Introduction
vans Pritchard describes comparison as one of the essential procedures of science and
E
elementary processes of human thought. Andre Beteille discusses the purpose and the use of
the comparative method in his essay ‘The Comparative Method And The Standpoint Of The
Investigator’ (2004). The comparative method, developed as a tool of investigation, designed
consciously to discover the general features of all societies without losing sight of the distinctive
features of each, has been a particular obsession of sociology and social anthropology unlike
disciplines like psychology that lean towards drawing generalizations and history that focuses
solely on the distinctions.
hile differences in the comparative method exist across disciplines, differences can also be
W
found across nationalities. In France, the focus on the unity of the natural and physical science
is contrasted by the distinction in Germany between ‘Naturwissenschften’ (natural sciences) and
the ‘Gesiteswissenschaften’ (social sciences) where the latter, which is concerned with tradition
is seen as incapable of being studied through the comparative method used primarily by the
former.
adcliffe brown carried on the influence of France and consider the comparative method as
R
central to nomothetic social enquiry. Nevertheless, it was sociology and social anthropology that
use comparison as a single framework. All earlier sociologists were comparatists and were
influenced by the theory of evolution, leading to the tacit acceptance that Western society was
the most advanced. This view seemed indisputable in terms of technological and economic
organization but it leeched into other institutions as well. While the method required a moral
detachment that historical methods did not ask for, the method from its very beginning was used
to establish western superiority, indicating a gulf between what ascertained and accomplished.
Durkheim’s Comparative Sociology
eber and Durkheim dealt with the issue of distinguishing between judgements of value from
W
judgements of reality differently.
urkheim was the first to employ the method of comparison, formulated very clearly and applied
D
systematically leading to the distinction of sociology as an emerging discipline. However, his
complacency regarding the scientific validity of his standpoint lead to his method being a failure,
although it did generate lasting by products. Beteille states that the presence of the diversity of
standpoints through which societies may be observed, described and compared suggests that
there simply may not exist any Archimedean point from which the comparative method may be
applied by no matter which investigator.
urkheim considered social facts as things or representations that could be observed
D
unaffected by the perception of the observer due to their being characterized by ‘exteriority’ and
‘constraint’.
urkheim posed the comparative method as the counterpart to the experimental method
D
employed by the natural sciences since social facts could only be observed and not artificially or
experimentally produced.
he comparative method was designed to free the investigation from the investigator’s own bias
T
and pick concepts. The first step to this was detailed and careful observation of facts which was
facilitated by the development of intensive fieldwork and survey research. He propounded that
ideas believe in values need not be excluded from observation, but as long as they were treated
as social facts, existing independently of the modern and political preferences of the observer, it
would not matter who made the observation.
he second major step was the classification of facts, a type of master plan to reveal similarities
T
and differences, leading to the proposal of his concept of social type or social species, which
was essential for avoiding the extreme of nominalism or realism, and Radcliffe Brown used the
concept of ‘natural kind’, All classificatory systems had their limitations including Morgan’s
classification of societies into savagery, barbarism and civilisation and Marx’s scheme of
classification of societies into ancient communism, ancient society, Asiatic society, feudal
society, and Bourgeois (capitalist) society.
urkheim tried to identify the component elements of society and then to arrange them leading
D
to the emergence of the concept of segmentary society. However, he later found it difficult to
distinguish the part from the whole and hold from another since even whole societies are
mutually interpenetrating.
urkheim’s comparative method has let some anthropologist to question the utility of the very
D
concept of society, and it has been suggested that it is the unpractical use of the concept of
society that has brought comparative anthropology to an impasse.
Weber’s Comparative Sociology
eber‘s methodology on the other and was concerned with causes and functions, but it was
W
also concerned with meaning and where Durkheim’s organic analogy was more of a hindrance.
Weber was preoccupied by the standpoint of the scholar, acknowledging tacitly the legitimacy of
a variety of standpoints. For Weber, even observation and description had to be different in the
social as against the natural sciences since the investigator could not confine himself only to
external characteristics. It was not enough to examine statistical tendencies, but also to reach
into its meaning and significance.
eber made wide and extensive comparisons among human societies in different places at
W
different times, but those comparisons did not presuppose any single scheme of classification.
His principal strategy of comparison and contrast was through the construction of ideal types
which enabled the selection and use of facts to establish significant similarities and differences.
The construction of ideal types is not necessarily linked to the comparative method as such, but
Weber harnessed the device for making the most extensive, historical and social logical
comparisons and contrast.
eber constructed ideal types of a variety of phenomena and he saw the ideal types as
W
constructions of the mind rather than ‘social species’ or ‘natural kind’ he also distinguished
between ‘ideal types’ and ‘average types’. Weber‘s comparisons have a free ranging character,
making them quite different from those that aim systematically to arrive at laws of increasing
generality. His comparative approach may be described as a typifying rather than a classifying
approach.
eber argued that something may become of interest to the historian in at least three distinct
W
senses: (1) as an ‘historical object’; (2) as a ‘historical cause’; and (3) as an ‘heuristic
instrument’. Weber‘s aim was not so much to provide a single comparative method that could be
used by one and all irrespective of substantive interest, but to use comparison extensively to
sharpen his heuristic instruments in the interest of particular substantive enquiries. Thus, the
question of fair comparisons between cultures is then left unsettled.
Conclusion
ne of the principal tasks of social logical enquiry and comparative sociology is to devise a
O
method for treating ‘subjective‘ evaluation in an objective way. Beteille raises questions about
the standards of judgement and evaluation that are consciously or unconsciously built into the
comparative method itself. Comparison of societies is ultimately the comparison of ideals and
the use of the observers own ideals, whether implicitly or explicitly, as a standard of comparison
always raises suspicion of bad faith, regardless of an whether it appears ‘objective’ and
‘scientific’. Hence, the comparative method proves to be a useful tool and sociology and social
anthropology, but not without concerns about its objectivity.
