conditions from the 1600s to the 1800s gave rise to sociology. First, European nations were imperial powers extending their influence and control by establishing colonies in other cultures. This exposure to other cultures encouraged at least some Europeans to learn more about the people in and around their new colonies. Second, they sought to understand the rapid changes in their own societies brought about by the Industrial Revolution (which began around the middle of the 1700s) and the French Revolution (1789–1799). Finally, advances in the natural sciences demonstrated the value of the scientific method, and some wished to apply this scientific method to social sciences and to understanding the social world.
In the early and mid-1800s, no one had clear, systematic explanations for why the old social structure, which had lasted since the early Middle Ages, was collapsing or why cities were exploding with migrants from rural areas. French society was in turmoil, members of the nobility were being executed, and new rules of justice were taking hold. Churches were made subordinate to the state, equal rights under the law were established for citizens, and democratic rule emerged. These dramatic changes marked the end of the traditional monarchy and the beginning of a new social order.
▲ The Bastille, a state prison in Paris, France, and a symbol of oppression, was seized by the common people during the French Revolution, a social upheaval that forced social analysts to think differently about society and social stability. Today, rallying points for social movements and revolutions such as we see in Venezuela illustrate that uprisings of the common people are still changing societies.
© Getty/DEA/G. DAGLI ORTI
© SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images
In this setting the scientific study of society emerged. Two social thinkers, Henri Saint-Simon (1760–1825) and Auguste Comte (1798–1857), decried the lack of systematic data collection or objective analysis in social thought. These Frenchmen argued that a science of society could help people understand and perhaps control the rapid changes and unsettling revolutions taking place.
Comte officially coined the term sociology in 1838. His basic premise was that common ways of understanding the world at that time, through religious or philosophical speculation about society, did not provide an adequate understanding of how to solve society’s problems. Just as the scientists compiled basic facts about the physical world, so, too, was there a need to gather scientific knowledge about the social world. Only then could leaders systematically apply this scientific knowledge to improve social conditions.
Comte asked two basic questions: What holds society together and gives rise to a stable order rather than anarchy? Further, why and how do societies change? Comte conceptualized society as divided into two parts: (1) social statics, aspects of society that give rise to order, stability, and harmony, and (2) social dynamics, forces that promote change and evolution (even revolution) in society. Comte was concerned with what contemporary sociologists and the social world model in this book refer to as structure (social statics) and process (social dynamics). By understanding these aspects of the social world, Comte felt that leaders could strengthen society and respond appropriately to change. His optimistic belief was that sociology would be the “queen of sciences,” guiding leaders to construct a better social order (Comte [1855] 2003).
Sociology continued developing as scholars tried to understand further changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. Massive social and economic transformations in the 18th and 19th centuries brought about restructuring and sometimes the demise of political monarchies, aristocracies, and feudal lords. Scenes of urban squalor were common in Great Britain and other industrializing European nations. Machines replaced both agricultural workers and cottage (home) industries because they produced an abundance of goods faster, better, and cheaper. Peasants were pushed off the land by new technologies and migrated to urban areas to find work; at the same time, a powerful new social class of capitalists was emerging. Industrialization brought the need for a new skilled class of laborers, putting new demands on an education system that had served only the elite. Families now depended on work and wages in the industrial sector to stay alive.
These changes stimulated other social scientists to study society and its problems. The writings of Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, Harriet Martineau, Max Weber, W. E. B. Du Bois, and many other early sociologists set the stage for the development of sociological theories. Du Bois, an African American who had to deal with racism within and without academia, was the first scholar in North America to have a truly scientific program for the study of society, beginning prior to 1900 (A. Morris 2015). Accompanying the development of sociological theory was the use of the scientific method—the systematic gathering and recording of reliable and accurate data to test ideas. In the next section, we turn to sociology’s major theoretical perspectives.
Sociology’s Major Theoretical Perspectives
A theoretical perspective is a basic view of society that guides sociologists’ research and analysis. Theoretical perspectives are the broadest theories in sociology, providing overall approaches to understanding the social world and social problems. Sociologists draw on major theoretical perspectives at each level of analysis to guide their research and to help them understand social interactions and social organizations. Theories are statements or explanations regarding how and why two or more facts are related to each other and the connections between these facts. A good theory also allows social scientists to make predictions about the social world.
Recall the description of the social world model presented in Chapter 1. It stresses the levels of analysis—smaller units existing within larger social systems. Some theories are especially useful when trying to understand small micro-level interactions, whereas others tend to be used to make sense of large macro-level structures. Either type of theory—those most useful at the micro or macro level—can be used at the meso level, depending on the research question being asked. To illustrate four of the major theoretical perspectives on the social world, we delve into our examination of Hector’s circumstances, introduced at the beginning of this chapter.
Micro- to Meso-Level Theories
If we wanted to study Hector’s interactions with his friends and their influence on him or his school performance, we would turn to micro- and meso-level theories to guide our research. Two theories most often used at the micro and meso levels of analysis are symbolic interaction theory and rational choice theory.
Symbolic Interaction Theory.
Symbolic interaction theory (also called social constructionism or interpretative theory) sees humans as active agents who create shared meanings of symbols and events, and then interact on the basis of those meanings.
Let’s break that down: Through our interactions, we learn to share common ideas, understand what to expect from others, and gain the capability to influence society. As we interact, we make use of symbols, actions or objects that represent something else and therefore have meaning beyond their own existence—such as flags, wedding rings, words, and nonverbal gestures. Such symbolic communication (e.g., language) helps people construct a meaningful world. Humans continually create and re-create society through their construction and interpretation of the social world. More than any other theory in the social sciences, symbolic interaction theory stresses the active role of individuals in creating their social environment, called human agency.
George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), one of the founders of the symbolic interaction perspective, explored how humans define or make sense of situations (G. H. Mead