German sociologist, economist, and political
scientist. He lived during the same time frame as Durkheim, from the late
19th to the early 20th century. Weber saw religion as fulfilling self-interest.
Although not to the same extent at Marx, Weber did feel that religion was
something that arose out of an individual need for life to have meaning.
Unlike Durkheim, society was not central, but rather what was important to
study is how different individuals of a religion relate to one another.
Weber’s method was groundbreaking at the time because he refuted all

previous understandings of history dealing with religion, particularly those of
Marx, and of course, Durkheim. Nonetheless, he did share some similarities
with his French colleague. Like Durkheim, he used a strict scientific outlook

when studying the field, which helped to establish the field of sociology as an
academic discipline.
Comparison of Durkheim &Weber : In comparison studies, unlike Durkheim,

who compared social entities, Weber used the notion of the individual and
ideal-types. From his studies, Weber hypothetically created an ideal form,
from whose characteristics can be taken from various individuals or events.
Weber argued that no scientific process can account for every issue
regarding his studies of sociology of religion.
Along with the use of ideal-types, Weber’s goal of sociology of religion was to
understand the individual impact of religion. While Durkheim stressed how
religion caused society to remain interconnected and moral, Weber did not
feel it was necessary to delve into the social function of religion. The
personal role of religion and its individual meaning was much more crucial.
He refuses to allow the importance of religion to be reduced to something
merely social. Max Weber believed that religions provided meaning for
individuals who aspired it. Religious beliefs are an example of these self-
interests. As far as Durkheim’s society theory relates, Weber believed that
the study of society and religion for that matter should be the study of the
interrelation between individuals.
Weber did not disagree with Durkheim regarding the reality of religions or its
future. Weber and Durkheim were in the minority of sociologists who
believed that religion was real and sacred.
They also agreed that religion did have a future, albeit for different reasons.
While Durkheim thought religion was necessary for the society to exist,
Weber believed that individuals who were religious would be influenced to
take part in so called worldly affairs, and succeed, such as capitalist
Protestants.
Emile Durkheim and Max Weber were not only the two founders of sociology,
but also the founders of sociology of religion. These two men, from roughly
the same time period and geography, approached their field with due
scientific processes. However, while Durkheim viewed religion to simply the
basis and entity of social function, while Weber refused reduce religion to a
single theory, but saw the importance of religious ideas in the personal realm
and the influences it could have not only to oneself but to other surrounding
individuals. Both Durkheim and Weber attempted to interpret religion and its
social composition, and understood the nature of its utmost real importance
and role it would have in the future of humanity
C) CONFLICT THEORY
Marx's Theory of Social Class and Class Structure

For Marx, the analysis of social class, class structures and changes in those structures are key to
understanding capitalism and other social systems or modes of production. In the Communist
Manifesto Marx and Engels comment that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history
of class struggles. (Bottomore, p. 75).
Analysis of class divisions and struggles is especially important in developing an understanding

of the nature of capitalism. For Marx, classes are defined and structured by the relations
concerning (i) work and labour and (ii) ownership or possession of property and the means of
production. These economic factors more fully govern social relationships in capitalism than
they did in earlier societies. While earlier societies contained various strata or groupings which
might be considered classes, these may have been strata or elites that were not based solely on
economic factors – e.g. priesthood, knights, or military elite.
Marx did not complete the manuscript that would have presented his overall view of social class.
Many of his writings concern the class structures of capitalism, the relationship among classes
the dynamics of class struggle, political power and classes, and the development of a classless
society, and from these a Marxian approach to class can be developed. Note that Hadden does
not discuss class in any detail, although the class structure of capitalism is implicit in the labour
theory of value and can be derived from this theory.
1. Classes in Capitalism
The main classes in capitalism are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. However, other classes
such as landlords, petty bourgeoisie, peasants, and lumpenproletariat also exist, but are not
primary in terms of the dynamics of capitalism.
a. Bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie or capitalists are the owners of capital, purchasing and
exploiting labour power, using the surplus value from employment of this labour power to
accumulate or expand their capital. It is the ownership of capital and its use to exploit labour and
expand capital are key here. Being wealthy is, in itself, not sufficient to make one a capitalist
(e.g. managers in the state sector or landlords). What is necessary is the active role of using this
wealth to make it self-expansive through employment and exploitation of labour.
Historically, the bourgeoisie began cities of medieval Europe, with the development of traders,
merchants, craftsperson’s, industrialists, manufacturers and others whose economic survival and
ability to increase wealth came from trade, commerce, or industry. In order for each of these to
expand their operations, they needed greater freedom to market products and expand economic
activities. In the struggle against the feudal authorities (church and secular political authorities)
this class formed and took on a progressive role. That is, they helped undermine the old
hierarchical and feudal order and create historical progress. For a segment of this class, wealth
came by employing labour (industrial capital), for others it came through trade (merchant
capital), banking and finance (finance capital), or using land in a capitalist manner (landed
capital). It was the industrial capitalists who employed labour to create capital that became the
leading sector of the bourgeoisie, whose economic activities ultimately changed society. In
Britain, this class became dominant politically and ideologically by the mid-nineteenth century.

By employing workers, industrial capital created the surplus value that could take on the various
forms such as profit, interest and rent.
b. Proletariat. The proletariat are owners of labour power (the ability to work), and mere owners
of labour power, with no other resources than the ability to work with their hands, bodies, and
minds. Since these workers have no property, in order to survive and obtain an income for
themselves and their families, they must find employment work for an employer. This means
working for a capitalist-employer in an exploitative social relationship.
This exploitative work relationship recreates or reproduces itself continually. If the capitalist-
employer is to make profits and accumulate capital, wages must be kept low. This means that the
proletariat is exploited, with the surplus time (above that required for creating subsistence)
worked by the worker creating surplus products. While the worker produces, the products
created by this labour are taken by the capitalist and sold – thus producing surplus value or profit
for the capitalist but poverty for workers. This occurs each day of labour process, preventing
workers from gaining ownership of property and recreating the conditions for further
exploitation.
The antagonistic and contradictory nature of this system is evident as capitalists attempting to
reduce wages and make workers work more intensively, while workers have exactly the opposite
set of interests. Work and the labour process in the capitalist mode of production are organized
so that workers remain property less members of the proletariat. The surplus products and value
created by workers turns into capital, which is accumulated.
Historically, the proletariat emerged as the aristocracy began to suffer financial difficulties in the
later middle ages. Many of those who were supported by working for the aristocracy lost their
livelihood – the "disbanding of the feudal retainers and the dissolution of the monasteries."
Using enclosures, changing the conditions of production in agriculture, and denying peasants
access to common lands and resources, landowners transformed land into pasture land for raising
sheep, or sold land to farmers who began to develop grain and livestock production. People who
had subsisted on the land were denied the possibility of making a living on the land, and they
become property less. Population growth was also considerable, and in some areas forced labour
(slavery, indentured servants, poor, prison) was used. While some people subsisted in rural
industry and craft production, factory production began to undermine these as well in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Together these changes created a large class of landless and
property less people who had no choice but to become members of the proletariat – many
working in factories. These people became free wage laborers, free from feudal ties and free
from a source of livelihood. Today we still talk of free labour markets and the dual meaning is
much the same.
While the relationship between workers and capitalists, or between labour and capital may
appear to be no more than an economic relationship of equals meeting equals in the labour
market, Marx shows how it is an exploitative social relationship. Not only is it exploitative, it is
contradictory, with the interests of the two partners in the relationship being directly opposed to
each other. Although at the same time, the two opposed interests are also partners in the sense

that both capital and labour are required in production and an exploitative relationship means an
exploiter and someone being exploited.
This relationship is further contradictory in that it is not just two sets of interests, but there is no
resolution of the capital-labour contradiction within the organization of capitalism as a system.
The contradictory relationship has class conflict built into it, and leads to periodic bursts of
strikes, crises, political struggles, and ultimately to the overthrow of bourgeois rule by the
proletariat. Class conflict of this sort results in historical change and is the motive force in the
history of capitalism.
c. Landlords. In addition to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, Marx discussed a number of
other classes. First, Marx mentions landowners or landlords as a class in Britain. While these
were historically important, and many still retain their wealth even today (e.g. the Royal Family),
they were considered by Marx to be a marginal class, once powerful and dominant but having
lost their central role in production and the organization of society. In order to retain their wealth,
some of these landowners were able to transform their wealth in land into landed capital. While
this constituted a somewhat different form than industrial capital, this meant that the land was
also used as capital, to accumulate. Labour may not be directly employed by landowners, but the
land is used as a means by which capital can be expanded.
d. Petty Bourgeoisie and Middle Class. The lower middle class or the petty (petite) bourgeoisie
(the bourgeoisie was sometimes called the middle class in this era), constitutes "the small
manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant" (Giddens and Held, p. 24). The
characteristic of this class is that it does own some property, but not sufficient to have all work
done by employees or workers. Members of this class must also work in order to survive, so they
have a dual existence – as (small scale) property owners and as workers. Because of this dual
role, members of this class have divided interests, usually wishing to preserve private property
and property rights, but with interests often opposed to those of the capitalist class. This class is
split internally as well, being geographically, industrially, and politically dispersed, so that it is
difficult for it to act as a class. Marx expected that this class would disappear as capitalism
developed, with members moving into the bourgeoisie or into the working class, depending on
whether or not they were successful. Many in this class have done this, but at the same time, this
class seems to keep recreating itself in different forms.
Marx considers the petite bourgeoisie to be politically conservative or reactionary, preferring to

return to an older order. This class has been considered by some Marxists to have been the base
of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. At other times, when it is acting in opposition to the interests
of large capital, it may have a more radical or reformist bent to it (anti-monopoly).
Note on the Middle Class. The issue of the middle class or classes appears to be a major issue
within Marxian theory, one often addressed by later Marxists. Many Marxists attempt to show
that the middle class is declining, and polarization of society into two classes is a strong
tendency within capitalism. Marx's view was that the successful members of the middle class
would become members of the bourgeoisie, while the unsuccessful would be forced into the
proletariat. In the last few years, many have argued that in North America, and perhaps on a
world scale, there is an increasing gap between rich and poor and there is a declining middle.

While there have been tendencies in this direction, especially among the farmers and peasantry,
there has been no clear long run trend toward decline of the middle class. At the same time as
there has been polarization of classes, there have been new middle groupings created. Some of
these are small business people, shopkeepers, and small producers while others are professional
and managerial personnel, and some intellectual personnel. Well paid working class members
and independent trades people might consider themselves to be members of the middle class.
Some segments of this grouping have expanded in number in recent years. While it is not clear
that these groups hold together and constitute a class in any Marxian sense of being combined in
opposition to other classes, they do form a middle grouping. Since Marx's prediction has not
come true, sociologists and other writers have devoted much attention to explaining this middle
grouping – what is its basis, what are the causes of its stability or growth, how it fits into the
class structure, and what are the effects of its existence on proletariat and bourgeoisie.
e. Lumpenproletariat. Marx also mentions the "dangerous class" or the social scum. Among the
members of this group are "ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, vagabonds,
discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, pickpockets, brothel keepers, rag-pickers, beggars" etc.
(Bottomore, p. 292). This is the lumpenproletariat. He does not consider this group to be of any
importance in terms of potential for creating socialism, if anything they may be considered to
have a conservative influence. Other writers and analysts have considered them to have some
revolutionary potential. One of the main reasons for mentioning them is to emphasize how
capitalism uses, misuses and discards people, not treating them as humans. Today's
representative of this class of lumpenproletariat are the homeless and the underclass.
f. Peasantry and Farmers. Marx considered the peasantry to be disorganized, dispersed, and
incapable of carrying out change. Marx also expected that this class would tend to disappear,
with most becoming displaced from the land and joining the proletariat. The more successful
might become landowners or capitalist farmers. With respect to family farmers as a group, much
the same could be said. However, Marx was not really very familiar with these as a group, and
had little to say about these. The various analyses of the role of farmers in the Prairies constitute
a more adequate view of what may be expected from this group. They could be considered to
form a class when they act together as a group. In the early days of Prairie settlement, farms were
of similar size, farmers had generally similar interests, and the farm population acted together to
create the cooperative movement and the Wheat Board. More recently, Prairie farmers are often
considered to be split into different groups or strata, dependent on type of farming, size of farm,
and whether or not they employ labour. Farmers have not been able to act together as a class in
political and economic actions in recent years. Lobbying by some farm groups have been
successful, but these do not usually represent farmers as a whole.
2. Features of Marx's Analysis
a. Group Basis. For Marx, classes cannot be defined by beginning observation and analysis
from individuals, and building a definition of a social class as an aggregate of individuals with
particular characteristics. For example, to say that the upper class is all families with incomes of
$500,000 or more is not an adequate manner of understanding social class. The latter is a
stratification approach that begins by examining the characteristics of individuals, and from this
amassing a view of social class structure as a whole. This stratification approach often combines

income, education, and social prestige or status into an index of socioeconomic status, creating a
down-gradation from upper class to lower class. The stratification approach is essentially a
classification, and for Marx classes have meaning only as they are real groups in the social
structure. Groups mean interaction among members, common consciousness, and similar types
of behavior that are connected in some way with group behavior. Categories such as upper class,
middle class and lower class, where those in each category may be similar only in the view of the
researcher are not fully Marxian in nature.
Classes are groups, and Marx discusses the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, not individual
capitalists and individual workers. As individuals, these people may be considered members of a
class, but class only acquires real meaning when it the class as a whole and the social
relationships defining them that are considered. For example, "The bourgeoisie ... has put an end
to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. ... " (Giddens and Held, p. 21). Here the bourgeoisie is
historically created and is an actor in politics, economics and history.
In terms of individuals as members of classes, they are members of a class as they act as
members of that class. For example, Marx notes that burghers or members of the bourgeoisie in
early capitalist Europe:
the class in its turn achieves an independent existence over against the
individuals, so that the latter find their conditions of existence predestined, and
hence have their position in life and their personal development assigned to them
by their class, become subsumed under it. (Giddens and Held, 20).
To the extent that individuals are considered in the social system, they are defined by their class.
For Marxists, class structures exist as objective facts, and a researcher could examine class and
membership of a class, but would have to understand the nature of the whole social and
economic structure in order to do so. To the extent that these members act in society, they act as
representatives of their class, although Marx would leave some room for individual freedom of
action.
b. Property and Class. Classes are formed by the forces that define the mode of production, and
classes are an aspect of the relations of production. That is, classes do not result from distribution
of products (income differences, lender and borrower), social evaluation (status honour), or
political or military power, but emerge right from relationship to the process of production.
Classes are an essential aspect of production, the division of labour and the labour process.
Giddens notes:
Classes are constituted by the relationship of groupings of individuals to the

ownership of private property in the means of production. This yields a model of
class relations which is basically dichotomous [since some own and others do not,
some work and others live off the fruits of those who labour]: all class societies
are built around a primary line of division between two antagonistic classes, one
dominant and the other subordinate. (Giddens, p. 37).

In describing various societies, Marx lists a number of classes and (antagonistic) social
relationship such as "freeman and slave, ... lord and serf, ... oppressor and oppressed" that
characterize different historical stages or modes of production. While Marx also mentions
various ranks and orders of society, such as vassals and knights, the forms of struggle between
classes are primarily viewed as occurring around control and use of property, the means of
production, and production as a whole, and the manner in which these are used. The basic
struggle concerns who performs the labour, and who obtains the benefits from this labour.
An elite is not necessarily a class for Marx. Examples of elites are military elites, priests or
religious leaders, and political elites – these mays may very powerful and oppressive, and may
exercise formal rule at a certain time or place. An elite could form a class, but a political or
military elite is not necessarily a class – an elite may be based on recruitment (rather than
ownership) and may not have much ultimate say in determining the direction of society. Or the
elite may be based on religious, military, political or other structures. This would especially be
the case in pre-capitalist or non-capitalist societies. For Marx, and especially in capitalism,
domination came from control of the economy or material factors, although it was not confined
to this. Thus, the dominant class was the class which was able to own, or at least control, the
means of production or property which formed the basis for wealth. This class also had the
capability of appropriating much of the social surplus created by workers or producers. An elite
may have such power, but might only be able to administer or manage, with real control of the
means of production in the hands of owners.
c. Class as Social Relationship – Conflict and Struggle. At several points, Marx notes how the
class defines itself, or is a class only as it acts in opposition to other classes. Referring to the
emergence of the burghers or bourgeoisie as a class in early capitalist Europe, Marx notes how
The separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a
common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with
each other as competitors. (Giddens and Held, p. 20).
Both competition and unity can thus characterize a class; there can be very cut-throat
competition among capitalists, but when the property relations and existence of the bourgeois
class is threatened, the bourgeoisie acts together to protect itself. This becomes apparent when
rights of private property or the ability of capital to operate freely comes under attack. The
reaction of the bourgeoisie may involve common political action and ideological unity, and it is
when these come together that the bourgeoisie as a class exists in its fullest form. In commenting
on France, Marx notes that the French peasantry may be dispersed and lacking in unity, but
In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that

separate their mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of the other
classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class.
(Giddens, p. 37)
It is when the peasantry as a group is in opposition to other classes that the peasantry form a
class. These quotes do not provide an example of the same with respect to the proletariat, but in

his other writings Marx noted that the proletariat is a true class when organized in opposition to
the bourgeoisie, and creating a new society.
Class, for Marx, is defined as a (social) relationship rather than a position or rank in society. In
Marx's analysis, the capitalist class could not exist without the proletariat, or vice-versa. The
relationship between classes is a contradictory or antagonistic relationship, one that has struggle,
conflict, and contradictory interests associated with it. The structure and basis of a social class
may be defined in objective terms, as groups with a common position with respect to property or
the means of production. However, Marx may not be primarily interested in this definition of
class. Rather, these classes have meaning in society and are historical actors only to the extent
that they do act in their own interests, and in opposition to other classes. Unlike much other
sociology, Marx's classes are defined by class conflict.
6. Max Weber
The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) disagreed with the
“objective evidence only” position of Durkheim. He argued that sociologists
must also consider people's interpretations of events—not just the events
themselves. Weber believed that individuals' behaviors cannot exist apart
from their interpretations of the meaning of their own behaviors, and that
people tend to act according to these interpretations. Because of the ties
between objective behavior and subjective interpretation, Weber believed
that sociologists must inquire into people's thoughts, feelings, and
perceptions regarding their own behaviors. Weber recommended that
sociologists adopt his method of Verstehen (vûrst e hen), or empathetic
understanding. Verstehen allows sociologists to mentally put themselves into
“the other person's shoes” and thus obtain an “interpretive understanding”
of the meanings of individuals' behaviors.
A) Theory of Bureaucracy
THE THEORY OF BUREAUCRACY:
The theory of bureaucracy is attributed to the German sociologist Max

Weber. His theory described the modern organizational structure, defined by
salaried workers in hierarchical structures carrying out specialized and
differentiated tasks. His model of bureaucracy is considered the most
accurate prediction to come from the social sciences. While Marx’s socialist
revolution never materialized, and neither Keynes nor Friedman predicted
economic systems that led to prosperity, Weber was undoubtedly correct
that the bureaucracy would be the defining institution of the modern age.

We live our lives in bureaucracies. We are born in a bureaucratic hospital,
and go on to attend bureaucratic schools. We then find employment in
bureaucracies, consume products created and sold by bureaucracies, and
are governed by bureaucracies.
The bureaucratic model is the original paradigm of public administration.

Early public administrators, who popularized the field in the early twentieth
century, sought to deliver better government through the power of
bureaucracy. Coupled with authoritarian management practices borrowed
from industry, known as Taylorism or scientific management, public
administrators believed that well run public bureaucracies could deliver
efficient and effective public services. Key to this perspective was the idea
that bureaucracies could achieve political neutrality; the founding paradigm
of public administration was known as the politics-administration dichotomy,
which separated the legislative and policy making functions of government
from the politically neutral execution of policy by public bureaucracies.
Over time the key paradigms of public administration evolved from the
bureaucratic model. Frank analysis revealed that public bureaucracies are
not politically neutral, but contribute to the political and policy-making
process. Other insights revealed that authoritarian management styles are
sometimes ineffective and inefficient, and theorists began advocating for a
humanizing of workplace human resource policies. Insights from economics
contributed to the understanding of rational decision-making processes
within bureaucracies, and formalized our understandings of public opinion
and organizational behavior.
Modern public administration recognizes the centrality of bureaucratic

structures to modern day public sector organizations. Those who examine
the role of modern bureaucracies are often focused on deriving insights into
effective management practices. This field of inquiry is known as public
management, and is often closely aligned with organizational behavior
research in other fields. These theorists generally test hypotheses about
various management practices with formal statistical and econometric
models. This formal analysis of bureaucracy is highly influential in modern
schools of public administration.
What is Bureaucracy?
It is a form of administrative system used by both public and private
institutions. Simply put, it is a government body that is composed of non-
politicians but who are appointed to help in policy-making and be in charge
of administrative tasks in government agencies.
In government, bureaucrats implement policies, write rules and regulations

and administer them on people, among others. In organizations, bureaucracy

structure is divided into different levels, from frontline employees up to the
upper management. While there are countries doing well with this kind of
structure, there are also groups not in favor of this system. Here are some of
the views about this controversial issue:
The German sociologist Max Weber was the first to formally study

bureaucracy and his works led to the popularization of this term. In his 1922
essay Bureaucracy, published in his magnum opus Economy and Society,
Weber described many ideal-typical forms of public administration,
government, and business. His ideal-typical bureaucracy, whether public or
private, is characterized by:
 hierarchical organization
 formal lines of authority (chain of command)
 a fixed area of activity
 rigid division of labor
 regular and continuous execution of assigned tasks
 all decisions and powers specified and restricted by
regulations
 officials with expert training in their fields
 career advancement dependent on technical qualifications
 qualifications evaluated by organizational rules, not
individuals
Weber listed several preconditions for the emergence of bureaucracy,

including an increase in the amount of space and population being
administered, an increase in the complexity of the administrative tasks being
carried out, and the existence of a monetary economy requiring a more
efficient administrative system. Development of communication and
transportation technologies make more efficient administration possible,
and democratization and rationalization of culture results in demands
for equal treatment.
Although he was not necessarily an admirer of bureaucracy, Weber saw
bureaucratization as the most efficient and rational way of organizing human
activity and therefore as the key to rational-legal authority, indispensable to
the modern world. Furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the
ongoing rationalization of Western society. Weber also saw bureaucracy,
however, as a threat to individual freedoms, and the ongoing
bureaucratization as leading to a "polar night of icy darkness", in which
increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in a soulless "iron
cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control. Weber's critical study of
the bureaucratization of society became one of the most enduring parts of
his work. Weber Many aspects of modern public administration are based on

his work, and a classic, hierarchically organized civil service of the
Continental type is called "Weberian civil service".
List of Advantages of Bureaucracy
Advantages of Bureaucracy
1. Specialization: A bureaucratic organization provides the advantages of
specialization because every member is assigned a specialized task to
perform.
2. Structure: A structure of form is created by specifying the duties and

responsibilities and reporting relationships within a command hierarchy.
Structure sets the pace and framework for the functioning of the
organization.
3. Rationality: A measure of objectivity is ensured by prescribing in

advance the criteria far decision making in routine situations.
4. Predictability: The rules, regulations, specialization, structure and

training import predictability and thereby ensure stability in the organization.
Conformity to rules and roles in the structural framework bring about order
to cope with complexity.
5. Democracy: Emphasis on qualifications and technical competence make

the organization more democratic. Officials are guided by the prescribed
rules, policies and practices rather than by patronage or other privileged
treatment.
Disadvantages of Bureaucracy
1. Rigidity: Rules and regulations in a bureaucracy are often rigid and

inflexible. Rigid compliance with rules and regulations discourages initiative
and creativity1. It may also provide the cover to avoid responsibility for
failures.
2. Goal Displacement: Rules framed to achieve organizational objectives
at each level become an end to themselves. When individuals at lower levels
pursue personal objectives, the overall objectives of the organization may be
neglected.
3. Impersonality: A bureaucratic organization stresses a mechanical way of

doing things. Organizational rules and regulations are given priority over an
individual’s needs and emotions.

4. Compartmentalization of Activities: Jobs ore divided into categories,
which restrict people from performing tasks that they are capable of
performing. It also encourages preservation of jobs even when they become
redundant.
5. Paperwork: Bureaucracy involves excessive paperwork as every decision

must be put into writing. All documents have to be maintained in their draft
and original forms. This leads to great wastage of time, stationery and space.
6. Empire Building: People in bureaucracy tend to use their positions and

resources to perpetuate self interests. Every superior tries to increase the
number of his subordinates as if this number is considered a symbol of
power and prestige.
7. Red Tape: Bureaucratic procedures involve inordinate delays and

frustration in the performance of tasks.
Proposed Civil Services Reforms priorities in Pakistan:
The limited progress on civil service reform in Pakistan has not been due to a
lack of knowledge about what needs to be done. Over the course of the past
sixty years there have been more than twenty studies on administrative
reform prepared by various government committees or commissions
(including six since 1996), that have clearly identified the most serious
problems.8 Instead, the lack of progress is due primarily to political factors
and ineffective political strategies for pushing through reforms. The following
section briefly examines some of the major civil service reform priorities in
Pakistan and describes some of the political factors that have contributed to
the lack of progress in addressing them.
1. Reducing the Politicization of the Bureaucracy
2. Reversing the Militarization of the Bureaucracy
3. Recruiting, Training and Retaining “The Best and the Brightest”
4. Greater accountability
5. Enhanced efficiency and transparency
6. Rightsizing
7. Reform of the cadre system
Conclusion: A bureaucracy structure might be considered ineffective by

critics but there are also valid arguments posited by supporters. Other
countries run well with bureaucrats but there are also obvious flaws within
the structure which make others critical about it. But the fact still remains,
bureaucracy exists and is here to stay.

7. C.H. Cooly
A) Self Looking Glass
The looking-glass self is a social psychological concept introduced by Charles
Horton Cooley in 1902 (McIntyre 2006). The concept of the looking-glass self
describes the development of one's self and of one's identity through one's
interpersonal interactions within the context of society. Cooley clarified that
society is an interweaving and inter-working of mental selves. The term
"looking glass self" was coined by Cooley in his work, Human Nature and the
Social Order in 1902.
The looking-glass self has three major components and is unique to humans
(Shaffer 2005). According to Lisa McIntyre’s The Practical Skeptic: Core
Concepts in Sociology, the concept of the looking-glass self-expresses the
tendency for one to understand oneself through their own understanding of
the perception which others may hold of them. This process is theorized to
develop one's sense of identity. Therefore identity, or self, is the result of
learning to see ourselves as others do (Yeung & Martin 2003).
The looking-glass self begins at an early age, continuing throughout the
entirety of one's life as one will never stop modifying their self unless all
social interactions are ceased Some sociologists believe that the effects of
the looking-glass self-wane as one ages. Others note that few studies have
been conducted with a large number of subjects in natural settings
Symbolic Interaction: In hypothesizing the framework for the looking glass
self, Cooley stated, "the mind is mental" because "the human mind is social."
From the time they are born, humans define themselves within the context
of their social interactions. The child learns that the symbol of his/her crying
will elicit a response from his/her caregivers, not only when they are in need
of necessities such as food or a diaper change, but is also a symbol that
signals to caregivers that the child is in need of attention. Schubert
references in Cooley's On Self and Social Organization, "a growing solidarity
between mother and child parallels the child's increasing competence in
using significant symbols. This simultaneous development is itself a
necessary prerequisite for the child's ability to adopt the perspectives of
other participants in social relationships and, thus, for the child's capacity to
develop a social self."

George Herbert Mead described the creation of the self as the outcome of
"taking the role of the other," the premise for which the self is actualized.
Through interaction with others, we begin to develop an identity of our own
as well as developing a capacity to empathize with others. As stated by
Cooley, "The thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the mere
mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined
effect of this reflection upon another's mind." (Cooley 1964)
Three Main Components: There are three main components that

comprise the looking-glass self (Yeung, et al. 2003).
4. We imagine how we must appear to others.

5. We imagine and react to what we feel their judgment of that
appearance must be.
6. We develop our self through the judgments of others.
1. Step One:
 We imagine how our personality and appearance appears to

others
 Attractive/unattractive, heavy/slim, friendly/unfriendly
2. Step Two:

 We imagine how other people judge the appearance we think
we present in step one
 How do we think they feel about us
3. Step Three:
 We develop a self-concept based on how we feel we are

judged in step two
 If we are judged in a good way, we have a favourable self-
concept
 If we are judged in a bad way, we have an unfavourable self-
concept
Conclusion: Everyone is the society has self looking glass concept and people
normally adopt the behaviour according to the concept.
8. Robert Martin
A) Strain Theory
Robert Merton: Strain Theory
Back in the 1950s as criminologists began to more seriously explore the

sociological causes behind crime, Robert K. Merton put forth his perspective
through strain theory. Merton argued that mainstream society holds certain
culturally defined goals that are dominant across society. for example: In a
capitalist society, the dominant goal that most people aim for is
accumulating wealth.
Matron argued that people adopt deviant behavior when then cannot
achieve socially approved goals be legitimate way. Deviance is result of
strain. Society may be set up in a way that encourages too much deviance In
other words, whether you got rich via conventional/legal means, or via
unconventional/illegal means, it didn’t matter, as long as you got your coin.
For Merton then, there was anomie (normlessness) regarding the means.
Merton furthered this perspective by providing a framework by which

sociologists could typologies criminals and non-criminals – strain theory.
Strain theory argues that one must consider if an individual rejects or
accepts (1) society’s cultural goals (wanting to make money), as well as (2)
the institutional means by which to attain those goals.

Merton also classified people into five general categories with regards to
their relationship to culturally accepted goals and the means to achieving
those goals:
6. Conformists: are people who believe in both the established cultural

goals of society as well as the normative means for attaining those
goals. They follow the rules of society. Everyone wanted to be doctor
but not possible. (CSS Officers, Doctor, Engineer, Pilot, Teacher,
Professor etc
7. Ritualists: Common among lower middle class people who lower their
success goals so that they can more easily achieve success. These
people are usually hard workers. These are individuals who do not
believe in the established cultural goals of society, but they do believe
in and abide by the means for attaining those goals.
8. Innovators: Largely found among lower class people who have learned
to accept the success goal but reject the use of legitimate means in
favor of illegitimate means. Those individuals that accept the cultural
goals of society but reject the conventional methods of attaining those
goals. These people usually have a blatant disregard for the
conventional methods that have been established in attaining wealth
and are generally those we regard as criminals. Goals of success are
accepted but individual use illegitimate means to achieve them.
Example: dealing drugs or stealing to achieve financial security. Trying
to get material wealth illegally
9. Retreatants: The Retreatants withdraws from society and does not care
about success. These are individuals who reject both the cultural goals
and the accepted means of attaining those goals. They simply avoid
both the goals and means established by society without replacing
those norms with their own counter-cultural forces. Individual give up
on achieving goals, but have internalized the means and so carry on
following the rules for their own sake. (Drug addiction, alcoholics,
vagrant and homeless person etc)
10. Rebels: attempt to change the existing system of success and replace it
with a new one. The new system includes new goals and new ways to
achieve them. They may reject the pursuit of fame and fortune and the
cutthroat nature that is needed to obtain success. They not only reject
both the established cultural goals and the accepted means of attaining
those goals, but they substitute new goals and new means of attaining
those goals. Violence
Merton's Paradigm of Deviant Behavior

Attitude to Goals Attitude to Means Modes of Adaptation

accept accept Conformity
accept reject Innovation
reject accept Ritualism
reject reject Retreatism
reject/accept reject/accept Rebellion
Criticism
Strain Theory has received several criticisms such as:
1. Strain Theory best applies only to the lower class as they struggle with
limited resources to obtain their goals.
2. Strain Theory fails to explain white collar crime, the perpetrator of
whom have many opportunities to achieve through legal and
legitimate means.
3. Strain Theory fails to explain crimes based in gender inequality.
4. Merton deals with individuals forms of responses instead of group
activity which crime involves.
5. Merton's Theory is not very critical of the social structure that he says
generate the strains.
6. Strain Theory neglects the inter- and intra-personal aspect of crime.
7. Strain Theory has weak empirical evidence supporting it.
Conclusion: Each society has goal but it is not necessary that each person
can understand goal.
According to strain theory, deviants are not pathogenic individuals, but the
products of society. Robert Merton's social strain theory holds that each
society has a dominant set of values and goals along with acceptable means
of achieving them. Not everyone is able to realize these goals. The gap
between approved goals and the means people have to achieve them
creates what Merton terms social strain.

i
Wiki Educator
ii
OXford advanced learners dictionary
iii
Pauline V Young
iv
Wallace and Wallace
v
Goode & Hatt
vi
Webster’s Dictionary
vii
Roger Bennet
viii
Fogg
ix
C.A. Mosser
x
P.V. Young
xi
Russell, Stuart; Norvig, Peter (1995). Artificial Intelligence
xii
CR Cothari
xiii
(Fetterman, 1998, pp. 34-35).
xiv
APA Dictionary of Psychology
xv
Boyce, C. & Neale, P. (2006)

SOCIOLOGY (1.2. and 3chapters)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOCIOLOGY (1.2. and 3chapters)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Course outline-FPSC

Individual: Sociability or the sociality of man.

Sociological Theory: Three sociological perspectives: Structural Functionalism, Symbolic interactions

Methods of Sociological Research: Scientific Method, Steps in research, Types of Questionnaire

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 1

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 2

Factors contributing to the Emergence of sociology

1. Industrial revolution and Industrialization: Factory system of production and the

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 3

How does ‘sociological thinking’ differ from commonsense?

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 4

 Allam Ibn-e- Khuldoon (The Muqaddimah and Al Asibiyyah)

1. ALAMA IBN E KHALDOON

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 5

Who Should Read “The Muqaddimah”? And Why?

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 6

Ibn Khaldun starts the Muqaddimah with a thorough criticism of the mistakes regularly

1. ...Partisanship towards a creed or opinion...

Sati' al-Husri suggested that Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah is essentially a sociological work,

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 7

1) Relating events to each other through cause and effect.

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 8

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 9

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 10

Auguste Comte, a volatile Frenchman, philosopher, moralist and sociologist, traditionally

(1) Classification and ordering of social sciences.

LAW OF THREE STAGES:

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 11

(1) Theological or Fictitious stage.

1. Theological or Fictitious Stage:

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 12

1. The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BC, when Sapiens evolved imagination).

2. Metaphysical or Abstract stage: -

3. Positive or Scientific Stage:

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 13

Positivism is a purely intellectual way of looking at the world. Positivism emphasizes on

Religion of Humanity as a product of Comte’s Idealistic Imaginations.

Comte purported to establish a new religion a “Scientific Religion” or a “Religion of Humanity”.

The “Theory of Religion of Humanity” Represent a Radical Change in the Development of

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 14

SOME SALIENT FEATURES OF COMTEAN RELIGION OF HUMANITY

 A Religion Without God: Comte’s “Religion of Humanity” is based on morality and

 Comtean Religion is virtually a Religion of Human Unity: Comte is the sociologist of

4. Thomas Huxley called Comte’s religion “Catholicism minus Christianity.

Conclusion:Overall it is concluded that comate religion is based on humanity. It means to say

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 15

(ii) Change from military society to industrial society.

(i) Change from Simplicity to Complexity, or Movement from Simple Society to

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 16

(ii) Change from Military [Militant] Society to Industrial Society:

Some Observations Relating to Spencer’s “Theory of Social Evolution”:

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 17

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 18

(i) The alimentary system of an organism to the productive industries, or the

Differences between Organism and Society – As Visualized by Spencer:

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 19

3. Manner of Difference in the Dependence of Organs or Parts on the Organism or Society:

4. Difference Regarding the Centrality of “Consciousness”: In an organism, there exists what

Fayaz A. Soomro Page 20

C) Militant or Military Society Vs Industrial Society

Essay on Types of Society – Classification and Comparison – Spencer’s clear conception of the

A. Classification of Societies on the Basis of the “Degree of Composition”: Spencer’s

B. Classification Based on the Method of constructing priests: