Transcript Introduction to Sociology and Sociological Theorizing

Introduction to Sociology and Sociological Theorizing
Slide 1
I wanted to go over some of the basic ideas behind sociology, even though Giddens covers some of this as
well.
First, sociology is a scientific discipline in the sense that we use the principles of the scientific method. One
example of the scientific method is deductive research in which the sociologist begins by asking a research
question, such as “What factors are related to why people get divorced?” After asking her research
question, the sociologist then reads sociological research on the topic of divorce, such as journal articles and
scholarly books, to see what others have found to be related to divorce. She then states several hypotheses,
collects data, and then analyzes the data to see if her hypotheses were supported. She then uses a
sociological theory to explain why these factors are related to divorce. This process is outlined in more
detail in the second chapter.
It is common for people in the general public, and college students as well, to have some misconceptions
regarding sociology. Since sociology addresses many social issues that people often have some knowledge
about and/or experience with, some believe that sociology simply involves discussing one’s opinions or
beliefs about a topic. While opinions and beliefs are relevant to study, they don’t constitute the essence of
what sociological thinking is about. Sociology doesn’t involve mere blathering about social issues in which
the person who argues the loudest is the most correct. Network and cable news programs often provide
entertaining discussions of social, political, and economic issues, occasionally with sarcasm or biting
remarks. More often than not, these discussions are driven by political ideology (and entertainment
purposes) rather than objective social science.
Introduction to Sociology and Sociological Theorizing
Slide 2
Here is a good example of the challenge of sociology. Imagine an inner-city neighborhood anywhere
in the U.S. You can probably imagine that this area has an above average high school drop-out rate, a
higher crime rate, a higher unemployment rate, etc. Compare this neighborhood to an affluent
suburban neighborhood anywhere in the U.S. You can imagine that this area has a below-average
high school drop-out rate, a lower crime rate, a lower unemployment rate, etc. Notice that when I am
talking about neighborhoods, I am using the term “rate.” This is a macro-level unit of analysis (in
other words, not based on one person). We might conclude that people in the suburban neighborhood
simply tried harder to finish high school, tried harder to not commit any crime, and tried harder to get
a job. This approach is further bolstered by the realization that many people in the inner-city
neighborhood did finish high school, never committed a crime, and found jobs. It seems reasonable
then to conclude that effort is the fundamental difference explaining these neighborhood differences.
The problem is that there are actually TWO levels of analysis we must consider as sociologists – that
micro-level differences among PEOPLE exist, but that macro-level differences between GROUPS (or
neighborhoods) exist as well. The goal (and challenge) of sociology is to account for differences at
BOTH levels.
Sociologists do not rely on “common sense,” religious enlightenment, or political ideology in deriving
their conclusions about the social world. That is not to say that common sense, religious beliefs, or
political ideology do not motivate sociologists to ask certain questions about the social world or
influence their conclusions. A very religious sociologist might be interested in differences in family
dynamics among religious and non-religious families, or a conservative sociologist might be
interested in the possible adverse effects of maternal full-time employment. However, regardless of
their religiosity or political ideology, sociologists are expected to conduct impartial (objective)
research. According to the scientific method, empirical knowledge trumps all other “ways of
knowing.” Perhaps this is why sociologists can attract the anger of interest groups, particularly if our
scientific findings contradict their social, economic, or political interests. This will become more
evident as you read through the chapters.
Introduction to Sociology and Sociological Theorizing
Slide 3
Sociological theory serves to provide a general explanation for the specific relationships we discover
in our research. There is a tendency among the general public to treat theory as something remote
from reality (i.e., “that’s great in theory, but…”). However, there is nothing unreal about it. In other
words, theory relates to our empirical knowledge. Keep in mind that sociology consists of micro and
macro level theories, so if a sociologist is studying individuals, he would use a micro level theory
(such as symbolic interactionism or social exchange theory). If he were studying macro level
phenomena (i.e., social institutions, states, or nations) he would use a macro level theory to explain his
findings (such as neo-Marxism or functionalism). Theories that stand the test of time survive and are
often modified (a good example is Marxism developing into neo-Marxism to fit new findings. It
would be poor science for a sociologist to continue to use a theory that simply doesn’t have empirical
support. A good example of a theory in its sunset years is functionalism. It has more or less been
replaced by better theories. It is important that you learn the theories discussed in the text because we
will revisit these throughout the semester.
One of my primary goals as a professor of sociology is to help you all to understand and appreciate
sociology as a social science. Giddens makes reference to a great text by C. Wright Mills, The
Sociological Imagination, in which Mills describes how students can come to understand the
sociological perspective. Mills wants us to see the connections between our own lives and the larger
social world. One stumbling block to this realization involves the substantial degree of individualism
in the United States. Individualism in and of itself isn’t a problem, but as most Americans know, we
are socialized (raised, taught) from a very early age that we can accomplish anything we want simply
by trying hard enough. In other words, we are taught that we can overcome any obstacle if we work
hard and never give up. Of course, there is some truth to this, and it’s a pretty good approach to life.
However, many Americans are less opt to see how the larger society impacts people – the
neighborhood in which one grew up, the quality of the schools one attended, even technological
advancements that affect the occupational structure (the types of jobs that exist in the economy).
Introduction to Sociology and Sociological Theorizing
Slide 4
Here is the issue that distinguishes sociology from other approaches – sociology acknowledges that macrolevel factors (neighborhoods, social institutions, and the economy, etc.) affect humans at the GROUP (or
aggregate) level. In other words, many of us recognize that certain categories of people often experience
different outcomes in the world – better educations, better jobs, better marriages, etc. These different
outcomes do not exist solely because of INDIVIDUAL differences, but also because of different macro-level
factors. It is very common for introductory sociology students to rely on individual-level explanations for
understanding differences among people. However, this is how you should think about human differences
(just as Giddens points out in one of his PP slides) – that there is an interplay between the larger society and
our individual-level life experiences (just as Mills argues).
By Robert S. Bausch (Copyright 2006)