Positivist approach to Sociology

Positivism is the term used to describe an approach to the study of society that relies
specifically on scientific evidence, such as experiments and statistics, to reveal a true
nature of how society operates. Just as the natural world cannot be said to have
thoughts and feelings, positivist sociologists choose to treat the thoughts and feelings of
the individuals that make up society.

Positivism divides all statements into three categories: true, false, and meaningless
(neither true nor false). A meaningless statement is one that isn’t clear enough to be
tested through positivistic means.
For example, “The colour green sleeps angrily” is a meaningless statement. There’s no
way you could test whether or not it’s true, which means it isn’t true or false. It’s just
nonsense. This is an extreme example, of course, but many other sentences fall into this
category when their terms are not clearly defined.
If a statement does have a meaning, then it must be either true or false. But that doesn’t
mean we necessarily know which one it is.
For example, “There are exactly 23.8762 billion domestic cats in the world” has a
definite meaning, but no one can say for sure whether it’s true or not. It would be
impossible to count all the domestic cats one by one, so no one can verify the statement.
In principle, though, it could be verified through scientific observation – which just
doesn’t have the actual means to carry out the study.

General Ideas of Positivism – or the Scientific Method Applied

to the Study of Sociology
1. Positivists believe that sociology can and should use the same methods and
approaches to study the social world that “natural” sciences such as biology and physics
use to investigate the physical world. 2. By adopting “scientific” techniques sociologists
should be able, eventually, to uncover the laws that govern societies and social
behaviour just as scientists have discovered the laws that govern the physical world.

3. Positivists believe that good, scientific research should reveal objective truths about
the causes of social action – science tells us that water boils at 100 degrees and this is
true irrespective of what the researcher thinks – good social research should tell us
similar things about social action

4. Because positivists want to uncover the general laws that shape human behaviour,
they are interested in looking at society as a whole. They are interested in explaining
patterns of human behaviour or general social trends. In other words, they are
interested in getting to the ‘bigger picture’.

5. To do this, positivists use quantitative methods such as official statistics, structured
questionnaires and social surveys. Statistical, numerical data is crucial to Positivist
research. Positivists need to collect statistical information in order to make
comparisons. And in order to uncover general social trends. It is much more difficult to
make comparisons and uncover social trends with qualitative data.

6. These methods also allow the researcher to remain relatively detached from the
research process – this way, the values of the researcher should not interfere with the
results of the research and knowledge should be objective.

Advantages
Quantitative Approach:
Positivism relies on quantitative data that positivists believe is more reliable than
qualitative research. Quantitative research is more “scientific” in its methods than
qualitative research and thus more trustworthy. In research, quantitative data
provides objective information that researchers can use to make scientific
assumptions.
Structure:
Positivism follows a well-defined structure during studies and discussions. Positivists
believe that since there are set laws and rules followed, there will be minimum room
for error. This structure also gives little room for variance and drastic variable
changes, thus making the study more accurate when it comes to experiments and
applications as it tries to follow specific rules using objective mathematical and
scientific tools.

Disadvantages
Human Behaviour:
Positivism believes that objective inferences and conclusions can be reached as long
as the person doing the observation is objective and disregards her emotions.
However, human behaviour naturally comes with emotional responses. Although
positivism encourages researchers to disregard human emotion and behaviour, there
is no guarantee that this will occur at all times during studies.

Inflexibility:
Some scholars believe that since positivists believe everything can be measured and
calculated, they tend to be inflexible. Positivists see things as they are and tend to
disregard unexplained phenomena. If a theory that says A only occurs when B and C
combine, then B can never be A. This belief can eliminate lateral thinking, which is the
process of finding answers by creatively and indirectly finding out ways to solve a
problem.

Analytical sociology 

Analytical sociology is a strategy for understanding the social world. It is concerned

with explaining important macro-level facts such as the diffusion of various social
practices, patterns of segregation, network structures, typical beliefs, and common ways
of acting. It explains such facts not merely by relating them to other macro-level facts,
but by detailing in clear and precise ways the mechanisms through which they were
brought about. This is accomplished by a detailed focus on individuals’ actions and
interactions, and the use of state-of-the-art simulation techniques to derive the macro-
level outcomes that such actions and interactions are likely to bring about. Analytical
sociology can be seen as contemporary incarnation of Robert K. Merton's well-known
notion of middle-range theory.
The analytical approach is founded on the premise that proper explanations detail the
"cogs and wheels" through which social outcomes are brought about, and it is driven by
a commitment to realism. Empirically false assumptions about human motivation,
cognitive processes, access to information, or social relations cannot bear the
explanatory burden in a mechanistic explanation no matter how well they predict the
outcome to be explained.
With its focus on the macro-level outcomes that individuals in interaction with one
another bring about, analytical sociology is part of the "complexity turn" within
sociology. Until very recently sociologists did not have the tools needed for analysing
the dynamics of complex systems, but powerful computers and simulation software
have changed the picture considerably. So-called agent-based computer simulations are
transforming important parts of sociology (as well as many other parts of the social and
natural sciences) because they allow for rigorous theoretical analyses of large complex
systems. The basic idea behind such analyses is to perform virtual experiments
reflecting the analyst’s theoretical ideas and empirically-based knowledge about the
social mechanisms influencing the action and interaction of the individuals. The key is
to identify the core mechanisms at work, assemble them into a simulation model, and
establish the macro-level outcomes the individuals bring about when acting and
interacting in accordance with these mechanisms.
Structural- Functional approach to sociology
Functionalism, also called structural-functional theory, sees society as a structure with
interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in
that society. Functionalism grew out of the writings of English philosopher and
biologist, Hebert Spencer (1820–1903), who saw similarities between society and the
human body; he argued that just as the various organs of the body work together to
keep the body functioning, the various parts of society work together to keep society
functioning (Spencer 1898). The parts of society that Spencer referred to were
the social institutions, or patterns of beliefs and behaviours focused on meeting social
needs, such as government, education, family, healthcare, religion, and the economy.

É mile Durkheim, another early sociologist, applied Spencer’s theory to explain how
societies change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that society is a complex
system of interrelated and interdependent parts that work together to maintain
stability (Durkheim 1893), and that society is held together by shared values, languages,
and symbols. He believed that to study society, a sociologist must look beyond
individuals to social facts such as laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs,
fashion, and rituals, which all serve to govern social life. Alfred Radcliff-Brown (1881–
1955) defined the function of any recurrent activity as the part it played in social life as
a whole, and therefore the contribution it makes to social stability and continuity
(Radcliff-Brown 1952). In a healthy society, all parts work together to maintain stability,
a state called dynamic equilibrium by later sociologists such as Parsons (1961).

Durkheim believed that individuals may make up society, but in order to study society,
sociologists have to look beyond individuals to social facts. Social facts are the laws,
morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and all of the cultural rules
that govern social life (Durkheim 1895). Each of these social facts serves one or more
functions within a society. For example, one function of a society’s laws may be to
protect society from violence, while another is to punish criminal behaviour, while
another is to preserve public health.

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that
social processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are the consequences
of a social process that are sought or anticipated, while latent functions are the
unsought consequences of a social process. A manifest function of college education, for
example, includes gaining knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that
utilizes that education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new
people, participating in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or partner.
Another latent function of education is creating a hierarchy of employment based on the
level of education attained. Latent functions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social
processes that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society are
called dysfunctions. In education, examples of dysfunction include getting bad grades,
truancy, dropping out, not graduating, and not finding suitable employment.
Criticism
One criticism of the structural-functional theory is that it can’t adequately explain social
change. Also problematic is the somewhat circular nature of this theory; repetitive
behaviour patterns are assumed to have a function, yet we profess to know that they
have a function only because they are repeated. Furthermore, dysfunctions may
continue, even though they don’t serve a function, which seemingly contradicts the
basic premise of the theory. Many sociologists now believe that functionalism is no
longer useful as a macro-level theory, but that it does serve a useful purpose in some
mid-level analyses.
Karl Marx conflict theory
Conflict theory, first purported by Karl Marx, is a theory that society is in a state of
perpetual conflict because of competition for limited resources. Conflict theory holds
that social order is maintained by domination and power (rather than consensus and
conformity). According to conflict theory, those with wealth and power try to hold on to
it by any means possible, chiefly by suppressing the poor and powerless. A basic
premise of conflict theory is that individuals and groups within society will work to
maximize their own benefits.

 Conflict theory focuses on the competition between groups within society over
limited resources.
 Conflict theory views social and economic institutions as tools of the struggle
between groups or classes, used to maintain inequality and the dominance of the
ruling class.
 Marxist conflict theory sees society as divided along lines of economic class
between the proletarian working class and the bourgeois ruling class.
 Later versions of conflict theory look at other dimensions of conflict among
capitalist factions and between various social, religious, and other types of
groups

Marx viewed capitalism as part of a historical progression of economic systems. He

believed capitalism was rooted in commodities, or things that are purchased and sold.
For example, he believed that labour is a type of commodity. Because labourers have
little control or power in the economic system (they don’t own factories or materials),
their worth can be devalued over time. This can create an imbalance between business
owners and their workers, which can eventually lead to social conflicts. He believed
these problems would eventually be fixed through a social and economic revolution. 

Max Weber, a German sociologist, philosopher, jurist, and political economist, adopted
many aspects of Marx's conflict theory, and later, further refined some of Marx's idea.
Weber believed that conflict over property was not limited to one specific scenario.
Rather, he believed that there were multiple layers of conflict existing at any given
moment and in every society. Whereas Marx framed his view of conflict as one between
owners and workers, Weber also added an emotional component to his ideas about
conflict. Weber said: "It is these that underlie the power of religion and make it an
important ally of the state; that transform classes into status groups, and do the same to
territorial communities under particular circumstances...and that make 'legitimacy' a
crucial focus for efforts at domination."

Weber's beliefs about conflict extend beyond Marx's because they suggest that some
forms of social interaction, including conflict, generate beliefs and solidarity between
individuals and groups within a society. In this way, an individual's reactions to
inequality might be different depending on the groups with which they are associated;
whether they perceive those in power to be legitimate; and so on.
 Comparison b/w Marx and Weber’s perspective on power
 Weber argument is based in religion; Marx’s argument is based in logic. Weber’s
analysis examines how the history of the protestant movements changed the
mind-set of the people to produce a capitalist economy. Marx’s analysis logically
argues that capitalism is to the detriment of the majority of the people.
 Weber’s concept of work as vocational calling contrasts sharply with Marx’s view
of the worker. Marx believes the worker should only have to work to provide for
himself and should realize and enjoy the fruits of his own labour. Weber’s
analysis asserts that Protestants are bound to labour, as a religious duty and
cannot enjoy the fruits of the labour they perform because to do so would be
sinful.
 In Weber’s analysis, the worker is seen as being concerned with the afterlife, and
not with their worldly life. Marx does not consider the afterlife and focuses his
concentration on having a better life for workers at the present.
 Marx discusses the role of money and wages in a capitalist economy. Weber
keeps his focus at the religious motivation of workers.
 Weber’s analysis attributed to profit a positive moral position in the protestant
ethic because it meant that one was not sinfully enjoying their wealth, rather
saving it and living a life without luxury. Marx’s analysis attributed to profit a
negative moral position because it represented the labour that had been
appropriated from the worker by the capitalist resulting in his alienation.
 Weber argues that working in a capitalist economy is good for the worker
because it gives him some peace of mind in that he may be going to heaven. Marx
argues that working in a capitalist society is detrimental to the worker because it
strips away his humanity and leaves him with barely enough to subsist on.
 Clearly, ascetic protestant religion convinces workers to accept their condition
and cooperate with the capitalist system, working hard while not questioning
their lot in life. Marxism encourages workers to realize their meagre and
untenable position in the capitalist system and therefore to resist and form a
revolution against that system.
 Marx divides the people in a capitalist society in to two classes, the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie. Weber makes no such class distinction.
 Both Marx and Weber believe that the worker is trapped within the capitalist
system; however Marx offers a way out of it, revolution.
 Both theories still apply today I think, though neither is exclusively applicable.
One can see how the protestant ethic is still present in the conscience of many
Americans who attach moral worth to hard work. On the other hand, the Marxist
theory of exploitation is still valid as an explanation for many social
phenomenons’s where one segment of society oppresses and takes advantage of
another.
Family as a group and an institution:
Family is a key social institution in all societies, which makes it a cultural universal.
Similarly, values and norms surrounding marriage are found all over the world in every
culture, so marriage and family are both cultural universals. Statuses (i.e., wife, husband,
partner, mom, dad, brother, sister, etc.) are created and sanctioned by societies.
While marriage and family have historically been closely linked in U.S. culture,
with marriages creating new families, their connection is becoming more complex, as
illustrated by the opening vignette and in the subsequent data on cohabitation.

Sociologists are interested in the relationship between the institution of marriage and
the institution of family because families are the most basic social unit upon which
society is built, but also because marriage and family are linked to other social
institutions such as the economy, government, and religion. So what is a
family? Family is a socially recognized group (usually joined by blood, marriage,
cohabitation, or adoption) that forms an emotional connection among its members and
that serves as an economic unit of society. Sociologists identify different types of
families based on how one enters into them. A family of orientation refers to the
family into which a person is born. A family of procreation describes one that is
formed through marriage. These distinctions have cultural significance related to issues
of lineage.

The sociological understanding of what constitutes a family can be explained by the

paradigms of symbolic interactionism and functionalism. These two theories indicate
that families are groups in which participants view themselves as family members and
act accordingly. In other words, families are arrangements in which people come
together to form a strong primary group connection and to maintain emotional ties with
one another. Such families may include groups of close friends or teammates.

Marx View on family related to Capitalism

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism –
the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It
is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to
their children, thus reproducing class inequality. This post is primarily designed to help
students revise for the A level sociology 7192 exam, paper 2, families and households
option.

The modern nuclear family functions to promote values that ensure the reproduction
and maintenance of capitalism. The family is described as an ideological apparatus –
this means it socialises people to think in a way that justifies inequality and encourages
people to accept the capitalist system as fair, natural and unchangeable.
 One way in which this happens is that there is a hierarchy in most families which
teaches children to accept there will always be someone in “authority” who they must
obey, which then mirrors the hierarchy of boss-worker in paid employment in later life.

Contemporary Marxism – The Family as a Unit of Consumption

Capitalists/business owners want to keep workers’ wages down so they can make a
profit, but to do so they must also be able to sell the workers goods i.e. they must create
demand for their products. The family builds demand for goods in a number of ways

1) Families must keep up with the material goods/services acquired by their

neighbours and peers e.g. family holidays, cars – this is known “Keeping up with the
Joneses”. There are significant amounts of advertising and TV programmes influencing
parents in this way.

2) The media and companies target children in their advertising who then persuade
their parents through pester power to buy more expensive items. This is particularly
bad in the UK where there few legal restrictions on adverts aimed at children; in
Sweden advertising aimed at children under 12 is illegal.

Overall Criticisms of Marxism

 It’s too deterministic – it assumes people passively accept socialisation and

family life, and that the future is pre-determined. There are plenty of families who reject
the consumerist lifestyle and many families bring their children up to be independent
thinkers.
 The Marxist perspective ignores family diversity in capitalist society, the nuclear
family is no longer the main type of family. In fact, family breakdown may be better for
Capitalism – as divorce is expensive and more money has to be spent on maintaining
family relationships and later on forming new families.
 Feminists argue that the Marxist focus on social class inequalities downplays the
role of patriarchy, which is the real source of female oppression. Feminists would point
out that sex inequalities exist within all families, irrespective of social class background.
 Marxism ignores the benefits of nuclear family e.g. both parents support the
children. The New Right point out that this is the most functional type of environment in
which to raise children, and the nuclear family is found in most societies around the
world, suggesting it is something people choose.
 Gender Inequality as presented by Marx
The relation between women’s domestic labour and the system of wage exploitation
led to the once-fashionable leftist notion that household labour is exploited like factory
labour. But the proletarian wife, in her household role, does not produce value and
surplus value—and therefore is not exploited by capital. Nor is she exploited by her
husband (although she may be oppressed by him). She is responsible for reproducing
the labour-power commodity, but not under conditions directly governed by the law of
value. (For example, even if there is an excess of the labour power commodity on the
market, she must still work to reproduce her family’s labour power so that they
survive.)

What the working-class housewife does is produce use values in the home. But
removal from a direct role in value production in a society where value is the end-all
and be-all ensures the subordination of women.

Engels called the position of the proletarian housewife “open or concealed domestic
slavery.” Like a slave, the domestic labourer is tied to a particular household and family;
she cannot move freely about between “employers"; and like chattel slaves in the
capitalist era, she is subordinated to the relations between labour power and capital.
But unlike a slave, no particular capitalist ruler directly provides for her welfare or even
appears as her master. Rather she depends on the wage-labour/capital interchange to
receive her share of the family wage, an indirect payment from the capitalist class for
the maintenance and production of labour power.

Capitalism’s exploitation of the wage labourer is all the more insidious because it is
concealed under the pretension of the “equal exchange” of wages for labour power.
Likewise with the oppression of women: the “equal exchange of love” as the foundation
of a freely chosen marriage conceals the underlying economic compulsion. Of course,
the proletarian woman often faces the double burden of wage and domestic labour.
Capitalism takes full advantage of the ideology that woman’s “primary” role is in the
home to keep down her wages and rights as a worker.
Does changes in norms show changes in architecture design .Show
changes housing typologies in modern society (with specific examples).
Housing transformations worldwide are the result of major demographic and socio-
economic changes in addition to technological advancements and socio-political
interventions. Consequently, it is argued that the community itself and its particular
environmental conditions are the producers of housing typologies, which have usually
led to a high degree of continuity of architectural styles and representation in spite of a
high level of individuality due to missing construction standards.

Residential architecture represents a wide spectrum of types and typologies designed

and built in accordance to
the direct needs of the occupants. The concept of the home usually goes beyond the
physical limits of the built
form assigned for human residence to include aspects of the psychological, spiritual,
and emotional needs of
human beings (Mallett, 2004). The concept of home does not only address the
independent needs of the
individual but it is also significant in addressing the social and cultural necessities of the
entire community.
Residential architecture represents a wide spectrum of types and typologies designed
and built in accordance to
the direct needs of the occupants. The concept of the home usually goes beyond the
physical limits of the built
form assigned for human residence to include aspects of the psychological, spiritual,
and emotional needs of
human beings (Mallett, 2004). The concept of home does not only address the
independent needs of the
individual but it is also significant in addressing the social and cultural necessities of the
entire community.
Residential architecture represents a wide spectrum of types and typologies designed
and built in accordance to
the direct needs of the occupants. The concept of the home usually goes beyond the
physical limits of the built
form assigned for human residence to include aspects of the psychological, spiritual,
and emotional needs of
human beings (Mallett, 2004). The concept of home does not only address the
independent needs of the
individual but it is also significant in addressing the social and cultural necessities of the
entire community.
Residential architecture represents a wide spectrum of types and typologies designed
and built in accordance to the direct needs of the occupants. The concept of the home
usually goes beyond the physical limits of the built form assigned for human residence
to include aspects of the psychological, spiritual, and emotional needs of human beings
(Mallett , 2004). The concept of home does not only address the independent needs of
the individual but it is also significant in addressing the social and cultural necessities of
the entire community.
An example is the form and space of the Qatar houses

socio-cultural profile of Qatari

society appear to highly govern the
spatial
form of houses. These include 1)
privacy, 2) gender segregation as an
intermediate pattern between the
public
and the private realm, and 3)
hospitality as a social pattern that
deals with the public realm.
socio-cultural profile of Qatari
society appear to highly govern the
spatial
form of houses. These include 1)
privacy, 2) gender segregation as an
intermediate pattern between the
public
and the private realm, and 3)
hospitality as a social pattern that
deals with the public realm.
Three patterns of Socio-cultural profile of Qatari society appears to highly govern the spatial
form of houses. These include 1) privacy, 2) gender segregation as an intermediate pattern
between the public and the private realm, and 3) hospitality as a social pattern that deals with
the public realm.

Based on the three socio-cultural patterns of privacy, gender segregation and hospitality, the
following discussion provides a comparative analysis of traditional and contemporary houses in
Qatar based on the index of connectivity:

A) Privacy

Traditional House:

In the traditional house, the pattern of privacy is occurs through a number of

established scenarios of connectivity. The first is gradual connectivity in which the
intensity of connective spaces ranges from the least connective private rooms to the
most connective central courtyard. This pattern of connectivity directly relates to the
socio-cultural pattern of privacy that is supported by the spatial form of the courtyard
house and its familial arrangement. The location of the courtyard in a protected,
privatized core of the household unit enhances its social purpose as an open-air space
for gatherings, activities and domestic functions.
Contemporary House:

In the case of the contemporary house, connectivity takes an altered approach resulting
in different implications of privacy in the spatial form of the unit. The highest
connectivity pattern is greatly associated with the outdoor yard spaces outside the
premises of the main villa block. Such spaces are either utilized for parking purposes,
landscaping, outdoor seating areas or in most of the cases are left empty. Compared to
the traditional house, these spaces could be further developed to become as lively as the
courtyard of the past, where social activity could be enhanced by built form.

B) Gender segregation

Traditional House:

In the case of traditional houses, the analysis of gender segregation is restricted since
the occupants’ gender information is unavailable. However, in some cases, the main
courtyard is divided into separated courtyards to serve two families occupying the
household. The families belong to the married sons of the house’s owner. This reflects
the kinship social structure of the Qatari family as “the cultural ideal is for a married son
to bring his wife to live with and raise a family amongst his birth family” .While a
woman is not expected to live with her family in her father’s household after marriage,
she could maintain a room for occasional use. The son is expected to live with the
extended family to maintain social ties and support his parents through aging and
retirement.

Contemporary house:

The spatial form of the contemporary house is a subject of gender segregation, where
certain spaces are classified based on the user’s gender. The outdoor majlis unit is
mainly a designated space for male users and the indoor majlis area is for female guests.
In some cases, the majlis room is embedded within the villa where male visitors could
utilize it while women gather in the family’s living spaces. as a general trend, female
guests can utilize the private rooms of the villa with more flexibly than male guests, who
should not travel unaccompanied through the household. Another noticeable pattern of
gendered spaces in contemporary houses is related to the front yard. The outdoor yard
space is not utilized by women due to their exposure to the outside and the fact that
drivers or domestic assistants (often male) use this yard.

C) Hospitality

Hospitality is defined by the existence of guest rooms, reception areas, and quarters
designated for family friends and visitors. In both traditional and contemporary houses,
the Majlis unit represents “masculinity and honour of a Muslim home”. In some cases,
the guest section occupies more than one-third of the entire plot area, which could be
interpreted as the spatial cost for the preservation of a socio-cultural norm. In the past,
Majlis rooms were usually embedded within the household. However, they were
separated and treated as secured spaces Depending on the family’s wealth and the
availability of space, the Majlis room might have been accompanied by a small kitchen
with a separated entrance of low connectivity to the household. In the absence of guest
rooms, the courtyard itself was the favoured space for social gatherings due to its open
nature and climatically-pleasant atmosphere created around its arcades and porches.
Today, the Majlis room covers a wider floor area, signifying its importance to the socio-
cultural lifestyle of Qatari families. It usually has its own extended block outside of the
main household either as a concrete built room or a modern tensile structure
resembling the old tent. Modern tents are used as extended guest rooms where men
gather occasionally for special events such as festivals, Eid, weddings and funerals.

Conclusion

A comparison of traditional and modern houses indicates that the effects of privacy,
gender segregation and hospitality vary in intensity depending on the response of the
built form to the required implementation of socio-cultural patterns. In addition,
traditional houses are highly governed by Islamic and cultural norms, which represent
typical architectural trends. However, contemporary houses are designed according to
international standards of the modern villa. Thus, the challenge of contemporary
architecture and urban design is to localize the residential unit and subject the built
form to innovative, responsive tactics of adaptation. Hence, based on the preliminary
review of the literature, studies of socio-cultural patterns in the spatial form of houses
are directly related to the disciplinary context of architectural sociology.