SOCIOLOGY OF LAW

LECTURE ONE

JAMES MOMODU FORNAH-SESAY

Disclaimer: Compiled Notes
Table of Contents
1. LECTURE ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2
1.1. Definition and Subject Matter of Sociology ............................................................................. 2
1.1.1. What is Sociology? .............................................................................................................. 2
1.1.2. Brief Historical Overview ....................................................................................................... 3
1.1.2.1 The Pioneers .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.3. Subject Matter, Scope and Concerns of Sociology ........................................................... 6
1.1.4. Levels of Sociological Analysis and Fields of Specializations in Sociology ........................ 6
1.1.5. Major Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology ........................................................................ 7
1.2. The Significance of Learning Sociology ................................................................................. 12
1.2.1 Society and Culture?.............................................................................................................. 13
1.2.2 The Sociological Imagination ................................................................................................ 15
1.2.3 Studying Patterns: How Sociologists View Society ............................................................. 16

1
 1. LECTURE ONE: INTRODUCTION
Learning Objectives
At the end of this Lecture, students will be able to:
• Define the term sociology;
• Describe the subject-matter, scope and basic concerns of sociology;
• Understand how sociology emerged and developed;
• Appreciate the personal and professional benefits derived from learning sociology;
• Understand the methods and approaches of sociology;
• Describe macro-sociology and micro-sociology;
• Appreciate the various views and concepts formulated by the founding fathers of sociology;
• Describe the relationship of sociology with other fields of study; and
• Appreciate the application of sociology in addressing contemporary societal problems.
1.1. Definition and Subject Matter of Sociology
1.1.1. What is Sociology?

Before attempting to define what sociology is, les us look at what the popular conceptions of
the discipline seem. As may be the case with other sciences, sociology is often misconceived
among the populace. Though many may rightly and grossly surmise that sociology is about
people, some think that it is all about “helping the unfortunate and doing welfare work, while
others think that sociology is the same as socialism and is a means of bringing revolution to
our schools and colleges” (Nobbs, Hine and Flemming, 1978:1). The first social scientist to
use the term sociology was a Frenchman by the name of Auguste Comte who lived from 1798-
1857. As coined by Comte, the term sociology is a combination of two words.
The first part of the term is a Latin, socius- that may variously mean society, association,
togetherness or companionship. The other word, logos, is of Greek origin. It literally means to
speak about or word. However, the term is generally understood as study or science (Indrani,
1998). Thus, the etymological, literal definition of sociology is that it is the word or speaking
about society. A simple definition here is that it is the study of society and culture.
Box 1.1. A simple definition of sociology: Sociology is the study of society
Although the term “sociology” was first used by the French social philosopher august Comte,
the discipline was more firmly established by such theorists as Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx
and Max Weber (Nobbs, Hine and Flemming, 1978).
Before going any further, let us note that the concepts “society and “culture” are central in
sociology. While each concept shall be dealt with later in some detail, it appears to be
appropriate here to help students differentiate between these two important concepts. Society
generally refers to the social world with all its structures, institutions, organizations, etc around
us, and specifically to a group of people who live within some type of bounded territory and

2
who share a common way of life. This common way of life shared by a group of people is
termed as culture (Stockard, 1997)
Box 1.2. Distinguishing between society and culture: Society: a group of people who live
within some type of bounded territory and who share a common way of life. Culture: is
common way of life shared by a society or a group.
Now, turning to the definitional issues, it is important that in addition to this etymological
definition of the term, we need to have other substantive definitions. Thus, sociology may be
generally defined as a social science that studies such kinds of phenomena as:
• The structure and function of society as a system;
• The nature, complexity and contents of human social behavior;
• The fundamentals of human social life;
• Interaction of human beings with their external environment;
• The indispensability of social interactions for human development;
• How the social world affects us, etc.
A more formal definition of sociology may be that it is a social science which studies the
processes and patterns of human individual and group interaction, the forms of organization of
social groups, the relationship among them, and group influences on individual behavior, and
vice versa, and the interaction between one social group and the other (Team of Experts, 2000).
Sociology is the scientific study of society, which is interested in the study of social relationship
between people in group context. Sociology is interested in how we as human beings interact
with each other (the pattern of social interaction); the laws and principles that govern social
relationship and interactions; the /influence of the social world on the individuals, and vice
versa (Ibid.). It deals with a factually observable subject matter, depends upon empirical
research, and involves attempts to formulate theories and generalizations that will make sense
of facts (Giddens, 1982). Regarding the detective and expository nature the science, Soroka
(1992:34) states that “Sociology is a debunking science; that is, it looks for levels of reality
other than those presented in official interpretations of society and people’s common sense
explanations of the social world. Sociologists are interested in understanding what is and do
not make value judgments.”
1.1.2. Brief Historical Overview
Sociology and other social sciences emerged from a common tradition of reflection of social
phenomena; interest in the nature of human social behavior and society has probably always
existed; however, most people in most past societies saw their culture as a fixed and god-given
entity. This view gradually was replaced by more rational explanations beginning from the
17th century especially in Western Europe (Rosenberg, 1987). The sociological issues,
questions and problems Sociology as an academic science was thus born in 19th century (its
formal establishment year being 1837) in Great Britain and Western Europe, especially in
France and Germany, and it greatly advanced throughout 19th and 20th centuries.
The development of sociology and its current contexts have to be grasped in the contexts of the
major changes that have created the modern world (Giddens, 1986). Further, sociology

3
originated in 18th century philosophy, political economy and cultural history (Swingwood,
1991)
The major conditions, societal changes, upheavals and social ferments that gave rise to the
emergence and development of sociology as an academic science include the Industrial
Revolution which began in Great Britain, the French Political Revolution of 1789, the
Enlightenment and advances in natural sciences and technology. These revolutions had brought
about significant societal changes and disorders in the way society lived in the aforementioned
countries. Since sociology was born amidst the great socio-political and economic and
technological changes of the western world, it is said to be the science of modern society. The
pioneering sociologists were very much concerned about the great changes that were taking
place and they felt that the exciting sciences could not help understand, explain, analyze and
interpret the fundamental laws that govern the social phenomena. Thus sociology was born out
of these revolutionary contexts.
1.1.2.1 The Pioneers
The founders or the pioneering sociologists are the following (Henslin and Nelson, 1995;
Giddens, 1996; Macionis, 1997):
• Auguste Comte, French Social Philosopher (1798- 1857) Comte was the first social
philosopher to coin and use the term sociology (Nobbs, Hine and Flemming, 1978). He was
also the first to regard himself as a sociologist.
He defined sociology as the scientific study of social dynamics and social static. He argued that
sociology can and should study society and social phenomena following the pattern and
procedures of the natural science. Comte believed that a theoretical science of society and the
systematic investigation of human behavior were needed to improve society. He argued that
the new science of society could and should make a critical contribution towards a new and
improved human society. Comte defined sociology as the study of social dynamic and social
static, the former signifying the changing, progressing and developmental dimensions of
society, while the latter refers to the social order and those elements of society and social
phenomena which tend to persist and relatively permanent, defying change.
• Karl Marx (German, 1818-1883) Marx was a world-renowned social philosopher,
sociologist and economic historian. He made remarkable contributions to the development of
various social sciences including sociology. He contributed greatly to sociological ideas. He
introduced key concepts in sociology like social class, social class conflict, social oppression,
alienation, etc. Marx, like Comte, argued that people should make active efforts to bring about
societal reforms. According to Marx, economic forces are the keys to underestimating society
and social change. He believed that the history of human society has been that of class conflict.
He dreamed of, and worked hard towards realizing, a classless society, one in which there will
be no exploitation and oppression of one class by another, and wherein all individuals will
work according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. Marx introduced one of
the major perspectives in sociology, called social conflict theory (Macionis, 1997).
• Harriet Martineau, British Sociologist (1802- 1876) At a time when women were greatly
stereotyped and denied access to influential socio-political and academic arena, it is interesting
to ha a female academic to be numbered among the pioneering sociologists. Harriet was
interested in social issues and studied both in the United States and England. She came across

4
with the writings of Comte and read them. She was an active advocate of the abolition of
slavery and she wrote on many crosscutting issues such as racial and gender relations, and she
traveled widely. She helped popularize the ideas and writings of Comte by translating them
into English (Henslin and Nelson, 1995).
• Herbert Spencer, British Social Philosopher, (1820-1903) Spencer was a prominent social
philosopher of the 19th century. He was famous for the organic analogy of human society. He
viewed society as an organic system, having its own structure and functioning in ways
analogous to the biological system. Spencer's ideas of the evolution of human society from the
lowest ("barbarism") to highest form ("civilized") according to fixed laws were famous. It was
called "Social Darwinism", which is analogous to the biological evolutionary model. Social
Darwinism is the attempt to apply by analogy the evolutionary theories of plant and animal
development to the explanation of human society and social phenomena (Team of Experts,
2000).
• Emile Durkheim, French Sociologist, (1858- 1917) Durkehiem was the most influential
scholar in the academic and theoretical development of sociology. He laid down some of the
fundamental principles, methods, concepts and theories of sociology; he defined sociology as
the study of social facts. According to him, there are social facts, which are distinct from
biological and psychological facts. By social facts, he meant the patterns of behavior that
characterize a social group in a given society. They should be studied objectively. The job of a
sociologist, therefore, is to uncover social facts and then to explain them using other social
facts. Some regard Durkheim as the first sociologist to apply statistical methods to the study of
social phenomena (Macionis, 1997; Clahoun, et al, 1994).
• Max Weber, German Sociologist (1864-1920) Weber was another prominent social
scientist. According to him, sociology is the scientific study of human social action. Social
action refers to any “action oriented to influence or influenced by another person or persons. It
is not necessary for more than one person to be physically present for action to be regarded as
social action….” (Team of Experts, 2000).
It is concerned with the interpretive understanding of human social action and the meaning
people attach to their own actions and behaviors and those of others. Weber was a renowned
scholar who like Marx, wrote in several academic fields. He agreed with much Marxian theses
but did not accept his idea that economic forces are central to social change. Weber argues that
we cannot understand human behavior by just looking at statistics. Every activity and behavior
of people needs to be interpreted. He argued that a sociologist must aim at what are called
subjective meanings, the ways in which people interpret their own behavior or the meanings
people attach their own behavior (Henslin and Nelson, 1995; Rosneberg, 1987).
Box 1.3. Pioneering founders of sociology
- August Comte, French, 1798-1857; key concepts: social static and social dynamic
- Karl Marx, German, (1818-1883), key concepts: class conflict, alienation, historical
materialism, etc
- Emile Durkheim, French, 1858-1917; key concept: social fact
- Max Weber, German, 1864=1920; key concepts: social action; subjective meanings
- Herbert Spencer, British, 1820-1903; key concept: social Darwinism

5
 - Harriet Martineau, British, 1802-1876; active advocate of abolition of slavery and
gender issues
1.1.3. Subject Matter, Scope and Concerns of Sociology

The scope of sociology is extremely wide ranging, from the analysis of passing encounter
between individuals on the street up to the investigation of global social processes. The
discipline covers an extremely broad range that includes every aspect of human social
conditions; all types of human relationships and forms of social behavior (Indrani, 1998).
Sociologists are primarily interested in human beings as they appear in social interaction and
the effects of this interaction on human behavior. Such interaction can range from the first
physical contacts of the new born baby with its mother to a philosophical discussion at an
international conference, from a casual passing on the street to the most intimate of human
relationships (World Book Encyclopedia 1994. Vol. 18, PP. 564-567). Sociologists are
interested to know what processes lead to these interactions, what exactly occurs when they
take place, and what their short run and long run consequences are.
The major systems or units of interaction that interest sociologists are social groups such as the
family or peer groups; social relationships, such as social roles and dyadic relationships, and
social organizations such as governments, corporations and school systems to such territorial
organizations as communities and schools (Broom and Selzinki, 1973).
Sociologists are keen to understand, explain, and analyze the effect of social world, social
environment and social interaction on our behavior, worldviews, lifestyle, personality,
attitudes, decisions, etc., as creative, rational, intelligent members of society; and how we as
such create the social reality.

1.1.4. Levels of Sociological Analysis and Fields of Specializations in Sociology

There are generally two levels of analysis in sociology, which may also be regarded as branches
of sociology: micro-sociology and macro- sociology (Henslin and Nelson, 1995). Micro-
sociology is interested in smallscale level of the structure and functioning of human social
groups; whereas macro-sociology studies the large-scale aspects of society. Macro-sociology
focuses on the broad features of society. The goal of macro-sociology is to examine the large-
scale social phenomena that determine how social groups are organized and positioned within
the social structure. Micro-sociological level of analysis focuses on social interaction. It
analyzes interpersonal relationships, and on what people do and how they behave when they
interact. This level of analysis is usually employed by symbolic interactionist perspective.
Some writers also add a third level of analysis called meso-level analysis, which analyzes
human social phenomena in between the micro- and macro-levels. Reflecting their particular
academic interest sociologists may prefer one form of analysis to the other; but all levels of
analysis are useful and necessary for a fuller understanding of social life in society.
Box 1.4. Levels of analysis in sociology
Micro-sociology: Analyzing small scale social phenomena Macro-sociology: analyzing large-
scale social phenomena.
Meso-sociology: analysis of social phenomena in between the micro- and macro- levels.

6
Within these general frameworks, sociology may be divided into specific sub-fields on the
basis of certain criteria. The most important fields of sociology can be grouped into six areas
(World Book Encyclopedia, 1994: Vol. 18; Pp. 564-568).
• The Field of Social Organization and Theory of Social Order: focuses on institutions and
groups, their formation and change, manner of functioning, relation to individuals and to each
other.
• Social Control: Focuses on the ways in which members of a society influence one another
so as to maintain social order.
• Social Change: Focuses on the way society and institutions change over time through
technical inventions, cultural diffusion and cultural conflict, and social movements, among
others.
• Social Processes: Focuses on the pattern in which social change takes place, and the modes
of such processes.
• Social Groups: Focuses on how social groups are formed, structured, and how they function
and change.
• Social Problems: Focuses on the social conditions which cause difficulties for a large number
of persons and which the society is seeking to eliminate. Some of the problems may include:
juvenile delinquency, crime, chronic alcoholism, suicide, narcotics addiction, racial prejudice,
ethnic conflict, war, industrial conflict, slum, areas, urban poverty, prostitution, child abuse,
problem of older persons, marital conflicts, etc.
Currently, sociology has got quite several specific subdivisions or fields of specialization in it:
some of these include the following: criminology; demography; human ecology; political
sociology; medical sociology; sociology of the family; sociology of sports; sociology of
development; social psychology; socio- linguistics; sociology of education; sociology of
religion; sociology of knowledge; sociology of art; sociology of science and technology;
sociology of law; urban sociology; rural sociology; economic sociology; and industrial
sociology.

1.1.5. Major Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology

Sociology as science employs perspectives or theories to understand, explain, analyze and

interpret social phenomena. To interpret social facts, they must be subjected to a theoretical
framework. A theory may be defined as a general statement about how some parts of the world
fit together and how they work (Macionis, 1997). Scupin and DeCorse (1995) define a theory
as a set of interconnected hypotheses that offer general explanations for natural or social
phenomena. It should also be noted that the terms “perspectives” and “schools of thought” are
often used interchangeably with the term “theory”.
There are three major theoretical perspectives in sociology that have provided an overall
framework for sociological studies. These are structural functionalism, social conflict theory
and symbolic interactionism. There are also theories that have emerged challenging these major
ones.
The Structural-Functionalist Theory

7
This is one of the dominant theories both in anthropology and sociology. It is sometimes called
functionalism. The theory tries to explain how the relationships among the parts of society are
created and how these parts are functional (meaning having beneficial consequences to the
individual and the society) and dysfunctional (meaning having negative consequences). It
focuses on consensus, social order, structure and function in society.
The structural-functionalist theory sees society as a complex system whose parts work together
to promote solidarity and stability; it states that our social lives are guided by social structure,
which are relatively stable patterns of social behavior (Macionis, 1997). Social structure is
understood in terms of social function, which are consequences for the operations of society.
All social structure contributes to the operation of society. The major terms and concepts
developed by anthropologists and sociologists in this theory include (or the theory focuses on):
order, structure, function (manifest or direct functions and latent or hidden, indirect functions),
and equilibrium.
Those hold this view ask such questions as: what hold society together? What keeps it steady?
The Structural functionalist theory pays considerable attention to the persistence of shared
ideas in society. The functional aspect in the structural-functionalist theory stresses the role
played by each component part in the social system, whereas the structural perspective suggests
an image of society wherein individuals are constrained by the social forces, social
backgrounds and by group memberships.
Many of the great early founding sociologists such as August Comte, Emile Durkheim and
Herbert Spencer and later American sociologists like Talkot Parsons and Robert K Merton.
Structural -functionalist theorists in modern sociology are more likely to follow in the tradition
of the writings of particularly Emile Durkheim, who is regarded as the pioneering proponent
of this perspective (Hensiln and Nelson, 1995).
After dominating sociology and anthropology for a long time, this theory was challenged by
its main critics, notably those who proposed the social –conflict theory (see below). The theory
was attacked for its emphasis on stability and order while neglecting conflict and changes
which so vital in any society.
The Social Conflict Theory
This theory is also called Marxism; to indicate that the main impetus to the theory derives from
the writings of Karl Marx This theory sees society in a framework of class conflicts and focuses
on the struggle for scarce resources by different groups in a given society. It asks such questions
as what pulls society apart. How does society change? The theory holds that the most important
aspect of social order is the domination of some group by others, that actual or potential
conflicts are always present in society. The writings of Karl Marx are generally in the spirit of
conflict theory, and Marxism influences most of conflict theorists in modern sociology.
The theory is useful in explaining how the dominant groups use their power to exploit the less
powerful groups in society. Key concepts developed in this perspective include: conflict,
complementation, struggle, power, inequality, and exploitation.
Although this theory gained fame in recent decades, it came under sharp criticism, for its
overemphasis on inequality and division, for neglecting the fact of how shared values and

8
interdependence generate unity among members of society; it is also criticized for its explicit
political goals.
Another critique, which equally applies also to structural functionalism, is that it sees society
in very broad terms, neglecting micro-level social realities (Macionis 1997).
Symbolic Interactionism
This theory was advanced by such American sociologists as Charles Horton Cooley (1864-
1929) William I Thomas (1863-1947) and George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) in early 20th
century. This perspective views symbols as the basis of social life. Symbols are things to which
we attach meanings. The theory stresses the analysis of how our behaviors depend on how we
define others and ourselves. It concentrates on process, rather than structure, and keeps the
individual actor at the center. According to symbolic interactionism, the essence of social life
and social reality is the active human being trying to make sense of social situations. In short,
this theory calls attention to the detailed, person-oriented processes that take place within the
larger units of social life (Calhoun et al, 1994; Henslin and Nelson, 1996; Soroka, 1995).
As indicated above, there are contemporary sociological theories that have emerged in recent
decades that have heavily influenced sociological and anthropological thinking. These include
the following:
Feminism
This theory takes as its central theme the place and facts of women’s underprivileged status
and their exploitation in a patriarchally dominated society. Feminist sociology focuses on the
particular disadvantages, including oppression and exploitation faced by women in society.
This theory ranges from liberal feminism, which recognizes inequalities but believes that
reform can take place without a fundamental restructuring of the social system, to radical
feminism, which advocates the fundamental need for societal change (Marcus and Ducklin,
1998: 32).
Social Exchange Theory
This theory focuses on “the costs and benefits which people obtain in social interaction,
including money, goods, and status. It is based on the principle that people always act to
maximize benefit. However, to receive benefits, there must always be an exchange process
with others” (Marcus and Ducklin, 1996: 26).
Public Choice Theory: This theory states that collective organizations such as political parties
act rationally to maximize their own benefits. It argues that individual differences are best
resolved by collective involvement within organizations. The role of the state is important in
arbitrating between large-scale interests.
Rational Choice Theory: This theory assumes that individuals will operate in rational way
and will seek to benefit themselves in the life choices they make.
Structuralism
This theory denies any basis for humans being active, since human consciousness is no longer
seen as the basis of meaning in language. Structuralism differs from the mainstream traditional
theories in that it rejects objective social facts and a concept of society as an objective, external

9
entity. It defines social reality in terms of the relations between events, not in terms of things
and social facts. Its basic principle is that the observable is meaningful only in so far as it can
be related to an underlying structure or order (Swingwood, 1984).
The equivalent of structuralism in anthropology, advanced by its famous French structuralist
anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss, states that “the origin of universal principles that order
the ways in which we behave and think about the world is to be found in the structure of human
thought.”(Howard and DunaifHattis, 1992:373). The problem with this theory is that they view
societies as static and do not help very much in explaining variation among societies. The
theory treats culture as a given order and fails to explain the adaptive dimensions of culture.
Post-Structuralism and Post-modernism:
Post –structuralism: focuses on the power of language in constructing knowledge and
identity. The writers in this field have emphasized the role of language in human life, how
language dictates the thoughts we have, and how it constructs meanings for us.
Poststructuralists argue that humans cannot arrive anything they can confidently call the
(universal) truth. There is no link between the words (language) ideas, and the real world. It
denies the sociological idea that our concepts have some relationship to the real world. It is not
possible to arrive at a sociological truth, and such attempts are dangerous (Bliton, et al. 1996;
Kirby, et al. 2000).
Post-modernism: The basis of post-modernism was post-structuralism. Post-modernism is
defined as a cultural and aesthetic phenomenon which mainly rejects order and progress,
objective and universal truth; and supports the need for recognizing and tolerating different
forms of reality. It tends to celebrate chaos and disorder, diversity and fragmentation in the
modern global society rather than wanting to achieve order. This theory maintains that there is
no ultimate reason in human life and existence (Bliton, et al. 1996; Kirby, et al. 2000).
Postmodernists argue, “Power has become decentralized and fragmented in contemporary
societies“ (Torres and Mitchel, 1998). The theorists of post- structuralism share a lost with
post-modernists.
A note on applying sociological theories to health, culture and society may be important here.
Each of he above sociological theories may have its own views on medicine and society. But
for the sake of brevity, I would just focus on the three major theories:
• Structural functionalism: the version of this theory as applied to medicine ad society may
be termed as the “medical ecological approach. The structural functionalist theory views
medicine and the systems of health care as important social institutions; and it focuses on the
functions and roles played by the institution in maintaining odder and stability in society. The
medical institutions whether scientific or traditional and the various practitioners exist to meet
the needs of individuals and society (Henslin and Nelson, 1995).
• Symbolic interactionist theory: This theory as applied to medicine and society may be
termed as the “cultural interpretations approach. This approach focuses on the social and
cultural constructions of health, illness and disease.
According to this theory, illnesses and health are not just things that exist “out there”; they are
productions of the complex social interactions; and health and illness are highly shaped by the

10
manner in which people as actors give meanings to them and how the actors respond to them
in socio-culturally sanctioned ways.
• Conflict theory: The equivalent of this theory in medical sociology and anthropology may
be termed as “the critical” or “radical political economy” approach. It is an approach which
stresses on the socio-economic inequality in power and wealth which in turn significantly
affects the health status and access to health care facilities. Individuals, groups, communities
and even nations thus tend to have unbalanced share of health resources; and these often leads
to the unequal distribution of morbidity and mortality patterns among a given society; those in
power and dominance enjoy better health and the marginalized groups suffer from the burden
of diseases (Turner, 1987).
Table 1.1. Summary of sociological theories
Name of the What does it state? Key concepts its weaknesses
theory
Structural Sees society as a Consensus, Emphasis on stability and
Functionalism complex system whose social order, order while neglecting
parts work together to structure and conflict and changes
promote solidarity and function in which so vital in any
stability society society
Social conflict Sees society in a Class conflict; For its overemphasis on
theory framework of class alienation; inequality and division,
conflicts and focuses competition; for neglecting the fact of
on the struggle for domination how shared values and
scarce resources by interdependence generate
different groups in a unity among members of
given society society; it is also criticized
for its explicit political
goals.
Symbolic Stresses the analysis of Symbols; Too much emphasis on
interactionism how our behaviors processes; microlevel analysis;
depend on how we interaction; neglect of larger social
define others and meaning processes
ourselves. It
concentrates on
process, rather than
structure, and keeps the
individual actor at the
center.
Feminism Feminist sociology Women; gender; Some extreme views such
focuses on the exploitation; as radical feminism seem
particular male supremacy unrealistic
disadvantages,
including oppression
and exploitation faced
by women in society
Social Exchange Focuses on the costs
theory and benefits which
people obtain in social

11
 interaction, including
money, goods, and
status. It is based on the
principle that people
always act to maximize
benefit
Rational choice Assumes that
theory individuals will operate
in rational way and will
seek to benefit
themselves in the life
choices they make
Structuralism Denies any basis for Underlying Views societies as static
humans being active, structures; and do not help very much
since human language in explaining variation
consciousness is no among societies; treats
longer seen as the basis culture as a given order
of meaning in language and fails to explain the
adaptive dimensions of
culture.
Poststructuralism Argues that humans
cannot arrive anything
they can confidently
call the (universal)
truth. There is no link
between the words
(language) ideas, and
the real world
Postmodernism Argues power has Modernity; Denial of objective,
become decentralized postmodernity; sociological knowledge
and fragmented in subjective reality
contemporary societies

1.2. The Significance of Learning Sociology

Generally, learning sociology provides us with what sociologists call the sociological
imagination. Sociological imagination is a particular way of looking at the world around us
through sociological lenses. It is a way of looking at our experiences in light of what is going
on in the social world around us. This helps us to appreciate the social and non-biological forces
that affect, influence and shape our lives as individuals, groups, and communities (Giddens,
1982). Sociological imagination helps us look beyond individual psychology to the many and
varied facets of social and cultural forces, and "the recurring patterns in peoples' attitudes and
actions, and how these patterns vary across time, cultures and social groups." (Henslin and
Nelson, 1995).

Learning sociology helps us understand how social forces influence our goals, attitudes,
behavior, and personality. We become more sensitive towards the social issues. Furthermore,
learning sociology helps to cast aside our own biased assumptions, stereotypes and ethno-

12
centric thinking and practices to become more critical, broad- minded and respectful in our
interpersonal and inter- group relationships. By learning sociology, we can be more humane
and people – centered; we give high value to human dignity.
In general, sociology increases our self-knowledge. Learning sociology can provide us with
self-enlightenment. When we learn sociology, we gain more knowledge about the conditions
of our own lives, and about the way our society and social system function. As such knowledge
increases, we can be more empowered to influence the direction of forces and circumstances
that affect our lives. We can also be more responsive to the various policies set by governments;
and can suggest our own policy initiatives and alternatives (Giddens, op cit).
In addition to the aforementioned theoretical benefits, sociology has certain practical benefits.
There is what we call applied sociology, the application of sociological knowledge, principles,
methods, concepts and theories to provide the solutions to the contemporary social pathologies.
Sociology plays practical roles to tackle social pathologies. Sociological knowledge is highly
applicable in dealing with today's most crucial social problems, and in facilitating
developmental activities in socioeconomic sectors. Before closing this section, it is important
to note why health/ medical sciences students need to take a course in introductory sociology.
The following are some of the arguments for the necessity of such a course:
1. Health, disease and illness are as much sociocultural in their nature as they are physical.
2. So far, despite certain steps being taken, the dominant trend in the medical/ health sciences training
is to highly focus on the biomedical and ecological dimensions of health and disease. However, given
the bio-psycho-social nature of human being and health, this is very partial. This restricted approach to
health disease does not provide the students with appropriate and whole picture about the issue. Such
highly narrow focus in the training of health professionals and design of health policies and strategies
is not appropriate.
3. In the objective realties of developing societies such as SL human health and well-being are deeply
linked to sociocultural factors such as the entrenched poverty, the roles of traditional values and
institutions in shaping people’s worldviews about health and disease.

1.2.1 Society and Culture?

Sociologists study all aspects and levels of society. A society is a group of people whose
members interact, reside in a definable area, and share a culture. A culture includes the group’s
shared practices, values, beliefs, norms and artifacts. One sociologist might analyze video of
people from different societies as they carry on everyday conversations to study the rules of
polite conversation from different world cultures. Another sociologist might interview a
representative sample of people to see how email and instant messaging have changed the way
organizations are run. Yet another sociologist might study how migration determined the way
in which language spread and changed over time. A fourth sociologist might study the history
of international agencies like the United Nations or the International Monetary Fund to examine
how the globe became divided into a First World and a Third World after the end of the colonial
era.

These examples illustrate the ways society and culture can be studied at different levels of
analysis, from the detailed study of face-to-face interactions to the examination of large-scale
historical processes affecting entire civilizations. It is common to divide these levels of analysis
into different gradations based on the scale of interaction involved. As discussed in later
13
chapters, sociologists break the study of society down into four separate levels of analysis:
micro, meso, macro, and global. The basic distinction, however, is between micro-
sociology and macro-sociology.

The study of cultural rules of politeness in conversation is an example of micro-sociology. At

the micro-level of analysis, the focus is on the social dynamics of intimate, face-to-face
interactions. Research is conducted with a specific set of individuals such as conversational
partners, family members, work associates, or friendship groups. In the conversation study
example, sociologists might try to determine how people from different cultures interpret each
other’s behaviour to see how different rules of politeness lead to misunderstandings. If the same
misunderstandings occur consistently in a number of different interactions, the sociologists
may be able to propose some generalizations about rules of politeness that would be helpful in
reducing tensions in mixed-group dynamics (e.g., during staff meetings or international
negotiations). Other examples of micro-level research include seeing how informal networks
become a key source of support and advancement in formal bureaucracies or how loyalty to
criminal gangs is established.

Macro-sociology focuses on the properties of large-scale, society-wide social interactions: the

dynamics of institutions, classes, or whole societies. The example above of the influence of
migration on changing patterns of language usage is a macro-level phenomenon because it
refers to structures or processes of social interaction that occur outside or beyond the intimate
circle of individual social acquaintances.

These include the economic and other circumstances that lead to migration; the educational,
media, and other communication structures that help or hinder the spread of speech patterns;
the class, racial, or ethnic divisions that create different slangs or cultures of language use; the
relative isolation or integration of different communities within a population; and so on. Other
examples of macro-level research include examining why women are far less likely than men
to reach positions of power in society or why fundamentalist Christian religious movements
play a more prominent role in American politics than they do in Canadian politics. In each case,
the site of the analysis shifts away from the nuances and detail of micro-level interpersonal life
to the broader, macro-level systematic patterns that structure social change and social cohesion
in society.

The relationship between the micro and the macro remains one of the key problems confronting
sociology. The German sociologist Georg Simmel pointed out that macro-level processes are
in fact nothing more than the sum of all the unique interactions between specific individuals at
any one time (1908), yet they have properties of their own which would be missed if
sociologists only focused on the interactions of specific individuals.

Émile Durkheim’s classic study of suicide (1897) is a case in point. While suicide is one of the
most personal, individual, and intimate acts imaginable, Durkheim demonstrated that rates of
suicide differed between religious communities—Protestants, Catholics, and Jews—in a way
that could not be explained by the individual factors involved in each specific case. The
different rates of suicide had to be explained by macro-level variables associated with the
different religious beliefs and practices of the faith communities. We will return to this example
in more detail later. On the other hand, macro-level phenomena like class structures,
institutional organizations, legal systems, gender stereotypes, and urban ways of life provide
the shared context for everyday life but do not explain its nuances and micro-variations very
well. Macro-level structures constrain the daily interactions of the intimate circles in which we

14
move, but they are also filtered through localized perceptions and “lived” in a myriad of
inventive and unpredictable ways.

1.2.2 The Sociological Imagination

Although the scale of sociological studies and the methods of carrying them out are different,
the sociologists involved in them all have something in common. Each of them looks at society
using what pioneer sociologist C. Wright Mills called the sociological imagination, sometimes
also referred to as the “sociological lens” or “sociological perspective.” In a sense, this was
Mills’ way of addressing the dilemmas of the macro/micro divide in sociology. Mills defined
sociological imagination as how individuals understand their own and others’ pasts in relation
to history and social structure (1959). It is the capacity to see an individual’s private troubles
in the context of the broader social processes that structure them. This enables the sociologist
to examine what Mills called “personal troubles of milieu” as “public issues of social
structure,” and vice versa.

Mills reasoned that private troubles like being overweight, being unemployed, having marital
difficulties, or feeling purposeless or depressed can be purely personal in nature. It is possible
for them to be addressed and understood in terms of personal, psychological, or moral
attributes, either one’s own or those of the people in one’s immediate milieu. In an
individualistic society like our own, this is in fact the most likely way that people will regard
the issues they confront: “I have an addictive personality;” “I can’t get a break in the job
market;” “My husband is unsupportive;” etc. However, if private troubles are widely shared
with others, they indicate that there is a common social problem that has its source in the way
social life is structured. At this level, the issues are not adequately understood as simply private
troubles. They are best addressed as public issues that require a collective response to resolve.

Obesity, for example, has been increasingly recognized as a growing problem for both children
and adults in North America. Michael Pollan cites statistics that three out of five Americans
are overweight and one out of five is obese (2006). In Canada in 2012, just under one in five
adults (18.4 percent) were obese, up from 16 percent of men and 14.5 percent of women in
2003 (Statistics Canada 2013). Obesity is therefore not simply a private trouble concerning the
medical issues, dietary practices, or exercise habits of specific individuals. It is a widely shared
social issue that puts people at risk for chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, and
cardiovascular disease. It also creates significant social costs for the medical system.

Pollan argues that obesity is in part a product of the increasingly sedentary and stressful
lifestyle of modern, capitalist society, but more importantly it is a product of the
industrialization of the food chain, which since the 1970s has produced increasingly cheap and
abundant food with significantly more calories due to processing. Additives like corn syrup,
which are much cheaper to produce than natural sugars, led to the trend of super-sized fast
foods and soft drinks in the 1980s. As Pollan argues, trying to find a processed food in the
supermarket without a cheap, calorie-rich, corn-based additive is a challenge. The sociological
imagination in this example is the capacity to see the private troubles and attitudes associated
with being overweight as an issue of how the industrialization of the food chain has altered the
human/environment relationship, in particular with respect to the types of food we eat and the
way we eat them.

By looking at individuals and societies and how they interact through this lens, sociologists are
able to examine what influences behaviour, attitudes, and culture. By applying systematic and

15
scientific methods to this process, they try to do so without letting their own biases and pre-
conceived ideas influence their conclusions.

1.2.3 Studying Patterns: How Sociologists View Society

All sociologists are interested in the experiences of individuals and how those experiences are
shaped by interactions with social groups and society as a whole. To a sociologist, the personal
decisions an individual makes do not exist in a vacuum. Cultural patterns and social forces put
pressure on people to select one choice over another. Sociologists try to identify these general
patterns by examining the behaviour of large groups of people living in the same society and
experiencing the same societal pressures.

Understanding the relationship between the individual and society is one of the most difficult
sociological problems, however. Partly this is because of the reified way these two terms are
used in everyday speech.

Reification refers to the way in which abstract concepts, complex processes, or mutable social
relationships come to be thought of as “things.” A prime example of this is when people say
that “society” caused an individual to do something or to turn out in a particular way. In writing
essays, first-year sociology students sometimes refer to “society” as a cause of social behaviour
or as an entity with independent agency. On the other hand, the “individual” is a being that
seems solid, tangible, and independent of anything going on outside of the skin sack that
contains its essence. This conventional distinction between society and the individual is a
product of reification in so far as both society and the individual appear as independent objects.
A concept of “the individual” and a concept of “society” have been given the status of real,
substantial, independent objects. As we will see in the chapters to come, society and the
individual are neither objects, nor are they independent of one another. An “individual” is
inconceivable without the relationships to others that define his or her internal subjective life
and his or her external socially defined roles.

The problem for sociologists is that these concepts of the individual and society and the
relationship between them are thought of in terms established by a very
common moral framework in modern democratic societies, namely that of individual
responsibility and individual choice. Often in this framework, any suggestion that an
individual’s behaviour needs to be understood in terms of that person’s social context is
dismissed as “letting the individual off” of taking personal responsibility for their actions.
Talking about society is akin to being morally soft or lenient. Sociology, as a social science,
remains neutral on these type of moral questions.
The conceptualization of the individual and society is much more complex. The sociological
problem is to be able to see the individual as a thoroughly social being and yet as a being who
has agency and free choice. Individuals are beings who do take on individual responsibilities
in their everyday social roles and risk social consequences when they fail to live up to them.
The manner in which they take on responsibilities and sometimes the compulsion to do so are
socially defined however. The sociological problem is to be able to see society as a dimension
of experience characterized by regular and predictable patterns of behaviour that exist
independently of any specific individual’s desires or self-understanding. Yet at the same time
a society is nothing but the ongoing social relationships and activities of specific individuals

16