You are on page 1of 45

What is Sociology?

WHAT IS SOCIOLOGY?
The intent of this lesson is to offer a brief introduction to sociology. We will talk about some basic ideas
about what sociology is and what it is not. We will deal briefly with the social forces which triggered the
new science of sociology. And we will discuss some basic assumptions about the nature of man. There is
no better way to begin to discover what sociology is all about than to summarize what Alex Inkeles wrote
almost 50 years ago.
An Alex Inkeles Summary
In a book called What is Sociology?, Alex Inkeles suggested three ways to answer the question. First, he
said, let’s take a historical approach. “In other words, we ask: ‘What did the founding fathers say?’ ” A
second approach is to ask: “What are contemporary sociologists doing?” Finally, he suggests what he
calls an analytical approach. In other words, we ask “What does reason suggest?” So, lets take a brief
look at each of these approaches as a way of beginning to close in on an understanding of what sociology
is all about.
The Founding Fathers Approach
Inkeles says, and I think most sociologists would agree, that four men - Auguste Comte, Emile
Durkheim, Max Weber, and Herbert Spencer, are “the central figures in the development of modern
sociology.” A brief look at what these four men said will give us a beginning understanding of what
sociology is all about.
Auguste Comte. A native of France, Comte was born in 1798 and died in 1857. He is credited with being
the first person to use the term sociology. His importance, in very brief form, is that he laid out what he
considered to be the subject matter of sociology and his belief that sociology should be scientific. Comte
divided the subject matter of sociology into two parts: social statics and social dynamics.3 Social statics,
according to Comte, meant the study of the major parts of a society - what we call social institutions - and
their interrelationships. Social dynamics is the study of whole societies and their changes over time.
Before Comte created the word sociology he called the new discipline “positive philosophy” to stress the
notion that we should study societies scientifically.
Emile Durkheim. Also a native of France, Durkheim was born in 1858 and died in 1917. We will be
coming back to Durkheim later but for now three things about Durkheim’s work are of interest. First, he,
along with Comte and others, was concerned with the study of societies and the relationships between
social institutions. Second, he suggested several special fields of study that should be included in the
science of sociology. Among them were: sociology of religion, marriage and family, crime and deviance,
and demography. As we will see in a little while, these are some of the same topics which sociologists
specialize in today.
Also, he suggested that sociologists should study what he called social facts as a way of understanding
and explaining social phenomena. He defines a social fact this way: “a social fact is every way of acting,
fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of
acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right
independent of its individual manifestations.” (The Rules of Sociological Method, p. 13.) This needs a
little explaining. What he means is that in every society, or in every group, or in every kind of social
organization, there are certain customary ways of doing things. And we are expected to do things the
same way. It’s those social expectations, which are “out there” in the society, that constrain us and guide
our behavior. So, the task of sociology is to uncover those social expectations in order to understand why
we do what we do.
Herbert Spencer. Herbert Spencer was born in England in 1820 and died in 1903. The fields of sociology
according to Spencer are: the family, politics, religion, social control, and industry or work. He also
stressed the obligation of sociology to deal with the interrelations between the different elements of
society, to give an account of how the parts influence the whole. Also, “... to accept the whole society as
its unit for analysis.”
Max Weber. Max Weber was a German sociologist who was born in 1864 and died in 1920. Here is his
definition of sociology. “Sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of
social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences.” Let’s break that
down. First, Weber, like the other founding fathers we have discussed, wanted sociology to be a science.
Second, the focus of sociology should be on social action which Weber defined as the behavior of
individuals based on the subjective meanings which they bring to social situations. Third, Weber was
concerned to identify causes for social action. In other words, sociologists want to know why people do
what they do. Finally, Weber’s method of figuring out why people do what they do involves some kind of
“interpretive understanding” of social action. (The German word is verstehen.) (When I was in graduate
school and was first introduced to the concept of verstehen the word was defined as a “sympathetic
understanding” of social action.) In other words, the sociologist should put himself in the other person’s
place in order to understand his behavior.
So, what are the common themes that these four founding fathers have said are the essence of sociology?
First, the proper subject matter for sociology is the study of societies, the study of social institutions and
the relationships between them, and the study of social relationships of all kinds. And, all these areas of
concern should be studied scientifically.
The “What are Sociologists Doing?” Approach
As Inkeles points out, whether we look at what topics sociology textbooks include, or what special topics
sociologists are interested and feel competent in, or what topics sociologists are publishing articles about
in the various sociological journals, there is a very consistent pattern. The same kinds of sociological
topics appear. A partial list of special sociological topics or areas of concern and interest follows.
Culture and society
Groups
Communities
Demography (population growth and trends)
Social Institutions
Social stratification
Deviance and control
Social change
Racial and ethnic relations
Social conflict
Socialization and personality
Sociological research and methodology
The “What Does Reason Suggest?” Approach
Before we get to Inkeles a really quick look at the history of knowledge seems in order. “Back in the
day” thinkers were free to think about, talk about, and write about whatever happened to interest them at
the time. And their interests could change from one kind of topic to another whenever the mood happened
to strike them. So, for example, a person could spend a lot of time wondering and hypothesizing about
why people get sick and then begin to wonder about what seemed to be a pattern in the movement of the
stars. And then he might begin to wonder about why we have wars or famines or whatever. In other
words, there was little or no specialization in the development of knowledge.
But, beginning in the 1700’s, particularly in England, France, and Germany, thinkers began to specialize.
We began to see a division of labor in the “thinking” business. Some became what were called natural
philosophers and they began to specialize in things like math, statistics, astronomy, biology, medicine,
physics, and so on. Other thinkers became what were called social philosophers. They began to specialize
in things like history, economics, politics, psychology, and religion. We’ll come back to this topic later.
Inkeles says that sociology is a residual science. Essentially his argument is that all the other social
sciences got there first. History, economics. and political science, for example, got there first and staked
out their claims. But there was a lot of stuff left over and so folks like Comte and Durkheim and Weber
came along and claimed a lot of that stuff and called it sociology. What was it that was left over that is
now part of the science of sociology? Well, see the list above. Nobody had claimed any of those topics for
a new science and so sociologists essentially said “We’ll take it.”
Inkeles goes on to say that even if a lot of the topics in the list above became distinct disciplines in their
own right (for example, demography, crime and deviance, communities) there are three areas of concern
that would remain distinctively sociological. They are the study of societies, the study of institutions, and
the study of social relationships. We’ll come back to this later also.
What Sociology Is, And Is Not
Sociology can be described as either a social science or a behavioral science. Social because we are
interested in the relationships between social units. For example, we are interested in the relationships
between the institutions of a society or the relationships between the members of a social group.
Behavioral because we are interested in why people do what they do.
Here at Del Mar College the Social Sciences Department includes history, geography, government,
psychology, anthropology, and sociology. Sometimes economics is included in the list of social sciences.
Some sociologists, in trying to define the boundaries of sociology, spend a lot of time “comparing and
contrasting” sociology and the other social sciences. All we need to say here is that sociology is not the
other social sciences because we look at different kinds of things with a different perspective.
So, what is this “sociological perspective?” Well, it turns out that there are at least three sociological
(theoretical) perspectives, which we’ll get to later. But for now we can say this. There are social reasons
that explain the relationships between the institutions of a society and why we do what we do. We live in
a society. We interact with others in groups. We work and go to church and school in social
organizations. And each of these kinds of social entities has established certain sets of social expectations
for our behavior. And our behavior is “structured” or guided or influenced by these sets of social
expectations. So, sociologists try to understand human societies and human behavior by looking for and at
the underlying structure. We would hope that you would, after taking this course, have some insights into
your own life situation and understand the world a little better based on the knowledge you have gained.
More in a minute.
In my opinion, here is the most accurate and true statement that a sociologist can make. Most people,
most of the time, do, more or less, what they think they are supposed to. And since that is true, we can
usually count on there being some kind of order in our lives. But, that statement also means that some
people, some of the time, do something else. So, social life is not always orderly. Inkeles says that “...
sociology is the study of social order, meaning thereby the underlying regularity of human social
behavior.” He also says we need to look at “departures” from order.
The “Sociological Imagination”
Now that we sort of know what sociology is we need to spend a little time talking about the sociological
imagination. The sociological imagination is an idea first proposed by C. Wright Mills in a book titled,
surprise surprise, The Sociological Imagination. It was first published in 1969. The book was written, in
part, as a critique of functionalism and of an extreme methodological focus. But that’s not what’s
important right now.
What is important is his notion of the sociological imagination. Here’s what Mills says in the opening
pages of his book. “The facts of contemporary history are also facts about the success and the failure of
individual men and women. - - - Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be
understood without understanding both. - - - Yet men do not usually define the troubles that they endure
in terms of historical change and institutional contradiction. The well-being they enjoy, they do not
usually impute to the to the big ups and downs of the societies in which they live. Seldom aware of the
intricate connection between the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history, ordinary men
do not usually know what this connection means for the kinds of men they are becoming… They do not
possess the quality of mind essential to grasp the interplay of man and society, of biography and history,
of self and world. - - - What they need, and what they feel they need, is a quality of mind that will help
them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on
in the world and of what may be happening within themselves. It is this quality … that journalists and
scholars, artists and publics, scientists and editors are coming to expect of what may be called the
sociological imagination.The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger
historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of
individuals.”
So what does this mean for us? What Mills is saying is that we tend to go through life worrying about our
own troubles without realizing that at least some of our troubles are rooted in the ways in which our
society is structured. Or, to put it in another way, there are things going on in our society which have
consequences for us and we don’t realize it. I think what Mills is trying to tell us is that, as sociologists,
we should do meaningful research which does connect the history of our society (what is going on) with
the biography of individuals (our own particular situations) and as instructors of sociology that we should
try to make at least some of those connections clear to students. That is the primary purpose of this
course.
Some Things to Think About
From time to time you might hear on TV or public radio an interview with a medical doctor or some kind
of “scientist” in which he or she will say something like this. “If I could study a person’s brain waves I
could understand why he or she committed that crime.” Or, “If I could understand a person’s brain
chemistry I would know why he or she behaves in certain ways.” Well obviously, when you get right
down to it, ultimately it is brain waves or brain chemistry that makes us do what we do. But that kind of
thinking is called reductionism. It’s a process of reducing all explanations of human behavior to biology.
If sociologists wanted to accept those kinds of explanations we would have majored in biology.
Or, you may have taken a psychology course in which the instructor spent a lot of time talking about the
process of operant conditioning. And, it is true that we can be conditioned to behave in certain ways. For
example, if every time a young boy gets snapped at by his father for some particular kind of behavior
pretty soon the boy will stop that behavior. If you go to any major university and go to the basement of
the building where the psychology department is housed I would be willing to bet that you would find
there a whole room full of rats and other lab animals. And I would be willing to bet that you would find
psychologists doing experiments with these animals. For what purpose? Are psychologists who are
focusing on this kind of psychology really interested in rats? No, they are studying rats to make
generalizations about human behavior.
Or, you might think that human behavior is essentially instinctive. For example, you might say that it is
instinctive for a mother to protect her baby. Or that it is instinctive for a person to try to escape danger. Or
that it is instinctive for a person, when he or she sees some kind of flying object coming at their head, to
duck. Well, the ducking is reflexive. Let’s talk about the other “instincts.” But first, let’s talk about what
an instinct is. An instinct is an inborn, genetic pattern for behavior peculiar to an animal species. It’s part
of our DNA. So, that means that if one human has an instinct we all have it. Now, let’s look at the
examples of instincts mentioned above. If it is instinctive for a mother to protect her baby why do some
mothers abuse their babies? If it instinctive for a person to try to escape danger why do some people put
themselves in harm’s way? Why do soldiers jump on hand grenades to save their buddies? You won’t
find the answers in brain waves or rats or instincts. You’ll find them by looking at the social factors
which influence human behavior.
All this leads us to one more topic to deal with before we move on. And that is the question of what kind
of an animal we are. There are two ways to answer this question. One is to say that we are different in
degree from other animals. That is, we are like other animals except that we are just a little more
complex. We are different only to some degree of complexity. The psychologists who do their thing with
rats obviously buy into this way of looking at the nature of man. We are, in their way of thinking, just
complex rats.
The other way of looking at the nature of man is the difference in kind approach. That is, man is a
different kind of animal all together. We are not just complex rats, we are something different. Not just
more complex than other animals but we have something that other animals don’t. And this difference is
critical.
What is it that we have that other animals don’t? What makes us a different kind of animal? The answer is
that humans have a mind. A lot of people have spent a lot of time for a lot of years thinking about just
what the mind is. and there are many answers. For now, let’s just say that the mind is that intangible
“thing” that allows us to do things like fall in love, grieve for a lost partner, think about the past and the
future, be aware of ourselves as a person, feel such emotions as pride or shame, create and understand
moral and social codes, and so on. The mind is not the same as the brain but it’s in the brain. One
psychologist has suggested that the difference between the brain and the mind can be understood by
looking at the difference between a book and the information in it. The brain is analogous to a book and
the mind is similar to the information it contains. We’ll come back to the mind later.
Now we need to look at the final piece of the picture. What is it that makes it possible for man to have a
mind? And the answer is that we have a language. And most sociologists would agree that man is the
only animal that does. It’s obvious that other animals communicate but we communicate with symbols.
That is, we have the ability to develop all sorts of sounds and gestures that have meaning to us. A crude,
and not necessarily scientifically accurate, example might go like this: Way back in our evolutionary past
man-like creatures were jumping around in the trees, jabbering away with all kinds of noises. But some
kind of mutation happened and somehow some of these creatures became able to sit down and agree that
a certain combination of noises meant “Here comes the lion.” And another combination of noises meant
“She’s mine, keep your hands off.” In other words, they were developing a language - a system of
artificial, socially derived, sounds that convey social meanings.
So, the bottom line is this. Sociologists are interested in societies, the institutions of societies and their
relationships, and the various kinds of social organizations and groups. We want to understand why folks
do what they do in these kinds of social units. So, we start with the understanding that societies and
institutions and groups could not exist without man’s ability to communicate with language. We could not
understand why folks do what they do without the understanding that human beings have minds and that
minds are developed based on social meanings. We’ll come back to all of this later.
Our Historical Roots
The development of the science of sociology starts with three major events in the history of Western
civilization. One is what is called The Age of Enlightenment, another is the Industrial Revolution, which
brought about a shift from a rural, agricultural society to an urban, industrial society. Also, major political
events such as the French Revolution created a great deal of social unrest. These events, which occurred
at basically the same time - the 1700’s and into the 1800’s - in Europe and England, combined to trigger a
great deal of thought about the nature of societies and their problems.
The Age of Enlightenment
Early Greek philosophers, as far as I know, were the first to break out of the box of traditional, magical,
religious explanations for things. They stressed two things: rational/mathematical/logical proof and
observation and experimentation. So, for example, we have important advances in thinking such as
Euclidean geometry.
In primitive societies and throughout what were called the Dark Ages in Europe, events in the lives of
people were explained by or guided by tradition and magic and religion. Whatever advances in rational
thought that were made by the Greek philosophers were essentially lost during the Dark Ages and what
new knowledge was developed was buried. Galileo, for example, who was thinking outside the box of
religious thought, was forced by the Church to recant his scientific findings. What knowledge existed was
in the hands of religious monks in monasteries throughout Europe. And that knowledge was limited to
what was acceptable to the Catholic Church.
A major step toward thinking outside the box of religious dogma occurred when Martin Luther, in 1517,
challenged the authority of the Catholic Church and triggered the Protestant Reformation. However, the
real push against traditional, magical, and religious explanations for social and historical events - The Age
of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment - began in the 1600’s and continued through the 1700’s
primarily in England, Scotland, France, and Germany. We could spend weeks and whole semesters
talking about all this. But essentially, the Age of Enlightenment was a time in which tradition, magic ,and
religion were rejected as explanations for events and a time in which great advances were made in math,
statistics, medicine, physics, astronomy, and so on, based on reason and logic and on observation and
experimentation.
The age of enlightenment was also a time in which social philosophers began to talk about such concepts
as freedom, equality, liberty, happiness, and the rights of man. The ultimate question was How can we
assure these God-given rights in the face of despotic kings, oppressive governments, and the grinding
poverty of the lower classes brought on by the changing economy.
The Industrial Revolution
During the Middle Ages in Europe and England most people lived on small farms or in small villages.
Consumer goods were made by craftsmen who worked in small shops. For example, a village might have
a blacksmith shop or a shoemaker’s shop and so on. The industrial revolution changed all that. Beginning
with inventions such as the steam engine powered by coal, the production of goods shifted from small
shops to large factories located in large urban centers. What happened was that there was a major change
from rural to urban population and a major shift from an agricultural to an industrial society. These major
changes created a lot of social problems. In cities like London and Paris the poor lived in horrible
conditions - raw sewage running down the open gutters, disease epidemics, rat infestations, high rates of
crime, and so on. Horrible working conditions in the “modern” factories had a serious impact on the
human spirit. All of these issues were of concern to early social thinkers.
The French Revolution
The French Revolution began in 1789 and lasted for maybe five or six years and it was followed for
several more years by the Napoleanic wars, primarily between France and England. There were two
primary causes of the revolution. One was “the spirit of the enlightenment.” The French people were very
aware of the enlightenment’s ideas of freedom, democracy, human rights and so on. The other was the
bankruptcy of the French government. Living conditions were horrible, there was not enough food, the
King and the government were not able to deal with the problems. What resulted was called “The Terror.”
Thousands of people were killed. In 1794, in about a six week period, 1285 people were guillotined in
Paris. That’s about 25 to 30 people a day. The whole established political and social order of France was
destroyed and replaced.
The Result
The point of all this is that the combination of the increasing focus on science, the trend toward
industrialization, and political, economic, and social unrest caused some folks to begin thinking about
developing a science of society. The idea was that if stuff like the movements of the stars could be studied
scientifically then so could societies. And if we can understand societies better maybe we could correct
the social problems which exist. So, folks like Comte began to propose a new science of society with
which we could study and understand the nature of societies for the purpose of fixing all the social
problems which existed. The underlying perspective of the founding fathers, particularly Comte and
Spencer, has been called by Don Martindale positivistic organicism. What this means is that the
founding fathers insisted that societies should be studied scientifically (positivism) and that societies were
like living organisms made up of interrelated parts with each part having a function or purpose.
Early American Sociology
The first American sociologist was Lester Frank Ward. He was trained as a paleontologist and spent
most of his career working for the Federal Government. He became interested in sociology and wrote
several books and is known as the father of American sociology. He stressed two dimensions for
sociology, pure (scientific) sociology and applied (for social reform) sociology, and his sociological
theories fit into the positivistic organicism theoretical approach.
The Chicago School
What has been called “The Chicago School” of sociology began at the University of Chicago in 1892
when the department of sociology was founded. The department’s founder was Albion W. Small. Small is
important not so much for his theoretical contributions but primarily for the development of what was at
the time the dominant department of sociology in the country. He founded the American Journal of
Sociology which is one of the most important sociology journals in the world. He was also a co-founder
of the American Sociological Society. (later the name was changed to the American Sociological
Association because some of the members didn’t like the initials of the organization.)
The Chicago School stressed the importance of sociology as a science and also the importance of social
reform. Many of the sociologists at Chicago were either Christian ministers or sons of ministers. Their
emphasis on social reform has been called melioristic intervention.
The Chicago School was known for two important theoretical directions. One was the focus on urban
(human) ecology, which was initiated by Robert Park. Urban ecology is, essentially, “an attempt to
investigate (1) the processes by which the biotic balance and the social equilibrium are maintained once
they are achieved and (2) the processes by which, when the biotic balance and the social equilibrium are
disturbed, the transition is made from one relatively stable order to another.” (Park, American Journal of
Sociology 62, no. 1) What that means, in plainer language, is that sociologists who do this kind of
sociological research are interested in how different groups within a community are interrelated and what
social, economic, and political forces impact the lives of the population. For Park, the social processes in
a community depend on competition but competition limited by custom and culture. “The changes in
which (human/urban) ecology is interested are the movements of population and artifacts (commodities)
and changes in location and occupation - any sort of change, in fact, which affects an existing division of
labor or the relation of the population to the soil.” The outcome of this ecological approach was a series of
studies done in Chicago which dealt with all kinds of social issues such as crime, issues of the urban
slums, and so on. The most significant of these studies was The Polish Peasant in Europe and America
done by W. I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki, a study of the social adjustment of Polish immigrants.
We’ll talk a little more about Thomas later.
The other theoretical direction taken in the Chicago School was what is called symbolic
interaction. Essentially, symbolic interaction is a perspective which deals with symbols, language, and
meanings which we use to construct our social worlds and which guide our behavior. At Chicago the
leading people were Thomas, Charles Cooley (although he was at Michigan) and, most of all, George
Herbert Mead. We will talk a lot more about this later.
The Harvard School.
The Chicago School began to lose its influence in the 1930’s and was beginning to be overshadowed by
Eastern sociologists, most importantly at Harvard. The “Harvard School” began in the early 1930’s and
was dominated by Talcott Parsons and what is called Structural Functionalism. We will talk about
functionalism later. What is important about the Harvard School is that Parsons and many of his graduate
students went on to publish important stuff in the functionalist tradition. Again, more later. The Harvard
School, and functionalism, continued to be extremely influential into the 1960’s but gradually began to
lose influence.
So, we are at the end of the section on early American sociology and here endeth this lesson.

The Sociological Imagination


This morning (May 2, 2016) on my way to school I heard a story on National Public Radio about the
issue of paid maternity leave for employees. A woman was interviewed and she told this story: Her son
was born two months prematurely and spent two months in the hospital. His mother needed to be there.
Her employer gave her the time off and held her job for her but she didn’t get paid. With no paycheck and
hospital bills piling up, her situation was grim. Her diet, she said, consisted of crackers and juice that she
got free in the hospital.
The reporter on the NPR story made the point that most people tend to see problems like these as personal
problems without realizing that they are also national policy issues. And that is what I want to talk about
for a few minutes.
In 1959 a sociologist named C. Wright Mills wrote a book called The Sociological Imagination. Here are
the first two lines in the book. “Nowadays men often feel that their private lives are a series of traps. They
sense that within their everyday worlds, they cannot overcome their troubles, and in this feeling, they are
often quite correct.” Mills goes on to say “The facts of contemporary history are also facts about the
success and the failure of individual men and women.” And then, “Neither the life of an individual nor the
history of a society can be understood without understanding both.” Finally, “What (people) need, and
what they feel they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason
in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening
within themselves. “It is this quality … [which] may be called the sociological imagination.”
So, what Mills is saying is exactly what the NPR reporter was saying: Most people don’t see that their
personal problems quite often are rooted in the larger issues of our society.
One more thing. Several years ago Robert Pirsig wrote a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance. In that book he called a university a “Church of Reason.” That has stuck in my mind.
So, for me, the primary purpose of this course is to help you develop your own sociological imagination.
To help you develop that quality of mind which enables you to reason and to make sense out of what is
happening in the world, and in our society, and to see that what is happening “out there” impacts your
lives.
And, finally, if, as you begin to develop your sociological imagination, you begin to see the importance of
becoming an active participant in your community and in your society, then I will have done my job.

The Importance of Language


We talked a little earlier about two different perspectives on the “nature of man.” One was the difference
in degree point of view which says that man is essentially like the other animals, just more complex. The
other was the difference in kind point of view which says that man is a different kind of animal
altogether. The choice that we make in studying human behavior is critical. For example, the psychologist
who studies rat behavior so that he can make conclusions about humans is buying into the difference in
degree approach. Pavlov, studying the salivating behavior of dogs, was also buying into that point of
view. There’s nothing wrong with these kinds of studies. They serve an important function. BUT,
If sociologists are going to study human behavior from a social perspective the difference in degree
approach is not sufficient. We need to look at human behavior using the difference in kind point of view.
That is, Man has something that other animals don’t and that is language. And it’s language that makes
human societies and human interaction possible. We’ll come back to this in a minute but first let’s look at
how human language began.
The Origin of Language
The sad fact is that we, or maybe just I, really don’t know how languages began. Language didn’t leave a
“paper trail.” We know a little about the origins of written language, but not about spoken language which
developed much earlier. There are lots of ideas and hypotheses but no hard evidence. The consensus is
that two things happened in human evolution that made language possible. One was a development in the
human brain and the other was a change in the structure of our throat so that articulate sounds could be
made. And all this happened maybe 100,000 years ago or more.
The Argument for the Difference in Kind Approach
Why do we believe that man is a different kind of animal? Why do we believe that it is language that
makes us human? There are a few kinds of evidence that are, at least to some degree, convincing.
Feral Children. From time to time throughout history there have been stories about children discovered
living in the wild being raised by animals. In each case the behavior of these children has been described
as “animal like.” They were wild.
Social Isolates. There are reported cases, well documented, of children being locked away, pretty much
from birth, in basements or closets and so on and essentially denied human contact. In these cases the
behavior of the children was animal-like. They were wild.
Aphasia. Aphasia is a disorder of the brain which affects language ability, brought about by some kind of
injury. Maybe a stroke, or a concussion. (Maybe too much football.) These cases can range from mild to
severe but in some ways people who suffer from aphasia may exhibit animal-like behavior. More in a
minute.
The Intellectually Challenged. This condition used to be called mental retardation but I understand that
that’s not politically correct anymore. Depending on the severity of the condition, people who are
challenged sometimes behave in animal-like ways. Let me give you a personal example. I used to live
next door to a woman who was challenged. For several years, every day during the school year, she
would knock on our door at about 3 o’clock wanting to play with my daughters. I would tell her that they
weren’t home from school yet and that she could come back in about half an hour. She never came back
but the next day there she would be at 3 o’clock. She didn’t understand the notion of time.
If you have ever seen the movie Lassie Come Home you will get it. In the movie, Lassie, a dog, comes to
the school every day at 3 o’clock to meet her master, a teen aged English boy. But the family is poor, the
father sells the dog and Lassie gets taken to Scotland. Eventually she escapes and starts to make her way
back home. Along the way she is taken in and cared for by nice people. But always, some day at about 3
o’clock, she escapes and continues on her journey. Well, of course, the movie ends with Lassie, tired and
lame, waiting at the school and the boy comes out, sees her and says “It’s Lassie, Lassie come home.”
And everybody cries. Me too, every time.
So, why did I tell you this story? Because there’s a parallel between my neighbor and Lassie. All either
one of them knew was that it’s 3 o’clock and it’s time to go. So, the point is that my neighbor behaved in
an animal-like way.
Now, back to aphasia. My neighbor who lived on the lot in back of my house had suffered a severe stroke
and all she could do was make inarticulate sounds. One day I watched a conversation between her and my
next door neighbor over the back fence. The back yard neighbor was carrying a puppy. My next door
neighbor said to her, “That’s sure a cute little puppy.” And the woman in back made noises. So the
conversation went on for about 20 minutes like this: “That sure is a cute little puppy.” Noises. “That sure
is a cute little puppy.” More noises, and on and on. So this was a sad situation in which both parties were,
in some ways, exhibiting animal-like behavior. Repetitive, a lack of real understanding, and so on.
So, to sum this up, here’s what most sociologists accept. Man is the only animal who has a language.
Other animals communicate, and do it very well. We are the only animal that is smart enough to
misunderstand, lie, and otherwise mess up our communication with others.
Why is all this important? Because, since we communicate with a language, our behavior cannot be
understood by talking about instincts, brain waves, and so on. There’s a place for all that but not in
sociology.

Putting Social Life into Perspective


LO1
Sociology is the systematic study of human society and social interaction. It is a
systematic study because sociologists apply both theoretical perspectives and
research methods (or orderly approaches) to examinations of social behavior.
Sociologists study human societies and their social interactions in order to develop
theories of how human behavior is shaped by group life and how, in turn, group life
is affected by individuals.
Why Should You Study Sociology?
Sociology helps us gain a better understanding of our social world and ourselves. It
enables us to see how the groups to which we belong and the society in which we
live largely shape behavior. A society is a large social grouping that shares the
same geographical territory and is subject to the same political authority and
dominant cultural expectations, such as the United States, Mexico, or Nigeria.
Examining the world order helps us understand that each of us is affected by global
interdependence—a relationship in which the lives of all people are intertwined
closely and any one nation’s problems are part of a larger global problem.
Environmental problems are an example: People throughout the world share the
same biosphere. When environmental degradation, such as removing natural
resources or polluting the air and water, takes place in one region, it may have an
adverse effect on people around the globe.
Individuals can make use of sociology on a more personal level. Sociology enables
us to move beyond established ways of thinking, thus allowing us to gain new
insights into ourselves and to develop a greater awareness of the connection
between our own “world” and that of other people. According to the sociologist
Peter Berger (1963: 23), sociological inquiry helps us see that “things are not what
they seem.” Sociology provides new ways of approaching problems and making
decisions in everyday life. For this reason, people with knowledge of sociology are
employed in a variety of fields that apply sociological insights to everyday life (see
Figure 1.1).
Fields that Use Social Science Research
In many careers, including jobs in health and human services, business, communication, academia, and
law, the ability to analyze social science research is an important need.

Source: Based on Katzer, Cook, and Crouch, 1991. © Cengage Learning.


Sociology promotes understanding and tolerance by enabling each of us to look
beyond intuition, common sense, and our personal experiences. Many of us rely on
intuition or common sense gained from personal experience to help us understand
our daily lives and other people’s behavior. Commonsense knowledge guides
ordinary conduct in everyday life. However, many commonsense notions are
actually myths. A myth is a popular but false notion that may be used, either
intentionally or unintentionally, to perpetuate certain beliefs or “theories” even in
the light of conclusive evidence to the contrary. Before reading on, take the quiz in
the Sociology and Everyday Life box at the opening of the chapter.
By contrast, sociologists strive to use scientific standards, not popular myths or
hearsay, in studying society and social interaction. They use systematic research
techniques and are accountable to the scientific community for their methods and
the presentation of their findings. Whereas some sociologists argue that sociology
must be completely value free—free from distorting subjective (personal or
emotional) bias—others do not think that total objectivity is an attainable or
desirable goal when studying human behavior. However, all sociologists attempt to
discover patterns or commonalities in human behavior. When they study suicide,
for example, they look for recurring patterns of behavior even though individual
people usually commit the acts and other individuals suffer as a result of these
actions.
Consequently, sociologists seek out the multiple causes and effects of suicide or
other social issues. They analyze the impact of the problem not only from the
standpoint of the people directly involved but also from the standpoint of the effects
of such behavior on all people.
The Sociological Imagination
LO2
Sociological reasoning is often referred to as the sociological imagination—the
ability to see the relationship between individual experiences and the larger
society (Mills, 1959b). The sociological imagination is important to each of us
because having this awareness enables us to understand the link between our
personal experiences and the social contexts in which they occur. Each of us lives
in a society, and we live out a biography within some historical setting. Throughout
our lives, we contribute to the shaping of society and to its history, even as we are
made by society and the historical events that take place during our lifetime. The
sociological imagination enables us to grasp the relationship between history at the
societal level and our own biography at the individual level. It also helps us
distinguish between personal troubles and social (or public) issues. C. Wright Mills
(1959b) made this distinction between the two: Personal troubles are private
problems that affect individuals and the networks of people with whom they
associate regularly. As a result, individuals within their immediate social settings
must solve those problems. For example, one person being unemployed may be a
personal trouble. Public issues are problems that affect large numbers of people and
often require solutions at the societal level. Widespread unemployment as a result
of economic changes such as plant closings is an example of a public issue. The
sociological imagination helps us place seemingly personal troubles, such as losing
one’s job or feeling like committing suicide, into a larger social context, where we
can distinguish whether and how personal troubles may be related to public issues.
Suicide as a Personal Trouble
Often our individual experiences are largely beyond our own control. They are
determined by society as a whole—by its historical development and its
organization. However, in everyday life we frequently do not define personal
experiences in these terms. If a person commits suicide, many people consider it to
be the result of that individual’s own personal problems.
Suicide as a Public Issue
If we use the sociological imagination to look at the problem of suicide, we can see
that it is often a public issue—a societal problem. Early sociologist Emile
Durkheim refused to accept commonsense explanations of suicide. In what is
probably the first sociological study to use scientific research methods, he related
suicide to the issue of cohesiveness (or lack of it) in society instead of viewing
suicide as an isolated act that could be understood only by studying individual
personalities or inherited tendencies. In Suicide (1964b/1897), Durkheim
documented his contention that a high suicide rate indicated large-scale societal
problems.

The Importance of a Global Sociological


Imagination
Although existing sociological theory and research provide the foundation for
sociological thinking, we must reach beyond studies that have focused primarily on
the United States to develop a more comprehensive global approach for the future
(see Figure 1.2). In the twenty-first century, we face important challenges in a
rapidly changing nation and world.
Figure 1.2The World’s Economies in the Early Twenty-First
Century
High-income, middle-income, and low-income countries.

© Cengage Learning. Photos, left to right: John Berry/Syracuse Newspapers/The Image Works;
Gable/Alamy; philipbigg/Alamy.
The world’s high-income countries are nations with highly industrialized
economies; technologically advanced industrial, administrative, and service
occupations; and relatively high levels of national and personal income.
Examples include the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and
the countries of Western Europe.
As compared with other nations of the world, many high-income nations have a
high standard of living and a lower death rate because of advances in nutrition and
medical technology. However, everyone living in a so-called high-income country
does not necessarily have these advantages. In contrast, middle-income countries
are nations with industrializing economies, particularly in urban areas, and
moderate levels of national and personal income. Examples of middle-income
countries include the nations of Eastern Europe and many Latin American
countries.
Low-income countries are primarily agrarian nations with little
industrialization and low levels of national and personal income. Examples of
low-income countries include many of the nations of Africa and Asia, particularly
the People’s Republic of China and India, where people typically work the land and
are among the poorest in the world. However, generalizations are difficult to make
because there are wide differences in income and standards of living within many
nations (see Chapter 8, “Global Stratification ”). Throughout this text, we will
continue to develop our sociological imaginations by examining social life here and
in other nations. The future of our nation is deeply intertwined with the future of all
other nations of the world on economic, political, environmental, and humanitarian
levels.
Whatever your race/ethnicity, class, sex, or age, are you able to include in your
thinking the perspectives of people who are quite dissimilar in experiences and
points of view? Before you answer this question, a few definitions are in order.
Race is a term used by many people to specify groups of people distinguished by
physical characteristics such as skin color. However, there are no “pure” racial
types, and the concept of race is considered by most sociologists to be a social
construction that people use to justify existing social inequalities. (When we say
that something is a “social construction,” we mean that race, ethnicity, class, and
gender do not really mean anything apart from the meanings that people in societies
give them.) When societies use these categories, the groupings privilege some
categories of people over others. Unfortunately, the result is that many people act
and respond as if these categories were a social reality rather than a construction.
Ethnicity refers to the cultural heritage or identity of a group and is based on factors
such as language or country of origin. Class is the relative location of a person or
group within the larger society, based on wealth, power, prestige, or other valued
resources. Sex refers to the biological and anatomical differences between females
and males. By contrast, gender refers to the meanings, beliefs, and practices
associated with sex differences, referred to as femininity and masculinity.

The Development of Sociological


Thinking
LO3
Throughout history, social philosophers and religious authorities have made
countless observations about human behavior. However, the idea of observing how
people lived, finding out what they thought, and doing so in a systematic manner
that could be verified did not take hold until the nineteenth century and the social
upheaval brought about by industrialization and urbanization.
Industrialization is the process by which societies are transformed from
dependence on agriculture and handmade products to an emphasis on
manufacturing and related industries. This process occurred first during the
Industrial Revolution in Britain between 1760 and 1850, and was soon repeated
throughout Western Europe. By the mid-nineteenth century, industrialization was
well under way in the United States (Figure 1.3). Massive economic, technological,
and social changes occurred as machine technology and the factory system shifted
the economic base of these nations from agriculture to manufacturing: textiles, iron
smelting, and related industries. Many people who had labored on the land were
forced to leave their tightly knit rural communities and sacrifice well-defined social
relationships to seek employment as factory workers in the emerging cities, which
became the centers of industrial work.
Figure 1.3
As the Industrial Revolution swept through the United States beginning in the nineteenth century,
children being employed in factories became increasingly common. Soon social thinkers began to explore
such new social problems brought about by industrialization.

Urbanization is the process by which an increasing proportion of a population


lives in cities rather than in rural areas. Although cities existed long before the
Industrial Revolution, the development of the factory system led to a rapid increase
in both the number of cities and the size of their populations. People from very
diverse backgrounds worked together in the same factory. At the same time, many
people shifted from being producers to being consumers. For example, families
living in the cities had to buy food with their wages because they could no longer
grow their own crops to eat or to barter for other resources. Similarly, people had to
pay rent for their lodging because they could no longer exchange their services for
shelter.
These living and working conditions led to the development of new social
problems: inadequate housing, crowding, unsanitary conditions, poverty, pollution,
and crime. Wages were so low that entire families—including very young
children—were forced to work, often under hazardous conditions and with no job
security. As these conditions became more visible, a new breed of social thinkers
tried to understand why and how society was changing.
The Development of Modern Sociology
At the same time that urban problems were growing worse, natural scientists had
been using reason, or rational thinking, to discover the laws of physics and the
movement of the planets. Social thinkers started to believe that by applying the
methods developed by the natural sciences, they might discover the laws of human
behavior and apply these laws to solve social problems. Historically, the time was
ripe because the Age of Enlightenment had produced a belief in reason and
humanity’s ability to perfect itself.
Early Thinkers: A Concern with Social
Order and Stability
Early social thinkers—such as Auguste Comte, Harriet Martineau, Herbert Spencer,
and Emile Durkheim—were interested in analyzing social order and stability, and
many of their ideas have had a dramatic and long-lasting influence on modern
sociology.
Auguste Comte
The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857) coined the term sociology
from the Latin socius (“social, being with others”) and the Greek logos (“study of”)
to describe a new science that would engage in the study of society (Figure 1.4).
Even though he never actually conducted sociological research, Comte is
considered by some to be the “founder of sociology.” Comte’s theory that societies
contain social statics (forces for social order and stability) and social dynamics
(forces for conflict and change) continues to be used in contemporary sociology.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) (oil on canvas), Etex, Louis Jules (1810-1889)/Temple de la Religion de
l’Humanite, Paris, France/The Bridgeman Art Library
Comte stressed that the methods of the natural sciences should be applied to the
objective study of society. He sought to unlock the secrets of society so that
intellectuals like him could become the new secular (as contrasted with religious)
“high priests” of society. For Comte, the best policies involved order and authority.
He envisioned that a new consensus would emerge on social issues and that the new
science of sociology would play a significant part in the reorganization of society.
Comte’s philosophy became known as positivism—a belief that the world can
best be understood through scientific inquiry. He believed that positivism had
two dimensions:
 (1)
methodological—the application of scientific knowledge to both physical and
social phenomena—and
 (2)
social and political—the use of such knowledge to predict the likely results of
different policies so that the best one could be chosen.
Social analysts have praised Comte for his advocacy of sociology and his insights
regarding linkages between the social structural elements of society (such as family,
religion, and government) and social thinking in specific historical periods.
However, a number of contemporary sociologists argue that Comte contributed to
an overemphasis on the “natural science model” and focused on the experiences of
a privileged few, to the exclusion of all others.
Harriet Martineau
Comte’s works were made more accessible for a wide variety of scholars through
the efforts of the British sociologist Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) (Figure 1.5).
Until recently, Martineau received no recognition in the field of sociology, partly
because she was a woman in a male-dominated discipline and society. Not only did
she translate and condense Comte’s works, but she was also an active sociologist in
her own right. Martineau studied the social customs of Britain and the United
States, analyzing the consequences of industrialization and capitalism. In Society in
America (1962/1837), she examined religion, politics, child rearing, slavery, and
immigration, paying special attention to social distinctions based on class, race, and
gender. Her works explore the status of women, children, and “sufferers” (persons
who are considered to be criminal, mentally ill, handicapped, poor, or alcoholic).
Martineau advocated racial and gender equality. She was also committed to
creating a science of society that would be grounded in empirical observations and
widely accessible to people. She argued that sociologists should be impartial in
their assessment of society but that it is entirely appropriate to compare the existing
state of society with the principles on which it was founded. Martineau believed
that a better society would emerge if women and men were treated equally,
enlightened reform occurred, and cooperation existed among people in all social
classes (but led by the middle class).
Herbert Spencer
Unlike Comte, who was strongly influenced by the upheavals of the French
Revolution, the British social theorist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) was born in a
more peaceful and optimistic period in his country’s history (Figure 1.6). Spencer’s
major contribution to sociology was an evolutionary perspective on social order and
social change. Evolutionary theory helps to explain how organic and/or social
change occurs in societies. According to Spencer’s Theory of General Evolution,
society, like a biological organism, has various interdependent parts (such as the
family, the economy, and the government) that work to ensure the stability and
survival of the entire society.
Spencer believed that societies develop through a process of “struggle” (for
existence) and “fitness” (for survival), which he referred to as the “survival of the
fittest.” Because this phrase is often attributed to Charles Darwin, Spencer’s view
of society is known as social Darwinism—the belief that those species of
animals, including human beings, best adapted to their environment survive
and prosper, whereas those poorly adapted die out. Spencer equated this process
of natural selection with progress because only the “fittest” members of society
would survive the competition.
Critics believe that Spencer’s ideas are flawed because societies are not the same as
biological systems; people are able to create and transform the environment in
which they live. Moreover, the notion of the survival of the fittest can easily be
used to justify class, racial–ethnic, and gender inequalities.
Emile Durkheim
French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) stressed that people are the
product of their social environment and that behavior cannot be understood fully in
terms of individual biological and psychological traits. He believed that the limits
of human potential are socially based, not biologically based.
In his work The Rules of Sociological Method (1964a/1895), Durkheim set forth
one of his most important contributions to sociology: the idea that societies are built
on social facts. Social facts are patterned ways of acting, thinking, and feeling
that exist outside any one individual but that exert social control over each
person. Durkheim believed that social facts must be explained by other social
facts—by reference to the social structure rather than to individual attributes.
Durkheim observed that rapid social change and a more specialized division of
labor produce strains in society. These strains lead to a breakdown in traditional
organization, values, and authority and to a dramatic increase in anomie—a
condition in which social control becomes ineffective as a result of the loss of
shared values and of a sense of purpose in society. According to Durkheim,
anomie is most likely to occur during a period of rapid social change. In Suicide
(1964b/1897), he explored the relationship between anomic social conditions and
suicide, a concept that remains important in the twenty-first century (see
“Sociology Works!”).
Sociology Works!
Durkheim’s Classical Study of Suicide and Young People in India
Today
The bond attaching [people] to life slackens because the bond which attaches [them] to society is itself
slack.
—Emile Durkheim, Suicide (1964b/1897)
Although this statement describes social conditions accompanying the high rates of suicide found in late-
nineteenth-century France, Durkheim’s words ring true today as we look at contemporary suicide rates for
young people in cities such as New Delhi, India. Suicide rates in India are highest in the 15–29 age
category and are especially great among those living in the wealthier and more-educated regions of the
nation (NDTV.com, 2012; Lancet, 2012).
Doesn’t this seem unlikely? Many people think rural farmers facing poor harvests and high debt would
have the highest risk of suicide; however, this has not proven true in India. At first glance, we might think
that economic success and a good education would provide insurance against suicide because of the
greater happiness and job satisfaction among individuals in cities such as New Delhi, as these individuals
have gained new opportunities and higher salaries in recent years. However, this economic boom—
including the more-open markets of India in the past twenty years—has not only created new
opportunities for people; these changes have also contributed to rapid urbanization and weakened social
ties. The result? Intensified job anxiety, higher expectations, and more pressure for individual
achievement. Social bonds have been weakened or dissolved as people move away from their families
and their community; ironically, newer technologies such as cell phones and social networking sites have
contributed to the breakdown of traditional family units as communication has become more impersonal
and fragmented.
In addition, life in the cities moves at a much faster pace than in the rural areas, and many individuals
experience loneliness, sleep disorders, family discord, and major health risks such as heart disease and
depression. In the words of Ramachandra Guha (2004), a social historian residing in India, Durkheim’s
sociology of suicide remains highly relevant to finding new answers to this challenging problem:  “The
rash of suicides in city and village is a qualitatively new development in our history. We sense that
tragedies are as much social as they are individual. But we know very little of what lies behind them.
What we now await, in sum, is an Indian Durkheim.”

Differing Views on the Status Quo:


Stability or Change?
LO4
Together with Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Georg Simmel, Durkheim established
the direction of modern sociology. We will look first at Marx’s and Weber’s
divergent thoughts about conflict and social change in societies and then at Georg
Simmel’s microlevel analysis of society.
Karl Marx
In sharp contrast to Durkheim’s focus on the stability of society, German economist
and philosopher Karl Marx (1818–1883) stressed that history is a continuous clash
between conflicting ideas and forces. He believed that conflict—especially class
conflict—is necessary in order to produce social change and a better society. For
Marx, the most important changes are economic. He concluded that the capitalist
economic system was responsible for the overwhelming poverty that he observed in
London at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (Marx and Engels,
1967/1848).
In the Marxian framework, class conflict is the struggle between the capitalist class
and the working class. The capitalist class, or bourgeoisie, is those who own and
control the means of production—the tools, land, factories, and money for
investment that form the economic basis of a society. The working class, or
proletariat, is those who must sell their labor because they have no other means to
earn a livelihood. From Marx’s viewpoint, the capitalist class controls and exploits
the masses of struggling workers by paying less than the value of their labor. This
exploitation results in workers’ alienation—a feeling of powerlessness and
estrangement from other people and from themselves. Marx predicted that the
working class would become aware of its exploitation, overthrow the capitalists,
and establish a free and classless society.
Marx is regarded as one of the most profound sociological thinkers; however, his
social and economic analyses have also inspired heated debates among generations
of social scientists. Central to his view was the belief that society should not just be
studied but should also be changed, because the status quo involved the oppression
of most of the population by a small group of wealthy people. Those who believe
that sociology should be value free (see below) are uncomfortable with Marx’s
advocacy of what some perceive to be radical social change. As well, scholars who
examine society through the lens of race, gender, and class believe that his analysis
places too much emphasis on class relations.
Max Weber
German social scientist Max Weber (pronounced VAY-ber) (1864–1920) was also
concerned about the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. Although
he disagreed with Marx’s idea that economics is the central force in social change,
Weber acknowledged that economic interests are important in shaping human
action. Even so, he thought that economic systems were heavily influenced by other
factors in a society.
Unlike many early analysts who believed that values could not be separated from
the research process, Weber emphasized that sociology should be value free—
research should be done scientifically, excluding the researcher’s personal values
and economic interests. However, Weber realized that social behavior cannot be
analyzed by purely objective criteria. Although he recognized that sociologists
cannot be totally value free, Weber stressed that they should employ verstehen
(German for “understanding” or “insight”) to gain the ability to see the world as
others see it. In contemporary sociology, Weber’s idea is incorporated into the
concept of the sociological imagination (discussed earlier in this chapter).
Weber was also concerned that large-scale organizations (bureaucracies) were
becoming increasingly oriented toward routine administration and a specialized
division of labor, which he believed were destructive to human vitality and
freedom. According to Weber, rational bureaucracy, rather than class struggle, is
the most significant factor in determining the social relations between people in
industrial societies. From this view, bureaucratic domination can be used to
maintain powerful (capitalist) interests in society. As discussed in Chapter 5
(“Groups and Organizations”), Weber’s work on bureaucracy has had a far-
reaching impact.
Weber also provided important insights on the process of rationalization,
bureaucracy, religion, and many other topics. In his writings, Weber was more
aware of women’s issues than many of the scholars of his day. Perhaps his
awareness at least partially resulted from the fact that his wife, Marianne Weber,
was an important figure in the women’s movement in Germany.
Georg Simmel
At about the same time that Durkheim was developing the field of sociology in
France, the German sociologist Georg Simmel (pronounced ZIM-mel) (1858–1918)
was theorizing about the importance of social change in his own country and
elsewhere (Figure 1.7). Simmel was also focusing on how society is a web of
patterned interactions among people (Figure 1.8). In The Sociology of Georg
Simmel (1950/1902–1917), he described how social interactions are different based
on the size of the social group. According to Simmel, interaction patterns differ
between a dyad (a social group with two members) and a triad (a group with three
members) because the presence of an additional person often changes the dynamics
of communication and the overall interaction process. Simmel also developed
formal sociology, an approach that focuses attention on the universal social forms
that underlie social interaction. He referred to these forms as the “geometry of
social life.”
According to the sociologist Georg Simmel, society is a web of patterned interactions among people. If
we focus on the behavior of individuals only, we miss the underlying forms that make up the “geometry
of social life.”

Like the other social thinkers of his day, Simmel analyzed the impact of
industrialization and urbanization on people’s lives. He concluded that class
conflict was becoming more pronounced in modern industrial societies. He also
linked the increase in individualism, as opposed to concern for the group, to the fact
that people now had many cross-cutting “social spheres”—membership in a number
of organizations and voluntary associations—rather than the singular community
ties of the past.
Simmel’s contributions to sociology are significant. He wrote more than thirty
books and numerous essays on diverse topics, leading some critics to state that his
work is fragmentary and piecemeal. However, his thinking has influenced a wide
array of sociologists, including the members of the “Chicago School” in the United
States.

The Beginnings of Sociology in the United


States
From Western Europe, sociology spread in the 1890s to the United States, where it
thrived as a result of the intellectual climate and the rapid rate of social change. The
first departments of sociology in the United States were located at the University of
Chicago and at Atlanta University, then an African American school.
The Chicago School
The first department of sociology in the United States was established at the
University of Chicago, where the faculty was instrumental in starting the American
Sociological Society (now known as the American Sociological Association).
Robert E. Park (1864–1944), a member of the Chicago faculty, asserted that
urbanization has a disintegrating influence on social life by producing an increase
in the crime rate and in racial and class antagonisms that contribute to the
segregation and isolation of neighborhoods (Ross, 1991). George Herbert Mead
(1863–1931), another member of the faculty at Chicago, founded the symbolic
interaction perspective, which is discussed later in this chapter.
Jane Addams
Jane Addams (1860–1935) is one of the best-known early women sociologists in
the United States because she founded Hull House, one of the most famous
settlement houses, in an impoverished area of Chicago (Figure 1.9). Throughout her
career, she was actively engaged in sociological endeavors: She lectured at
numerous colleges, was a charter member of the American Sociological Society,
and published a number of articles and books. Addams was one of the authors of
Hull-House Maps and Papers, a ground-breaking book that used a methodological
technique employed by sociologists for the next forty years. She was also awarded
a Nobel Prize for her assistance to the underprivileged.
W. E. B. DU Bois and Atlanta University
The second department of sociology in the United States was founded by W. E. B.
Du Bois (1868–1963) at Atlanta University (Figure 1.10). He created a laboratory
of sociology, instituted a program of systematic research, founded and conducted
regular sociological conferences on research, founded two journals, and established
a record of valuable publications. His classic work, The Philadelphia Negro: A
Social Study (1967/1899), was based on his research into Philadelphia’s African
American community and stressed the strengths and weaknesses of a community
wrestling with overwhelming social problems. Du Bois was one of the first scholars
to note that a dual heritage creates conflict for people of color. He called this
duality double-consciousness—the identity conflict of being both a black and an
American. Du Bois pointed out that although people in this country espouse such
values as democracy, freedom, and equality, they also accept racism and group
discrimination. African Americans are the victims of these conflicting values and
the actions that result from them.

Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives


LO5
Given the many and varied ideas and trends that influenced the development of
sociology, how do contemporary sociologists view society? Some see it as basically
a stable and ongoing entity; others view it in terms of many groups competing for
scarce resources; still others describe it based on the everyday, routine interactions
among individuals. Each of these views represents a method of examining the same
phenomena. Each is based on general ideas about how social life is organized and
represents an effort to link specific observations in a meaningful way. Each uses a
theory—a set of logically interrelated statements that attempts to describe,
explain, and (occasionally) predict social events. Each theory helps interpret
reality in a distinct way by providing a framework in which observations may be
logically ordered. Sociologists refer to this theoretical framework as a
perspective—an overall approach to or viewpoint on some subject. Three major
theoretical perspectives have been predominant in U.S. sociology: the functionalist,
conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives. Other perspectives, such as
postmodernism, have emerged and gained acceptance among some social thinkers
more recently. Before turning to the specifics of these perspectives, we should note
that some theorists and theories do not fit neatly into any of these perspectives.
Functionalist Perspectives
Also known as functionalism and structural functionalism, functionalist
perspectives are based on the assumption that society is a stable, orderly
system. This stable system is characterized by societal consensus, whereby the
majority of members share a common set of values, beliefs, and behavioral
expectations. According to this perspective, a society is composed of interrelated
parts, each of which serves a function and (ideally) contributes to the overall
stability of the society. Societies develop social structures, or institutions, that
persist because they play a part in helping society survive. These institutions
include the family, education, government, religion, and the economy. If anything
adverse happens to one of these institutions or parts, all other parts are affected, and
the system no longer functions properly.
Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton
Talcott Parsons (1902–1979), perhaps the most influential contemporary advocate
of the functionalist perspective, stressed that all societies must meet social needs in
order to survive. Parsons (1955) suggested, for example, that a division of labor
(distinct, specialized functions) between husband and wife is essential for family
stability and social order. The husband/father performs the instrumental tasks,
which involve leadership and decision-making responsibilities in the home and
employment outside the home to support the family. The wife/mother is responsible
for the expressive tasks, including housework, caring for the children, and
providing emotional support for the entire family. Parsons believed that other
institutions, including school, church, and government, must function to assist the
family and that all institutions must work together to preserve the system over time
(Parsons, 1955).
Functionalism was refined further by Robert K. Merton (1910–2003), who
distinguished between manifest and latent functions of social institutions (Figure
1.11). Manifest functions are intended and/or overtly recognized by the
participants in a social unit. In contrast, latent functions are unintended
functions that are hidden and remain unacknowledged by participants (Figure
1.12). For example, a manifest function of education is the transmission of
knowledge and skills from one generation to the next; a latent function is the
establishment of social relations and networks. Merton noted that all features of a
social system may not be functional at all times; dysfunctions are the undesirable
consequences of any element of a society. A dysfunction of education in the United
States is the perpetuation of gender, racial, and class inequalities. Such dysfunctions
may threaten the capacity of a society to adapt and survive.
Shopping malls are a reflection of a consumer society. A manifest function of a shopping mall is to sell
goods and services to shoppers; however, a latent function may be to provide a communal area in which
people can visit friends and enjoy an event.

Applying a Functionalist Perspective to Suicide


Functionalism emphasizes the importance to a society of shared moral values and
strong social bonds. It also highlights the significance of social support from others.
When rapid social change or other disruptive conditions occur, moral values may
erode, and people may become more uncertain about how to act and about whether
or not their life has meaning. Social disruption and war are events that produce such
feelings of anomie and suicidal ideation—suicidal thoughts or an unusual
preoccupation with suicide.
One study that examined the functions of social support in reducing or preventing
suicidal ideation in Air Force personnel during U.S. combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan identified various forms of social support and found that all were not
equally important protective factors against suicidal thoughts or actions on the part
of military personnel. One form of social support is belonging, or companionship
support, where we feel like we belong or fit in with others. Tangible support
involves material issues, such as having someone willing to lend money or provide
assistance with specific tasks. Appraisal support refers to someone providing useful
information that helps us evaluate our situation and provide emotional validation
for our thoughts and feelings. Esteem support involves having other people show a
concern for our well-being or express confidence in us and our ability to overcome
the problems we face. Of these four types of social support, the researchers found
that esteem support was the most important factor in whether the Air Force
personnel in their study had experienced severe suicidal ideation (Bryan and
Hernandez, 2013).

Conflict Perspectives
According to conflict perspectives, groups in society are engaged in a
continuous power struggle for control of scarce resources. Conflict may take the
form of politics, litigation, negotiations, or family discussions about financial
matters. Simmel, Marx, and Weber contributed significantly to this perspective by
focusing on the inevitability of clashes between social groups. Today, advocates of
the conflict perspective view social life as a continuous power struggle among
competing social groups.
Max Weber and C. Wright Mills
As previously discussed, Karl Marx focused on the exploitation and oppression of
the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Max Weber recognized the importance of
economic conditions in producing inequality and conflict in society, but he added
power and prestige as other sources of inequality. Weber (1968/1922) defined
power as the ability of a person within a social relationship to carry out his or her
own will despite resistance from others, and prestige as a positive or negative social
estimation of honor (Weber, 1968/1922) (Figure 1.13).
As one of the wealthiest and most-beloved entertainers in the world, Oprah Winfrey is an example of Max
Weber’s concept of prestige—a positive estimate of honor. In 2011 Ms. Winfrey moved beyond her very
popular television show and started a cable channel, OWN.

C. Wright Mills (1916–1962), a key figure in the development of contemporary


conflict theory, encouraged sociologists to get involved in social reform. Mills
encouraged everyone to look beneath everyday events in order to observe the major
resource and power inequalities that exist in society. He believed that the most
important decisions in the United States are made largely behind the scenes by the
power elite—a small clique of top corporate, political, and military officials. Mills’s
power elite theory is discussed in Chapter 13 (“Politics and the Economy in Global
Perspective”).
The conflict perspective is not one unified theory but one with several branches.
One branch is the neo-Marxist approach, which views struggle between the classes
as inevitable and as a prime source of social change. A second branch focuses on
racial–ethnic inequalities and the continued exploitation of members of some
racial–ethnic groups. A third branch is the feminist perspective, which focuses on
gender issues.
The Feminist Approach
A feminist theoretical approach (or “feminism”) directs attention to women’s
experiences and the importance of gender as an element of social structure. This
approach is based on a belief in the equality of women and men and the idea that all
people should be equally valued and have equal rights. According to feminist
theorists, we live in a patriarchy, a system in which men dominate women and in
which things that are considered to be “male” or “masculine” are more highly
valued than those considered to be “female” or “feminine.” The feminist
perspective assumes that gender is socially created and that change is essential in
order for people to achieve their human potential without limits based on gender.
Some feminists argue that women’s subordination can end only after the patriarchal
system becomes obsolete. However, feminism is not one single, unified approach;
there are several feminist perspectives, which are discussed in Chapter 10 (“Sex,
Gender, and Sexuality”).
Applying Conflict Perspectives to Suicide
How might we use a conflict approach to explain suicide?
Social Class Although many other factors may be present, social class
pressures may affect rates of suicide among young people from lower-income
families when they perceive that they have few educational or employment
opportunities and little hope for the future. However, class-based inequality alone
cannot explain suicides among young people.
Gender In North America, females are more likely to attempt suicide, whereas
males are more likely to actually take their own life. Despite the fact that women’s
suicidal behavior has traditionally been attributed to problems in their interpersonal
relationships, feminist analysts believe that we must examine social structural
pressures on young women and how these may contribute to their behavior—for
example, cultural assumptions about women and what their multiple roles should be
in the family, education, and the workplace.
Race/Ethnicity Racial and ethnic subordination may be a factor in some
suicides. (Figure 1.14 displays U.S. suicides in terms of race and sex.) This fact is
most glaringly reflected in the extremely high rate of suicide among Native
Americans, who constitute about 1 percent of the U.S. population. On reservations
in the Northern Plains (in states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,
Montana, Wyoming, and Utah), parts of the Southwest, and in Alaska, Native
American teens and young adults have suicide rates that are more than three times
as high as those for other youths in the United States. Although some research has
focused on individualistic reasons why young Native Americans commit suicide,
sociologists focus on the effects of social inequalities and racial–ethnic
discrimination on suicidal behavior. For example, many Native American young
people reside in homes and communities characterized by extreme poverty, hunger,
alcoholism, substance abuse, and family violence (Woodard, 2012).
Figure 1.14Suicide Rates by Race and Sex
Rates are for U.S. suicides and indicate the number of deaths by suicide for every 100,000 people in each
category for 2010 (the latest year for which data are available).
Symbolic Interactionist Perspectives
The conflict and functionalist perspectives have been criticized for focusing
primarily on macrolevel analysis. A macrolevel analysis examines whole
societies, large-scale social structures, and social systems instead of looking at
important social dynamics in individuals’ lives. Our third perspective, symbolic
interactionism, fills this void by examining people’s day-to-day interactions and
their behavior in groups. Thus, symbolic interactionist approaches are based on a
microlevel analysis, which focuses on small groups rather than large-scale
social structures.
We can trace the origins of this perspective to the Chicago School, especially
George Herbert Mead and the sociologist Herbert Blumer (1900–1986), who is
credited with coining the term symbolic interactionism. According to symbolic
interactionist perspectives, society is the sum of the interactions of individuals
and groups. Theorists using this perspective focus on the process of interaction—
defined as immediate reciprocally oriented communication between two or more
people—and the part that symbols play in communication. A symbol is anything
that meaningfully represents something else. Examples include signs, gestures,
written language, and shared values. Symbolic interaction occurs when people
communicate through the use of symbols—for example, a ring to indicate a
couple’s engagement. But symbolic communication occurs in a variety of forms,
including facial gestures, posture, tone of voice, and other symbolic gestures (such
as a handshake or a clenched fist).
Symbols are instrumental in helping people derive meanings from social
interactions. In social encounters, each person’s interpretation or definition of a
given situation becomes a subjective reality from that person’s viewpoint. We often
assume that what we consider to be “reality” is shared by others; however, this
assumption is often incorrect. Subjective reality is acquired and shared through
agreed-upon symbols, especially language. If a person shouts “Fire!” in a crowded
movie theater, for example, that language produces the same response (attempting
to escape) in all of those who hear and understand it. When people in a group do
not share the same meaning for a given symbol, however, confusion results: People
who do not know the meaning of the word fire will not know what the commotion
is about. How people interpret the messages they receive and the situations they
encounter becomes their subjective reality and may strongly influence their
behavior.
Applying Symbolic Interactionist Perspectives to
Suicide
Social analysts applying a symbolic interactionist framework to the study of suicide
focus on a microlevel analysis of the people’s face-to-face interactions and the roles
they play in society. We define situations according to our own subjective reality.
From this point of view, a suicide attempt may be a way of garnering attention—a
call for help—rather than wanting to end one’s life. People may attempt to
communicate in such desperate ways because other forms of communication have
failed.

Postmodern Perspectives
According to postmodern perspectives, existing theories have been unsuccessful
in explaining social life in contemporary societies that are characterized by
postindustrialization, consumerism, and global communications. Postmodern
social theorists reject the theoretical perspectives we have previously discussed, as
well as how those theories were created (Ritzer, 2011).
Postmodern theories are based on the assumption that large-scale and rapid social
change, globalization, and technology are central features in the postmodern era.
Moreover, these conditions tend to have a harmful effect on people because they
often result in ambiguity and chaos. One evident change is a significant decline in
the influence of social institutions such as the family, religion, and education on
people’s lives. Those who live in postmodern societies typically pursue individual
freedom and do not want the structural constraints that are imposed by social
institutions. As social inequality and class differences increase, people are exposed
to higher levels of stress that produce depression, fear, and ambivalence. Problems
such as these are found in nations throughout the world.
Postmodern (or “postindustrial”) societies are characterized by an information
explosion and an economy in which large numbers of people either provide or
apply information, or are employed in professional occupations (such as attorneys
and physicians) or service jobs (such as fast-food servers and health care workers).
There is a corresponding rise of a consumer society and the emergence of a global
village in which people around the world instantly communicate with one another.
Jean Baudrillard, a well-known French social theorist, has extensively explored
how the shift from production of goods to consumption of information, services,
and products has created a new form of social control. According to Baudrillard’s
approach, capitalists strive to control people’s shopping habits, much like the
output of factory workers in industrial economies, to enhance their profits and to
keep everyday people from rebelling against social inequality (1998/1970). How
does this work? When consumers are encouraged to purchase more than they need
or can afford, they often sink deeper in debt and must keep working to meet their
monthly payments. Consumption comes to be based on factors such as our “wants”
and our need to distinguish ourselves from others. We will return to Baudrillard’s
general ideas on postmodern societies in Chapter 2 (“Culture”).
Postmodern theory opens up broad new avenues of inquiry by challenging existing
perspectives and questioning current belief systems. However, postmodern theory
has also been criticized for raising more questions than it answers.
Applying Postmodern Perspectives to Suicide
Although most postmodern social theorists have not addressed suicide as a social
issue, some sociologists believe that postmodern theory can help us because it
reminds us that social life is made up of real people with self-identities and lived
experiences to share with others. Behind the groups, organizations, classes, and
political parties that social scientists study are human beings who participate in the
social construction of everyday life.
Looked at from this perspective, the relationship between suicide and race is
important to consider. Although youths across ethnic categories share certain risk
factors for suicide, young African American and Native American males appear to
be at greater risk for suicide because people in this statistical category lack
educational and employment opportunities. This problem is combined with other
concerns, such as the systemic oppression that persons of color have experienced
throughout U.S. history. In other words, the personal biographies of individuals are
intertwined with the social worlds that they and others have helped create.
Each of the four sociological perspectives we have examined involves different
assumptions. Consequently, each leads us to ask different questions and to view the
world somewhat differently. Concept Quick Review 1 summarizes all four of these
perspectives. Throughout this book, we will be using these perspectives as lenses
through which to view our social world.
Concept Quick Review 1
The Major Theoretical Perspectives
Perspective Analysis Level View of Society

Functionalist Macrolevel Society is composed of interrelated parts that work together to


maintain stability within society. This stability is threatened by
dysfunctional acts and institutions.

Conflict Macrolevel Society is characterized by social inequality; social life is a


struggle for scarce resources. Social arrangements benefit some
groups at the expense of others.

Symbolic Microlevel Society is the sum of the interactions of people and groups.
Interactionist Behavior is learned in interaction with other people; how people
define a situation becomes the foundation for how they behave.

Postmodernist Macrolevel/Microlevel Societies characterized by postindustrialization, consumerism, and


global communication bring into question existing assumptions
about social life and the nature of reality.

The Sociological Research Process


LO6
Most of us rely on our own experiences and personal knowledge to help us form
ideas about what happens in everyday life and how the social world works.
However, there are many occasions when this personal knowledge is not enough.
This is why sociologists and other social scientists learn to question ordinary
assumptions and to use specific research methods to find out more about the social
world. As a result, sociology involves debunking—the unmasking of fallacies in
everyday interpretations of social life—through research.
Research is the process of systematically collecting information for the purpose of
testing an existing theory or generating a new one. What is the relationship between
sociological theory and research? This relationship has been
referred to as a continuous cycle, as shown in Figure 1.15
(Wallace, 1971).
Figure 1.15The Theory and Research Cycle
The theory and research cycle can be compared to a relay race;
although all participants do not necessarily start or stop at the same
point, they share a common goal—to examine all levels of social life.

Not all sociologists conduct research in the same manner.


Some researchers primarily engage in quantitative research,
whereas others engage in qualitative research. With
quantitative research, the goal is scientific objectivity,
and the focus is on data that can be measured
numerically. Quantitative research typically emphasizes
complex statistical techniques. Most sociological studies on
suicide have used quantitative research. They have compared rates of suicide with
almost every conceivable variable, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and
even sports participation. For example, in one quantitative study, researchers found
that Latinos/as (Hispanics) consistently had lower suicide rates than whites (non-
Hispanics), particularly when they remained strongly attached to others in their own
culture. Latinos/as who maintained shared belief systems, rituals, and social
networks of friends and relatives that provided them with strong communities and
intense feelings of group solidarity were much less likely to commit suicide, much
as Durkheim had predicted (Wadsworth and Kubrin, 2007). However, the study
also found that just as cultural assimilation (adopting another culture and leaving
one’s own culture behind) increases the rate of suicide for Hispanics, having higher
income and social standing decreases the rate of suicide (Wadsworth and Kubrin,
2007). In quantitative research, these data are reported in a series of tables that
summarize the findings of the researchers. (“Understanding Statistical Data
Presentations” explains how to read numerical tables and how to interpret the data
and draw conclusions.)
With qualitative research, interpretive descriptions (words) rather than
statistics (numbers) are used to analyze underlying meanings and patterns of
social relationships. An example of qualitative research is a study in which the
researchers systematically analyzed the contents of suicide notes to look for
recurring themes (such as feelings of despair or failure) to determine if any patterns
could be found that would help in understanding why people kill themselves
(Leenaars, 1988).
The Quantitative Research Model

LO7Distinguish between quantitative and qualitative research, and identify the steps in each method.

Research models are tailored to the specific problem being investigated and the focus of the researcher. Both quantitative
research and qualitative research contribute to our knowledge of society and human social interaction, and involve a series
of steps, as shown in Figure 1.16. We will now trace
the steps in the “conventional” research model,
which focuses on quantitative research. Then we
will describe an alternative model that emphasizes
qualitative research.
Figure 1.16 Steps in Sociological
Research

Statistical Data Presentations

Are young males or females more likely to die


violently? How do homicide, suicide, and firearm
death rates (per 100,000 population) compare for
males and females ages 15 to 19 in the United
States? Sociologists use statistical tables as a
concise way to present data in a relatively small
space; Table 1.1 gives an example. To understand a
table, follow these steps:

1. Read the title. From the title, “Rates (per


100,000 U.S. Population) for Homicide, Suicide,
and Firearm-Related Deaths of Youths Ages 15–19,
by Gender, 2009,” we learn that the table shows
relationships between two variables: gender and three causes of violent deaths among young people in a specific
age category.
2. Check the source and other explanatory notes. In this case, the sources are the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2012e (“Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System [WISQARS]”), a source that
makes it possible for researchers to put in online inquiries for specific information from the CDC’s database, and
Child Trends Data Bank (2012), a data bank provided by a nonprofit research and policy center that reports on
issues pertaining to children and young people. The explanatory note in this table states that firearm deaths,
which constitute a majority of teen homicides and suicides, may also include accidental deaths that are firearm
related. This distinction is made in Table 1.1 because it is possible for firearm-related deaths to occur
accidentally; however, firearms were the method of death in 84 percent of teen homicides and 44 percent of teen
suicides in 2009.
3. Read the headings for each column and each row. The main column headings in the table are “Method,”
“Males,” and “Females.” The columns present information (usually numbers) arranged vertically. The rows
present information horizontally. Here, the row headings indicate homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death.
Based on the explanation above regarding firearm-related deaths, we know that some overlap exists between the
first two categories—homicide and suicide—and the third, deaths that are firearm related.
4. Examine and compare the data. To examine the data, determine what units of measurement have been used. In
Table 1.1 the figures are rates per 100,000 males or females in a specific age category. For example, the suicide
rate is 12.0 per 100,000 population of males between the ages of 15 and 19 as compared with only 3.3 per
100,000 population of females in the same age category.
5. Draw conclusions. By looking for patterns, some conclusions can be drawn from Table 1.1:
1. Determining differences by gender. Males between the ages of 15 and 19 are about four times more
likely than females to die from suicide (12.0 compared with 3.3 per 100,000). Males in this age
category are almost six times more likely to die from homicide (14.9 compared with 2.6 per 100,000).
And even more noteworthy, males are eight times more likely to die from a firearm-related incident
(either intentional or unintentional) than females of this age. As shown in the table, 19.9 per 100,000
males ages 15 to 19 died by firearms in 2009, compared with 2.5 per 100,000 females in that same age
category.
2. Drawing appropriate conclusions. Although the rate of teen suicides has been relatively stable
(between 7 and 8 per 100,000) over the past decade, important differences by gender exist. Males
between the ages of 15 and 19 are much more likely than females in their age category to die violently,
and many of those deaths are firearm related.
Table 1.1
Rates (Per 100,000 U.S. Population) for Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Deaths of Youths Ages
15–19, by Gender, 2009
Method Males Females
Homicide 14.9 2.6
Suicide 12.0 3.3
Firearm-Related Death 19.9 2.5
Sources: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012e (“Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System
[WISQARS]”); and Child Trends Data Bank, 2012.

1. Select and define the research problem. Sometimes, a specific experience such as knowing someone who
committed suicide can trigger your interest in a topic. Other times, you might select topics to fill gaps or
challenge misconceptions in existing research or to test a specific theory (Babbie, 2013). Emile Durkheim
selected suicide because he wanted to demonstrate the importance of society in situations that might appear to be
arbitrary acts by individuals. Suicide was a suitable topic because it was widely believed that suicide was a
uniquely individualistic act. However, Durkheim emphasized that suicide rates provide better explanations for
suicide than do individual acts of suicide. He reasoned that if suicide were purely an individual act, then the rate
of suicide (the number of people who kill themselves in a given year) should be the same for every group
regardless of culture and social structure. Moreover, Durkheim wanted to know why there were different rates of
suicide—whether factors such as religion, marital status, sex, and age had an effect on social cohesion.
2. Review previous research. Before beginning the research, it is important to analyze what others have written
about the topic. You should determine where gaps exist and note mistakes to avoid. When Durkheim began his
study, very little sociological literature existed to review; however, he studied the works of several moral
philosophers, including Henry Morselli (1975/1881).
3. Formulate the hypothesis (if applicable). You may formulate a hypothesishypothesisa statement of the

expected relationship between two or more variables. hypothesis a statement of the expected

relationship between two or more variables. —a statement of the expected relationship

between two or more variables. A variablevariableany concept with measurable traits or characteristics

that can change or vary from one person, time, situation, or society to another. variable any

concept with measurable traits or characteristics that can change or vary from one

person, time, situation, or society to another. is any concept with measurable traits or

characteristics that can change or vary from one person, time, situation, or society to another. The most
fundamental relationship in a hypothesis is between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables
(see Figure 1.17). The independent variableindependent variablein an experiment, the variable assumed to

be the cause of the relationship between variables. independent variable in an experiment, the

variable assumed to be the cause of the relationship between variables. is presumed to be

the cause of the relationship; the dependent variabledependent variablein an experiment, the variable

assumed to be caused by the independent variable(s). dependent variable in an experiment, the

variable assumed to be caused by the independent variable(s). is assumed to be caused by

the independent variable(s) (Babbie, 2013). Durkheim’s hypothesis stated that the rate of suicide varies
inversely with the degree of social integration. In other words, a low degree of social integration (the independent
variable)
Figure may
1.17 “cause” or “be related
Hypothesized to” a high ratebetween
Relationships of suicide (the dependent variable).
Variables

A causal hypothesis connects one or more independent (causal) variables with a dependent (affected) variable.
The diagram illustrates three hypotheses about the causes of suicide. To test these hypotheses, social scientists
would need to operationalize the variables (define them in measurable terms) and then investigate whether the
data support the proposed explanation.
Not all social research uses hypotheses. If you plan to conduct an explanatory study (showing a cause-and-effect
relationship), you will likely want to formulate one or more hypotheses to test theories. If you plan to conduct a
descriptive study, however, you will be less likely to do so because you may desire only to describe social reality
or provide facts.

4. Develop the research design. You must determine the unit of analysis to be used in the study. A unit of analysis
is what or whom is being studied (Babbie, 2013). In social science research, individuals, social groups (such as
families, cities, or geographic regions), organizations (such as clubs, labor unions, or political parties), and social
artifacts (such as books, paintings, or weddings) may be units of analysis. As mentioned, Durkheim’s unit of
analysis was social groups, not individuals.
5. Collect and analyze the data. You must decide what population will be observed or questioned and then carefully
select a sample. A sample is the people who are selected from the population to be studied; the sample should
accurately represent the larger population. A representative sample is a selection from a larger population that
has the essential characteristics of the total population. For example, if you interviewed five students selected
haphazardly from your sociology class, they would not be representative of your school’s student body. By
contrast, if you selected five students from the student body by a random sample, they would be closer to being
representative (although a random sample of five students would be too small to yield much useful data).

Validity and reliability may be problems in research. ValidityValiditythe extent to which a study or research

instrument accurately measures what it is supposed to measure. Validity the extent to which a

study or research instrument accurately measures what it is supposed to measure. is the

extent to which a study or research instrument accurately measures what it is supposed to measure. A
recurring issue in studies that analyze the relationship between religious beliefs and suicide is whether “church
membership” is a valid indicator of a person’s religious beliefs. In fact, one person may be very religious yet not
belong to a specific church, whereas another person may be a member of a church yet not hold very deep
religious beliefs. ReliabilityReliabilitythe extent to which a study or research instrument yields consistent
results when applied to different individuals at one time or to the same individuals over
time. Reliability the extent to which a study or research instrument yields consistent

results when applied to different individuals at one time or to the same individuals over

time. is the extent to which a study or research instrument yields consistent results when applied to

different individuals at one time or to the same individuals over time. Sociologists have found that different
interviewers get different answers from the people being interviewed. For example, how might the interviewers
themselves influence interviews with college students who have contemplated suicide?

Once you have collected your data, the data must be analyzed. Analysis is the process through which data are
organized so that comparisons can be made and conclusions drawn. Sociologists use many techniques to analyze
data. For his study of suicide, Durkheim collected data from vital statistics for approximately 26,000 suicides. He
classified them separately according to age, sex, marital status, presence or absence of children in the family,
religion, geographic location, calendar date, method of suicide, and a number of other variables. As Durkheim
analyzed his data, four distinct categories of suicide emerged: egoistic, altruistic, anomic, and fatalistic. Egoistic
suicide occurs among people who are isolated from any social group. For example, Durkheim concluded that
suicide rates were relatively high in Protestant countries in Europe because Protestants believed in individualism
and were more loosely tied to the church than were Catholics. Single people had proportionately higher suicide
rates than married persons because they had a low degree of social integration, which contributed to their
loneliness. In contrast, altruistic suicide occurs among individuals who are excessively integrated into society.
An example is military leaders who kill themselves after defeat in battle because they have so strongly identified
themselves with their cause that they believe they cannot live with defeat. Today, other factors such as extended
periods of military service or lengthy wars may also contribute to relatively high rates of suicide among U.S.
military personnel (see “Sociology and Social Policy”). According to Durkheim, people are more likely to
commit suicide when social cohesion is either very weak or very strong, and/or when nations experience rapid
social change.

Sociology and Social Policy

Establishing Policies to Help Prevent Military Suicides

Grandpa, I just wanted to give you my thanks for being a great influence in my life.

—Marine Corporal Daniel O’Brien, who completed two tours of duty in Iraq, sent a note containing this statement to his
grandfather prior to taking his own life (qtd. in Roberts, 2011).

We think that we are seeing a societal problem [in regard to suicides by military personnel], and frankly the
Army is the canary in the mine shaft here.

—General Ray Carpenter, commander of the Army National Guard, discussing how the incidence of suicide has continued to
be a problem in most branches of the U.S. military (qtd. in Roberts, 2011)

Suicide is a problem nationwide, but it has grown as a special problem in the military, where it is now the
number-two cause of death (after combat) of U.S. service members (Bumiller, 2012). Pentagon figures show that
suicides among troops occur on average once a day and that there have been increases among active-duty
members in all the services except the Navy. It is estimated that since 2001, more than 2,500 active-duty service
members have taken their own lives (Zoroya, 2012).

Shocked by relatively high rates of both suicide and suicide attempts among military service members, the U.S.
Department of Defense and the executive branch of the U.S. government have encouraged all branches of the
military to learn more about the sociological causes of suicide and to develop comprehensive suicide-prevention
initiatives to help reduce the problem and support military service members around the globe. A 2012 executive
order, “Improving Access to Mental Health for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families,” set forth
initiatives designed to improve mental health resources and intervention tools, such as increasing the number of
crisis lines, peer-to-peer counselors, and mental health professionals available to service members and veterans.
More recently, Facebook has become a tool for helping with posttraumatic stress, depression, and mental illness.
The Durkheim Project (named for sociologist Emile Durkheim) combines Facebook, the Department of Defense,
and the Department of Veterans Affairs in an effort to help veterans in distress. Those who voluntarily install an
app on their digital devices get help from other military personnel if they post messages containing expressions
of hopelessness, sleeplessness, or feelings of isolation (Basu, 2013).

What unique social conditions do military personnel face that might contribute to suicide or other conditions
such as depression and alcoholism?

Clearly, a variety of sociological issues are central in dealing with suicidal ideation and behavior in the military.
In the words of a U.S. Army (2012: 51) report,

Each potential suicide or attempted suicide is different with respect to contributing factors and triggering events.
Each victim responds differently to pre-suicide stressors based on protective factors such as personal resilience,
coping skills, and whether or not they are help-seeking.…

Studies are being conducted to gain a better understanding of why suicides are happening and what might be
done to prevent this pressing problem. Although no single cause can be identified for suicide, factors such as
financial worries, relationship issues, legal trouble, substance abuse, medical problems, and posttraumatic stress
are all thought to be associated with suicidal behavior among military personnel. Perhaps greater awareness and
new social policies being implemented by the military will help reduce this problem in the future.

Reporting the findings is the final stage. The report generally includes a review of each step taken in the research
process in order to make the study available for replication—the repetition of the investigation in substantially
the same way that it was originally conducted. Social scientists generally present their findings in papers at
professional meetings and publish them in technical journals and books. In reporting his findings in Suicide
(1964b/1897), Durkheim concluded that the suicide rate of a group is a social fact that cannot be explained in
terms of the personality traits of individuals. Instead, his findings suggested that social conditions in a society are
a more significant influence on rates of suicide.

We have traced the steps in the “conventional” research process (based on deduction and quantitative research). But what
steps might be taken in an alternative approach based on induction and qualitative research?

A Qualitative Research Model


Although the same underlying logic is involved in both quantitative and qualitative
sociological research, the styles of these two models are very different. Qualitative
research is more likely to be used when the research question does not easily lend
itself to numbers and statistical methods. As compared to a quantitative model, a
qualitative approach often involves a different type of research question and a
smaller number of cases. Researchers using a qualitative approach may engage in
problem formulation to clarify the research question and to formulate questions of
concern and interest to people participating in the research.
In a qualitative approach, reviewing the literature and developing the research
design often happen simultaneously. Typically, the next step is collecting and
analyzing data to assess the validity of the starting proposition. Data gathering is
the foundation of the research. Researchers pursuing a qualitative approach tend to
gather data in natural settings, such as where the person lives or works, rather than
in a laboratory or other research setting. Data collection and analysis frequently
occur concurrently, and the analysis draws heavily on the language of the persons
studied, not the researcher. Additional review of the literature may occur later in the
process after data have been gathered and further insights are needed to help
describe, explain, or make predictions from the data that have been analyzed.
Finally, the researchers draw conclusions from their research and report their
findings to others.
How would qualitative research work for the study of suicide? One Canadian study
examined suicide among twenty-two older men who had previously experienced
depression, and the study found important relationships between societal
expectations about masculinity, depression, and suicide (Oliffe et al., 2011). To find
out more about linkages between depression and suicide, researchers interviewed
the men to learn more about how cumulative losses had contributed to their
depression and lack of desire to live. The loss of social bonds, through deaths of
family members and friends, was a major factor in their depression and thoughts
about suicide. Other factors that contributed to their depression and suicidal
tendencies were feelings that they were a failure as a breadwinner and/or beliefs
that they had other shortcomings that their older age prevented them from
overcoming. However, the qualitative study revealed that many of the participants
would not commit suicide because of the stigma associated with this act and their
guilt about the pain this act would bring to their family and friends (Oliffe et al.,
2011).
From qualitative studies such as this one, we learn information that we might not
find when using quantitative research. We find answers to questions such as “why”
people might or might not engage in a specific behavior. Qualitative and
quantitative research methods are often used in combination with each other in a
research design to provide a more holistic view of the social world.
Research Methods
LO8
How do sociologists know which research method to use? Are some approaches
best for a particular problem? Research methods are specific strategies or
techniques for systematically conducting research. We will look at four of these
methods: survey research, secondary analysis of existing data, field research, and
experiments.

Survey Research
A survey is a poll in which the researcher gathers facts or attempts to
determine the relationships among facts. Surveys are the most widely used
research method in the social sciences because they make it possible to study things
that are not directly observable—such as people’s attitudes and beliefs—and to
describe a population too large to observe directly (Babbie, 2013) (Figure 1.18).
Researchers frequently select a representative sample from a larger population to
answer questions about attitudes, opinions, or behavior. Respondents are people
who provide data for analysis through interviews or questionnaires. The Gallup and
Harris polls are among the most widely known large-scale surveys; however,
government agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau conduct a variety of surveys
as well.
Conducting surveys and polls is an important means of gathering data from respondents. Some surveys
take place on street corners; increasingly, however, such surveys are done by telephone, Internet, and
other means.
Unlike many polls that use various methods of gaining a representative sample of
the larger population, the Census Bureau attempts to gain information from all
persons in the United States. The decennial census occurs every 10 years, in the
years ending in “0.” The purpose of this census is to count the population and
housing units of the entire nation. The population count determines how seats in the
U.S. House of Representatives are apportioned; however, census figures are also
used in formulating public policy and in planning and decision making in the
private sector. The Census Bureau attempts to survey the entire U.S. population by
using two forms—a “short form” of questions asked of all respondents, and a “long
form” that contains additional questions asked of a representative sample of about
one in six respondents. Statistics from the Census Bureau provide information that
sociologists use in their research. An example is shown in the Census Profiles
feature: “How People in the United States Self-Identify Regarding Race .” Note
that because of recent changes in the methods used to collect data by the Census
Bureau, information on race from the 2010 census is not directly comparable with
data from earlier censuses.
Types of Surveys
Survey data are collected by using self-administered questionnaires, face-to-face
interviews, and telephone or computer surveys. A questionnaire is a printed
research instrument containing a series of items to which subjects respond.
Items are often in the form of statements with which the respondent is asked to
“agree” or “disagree.” Questionnaires may be administered by interviewers in face-
to-face encounters or by telephone, but the most commonly used technique is the
self-administered questionnaire, which is either mailed to the respondent’s home or
administered to groups of respondents gathered at the same place at the same time.
For example, in a now-classic study of suicide, race, and religion, the sociologist
Kevin E. Early (1992) used survey data collected through questionnaires to test his
hypothesis that suicide rates are lower among African Americans than among white
Americans because of the influence of black churches. Data from questionnaires
filled out by members of six African American churches in Florida supported
Early’s hypothesis that the church buffers some African Americans against harsh
social forces—such as racism—that might otherwise lead to suicide.
Survey data may also be collected by interviews. An interview is a data-collection
encounter in which an interviewer asks the respondent questions and records
the answers. Survey research often uses structured interviews, in which the
interviewer asks questions from a standardized questionnaire. Structured interviews
tend to produce uniform or replicable data that can be elicited time after time by
different interviews. For example, in addition to surveying congregation members,
Early (1992) conducted interviews with pastors of African American churches to
determine the pastors’ opinions about the extent to which African American
churches reinforce values and beliefs that discourage suicide.
Interviews have specific advantages such as being more effective in dealing with
complicated issues and providing an opportunity for face-to-face communication
between the interviewer and the respondent. Although interviews provide a wide
variety of useful information, a major disadvantage is the cost and time involved in
conducting the interviews and analyzing the results.
A quicker method of administering questionnaires is the telephone or computer
survey. Telephone and computer surveys give greater control over data collection
and provide greater personal safety for respondents and researchers than do
personal encounters (Figure 1.19). In computer-assisted telephone interviewing
(sometimes called CATI), the interviewer uses a computer to dial random telephone
numbers, reads the questions shown on the video monitor to the respondent, and
then types the responses into the computer terminal. The answers are immediately
stored in the central computer, which automatically prepares them for data analysis.
However, the respondent must answer the phone before the interview can take
place, and many people screen their phone calls. In the past few years, online
survey research has increased dramatically as software packages and online survey
services have made this type of research easier to conduct. Online research makes it
possible to study virtual communities, online relationships, and other types of
computer-mediated communications networks around the world.
Computer-assisted telephone interviewing is an easy and cost-efficient method of conducting research.
However, the widespread use of answering machines, voice mail, and caller ID may make this form of
research more difficult in the twenty-first century.
Census Profiles
How People in the United States Self-Identify Regarding Race
Beginning with Census 2000 and continuing with Census 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau has made it
possible for people responding to census questions regarding their race to mark more than one racial
category. Although the vast majority of respondents select only one category (see below), the Census
Bureau reports that in 2003, approximately 4.3 million people (1.48 percent of the population) in the
United States self-identified as being of more than one race. As a result, if you look at the figures set forth
below, they total more than 100 percent of the total population. How can this be? Simply stated, some
individuals are counted at least twice, based on the number of racial categories they listed.
Race Percentage
of Total
Population

White alone or in combination with one 74.8


or more other races

African American alone or in 13.6


combination with one or more other races

Asian American alone or in combination 5.6


with one or more other races

Native American and Alaska Native alone 1.7


or in combination with one or more other
races

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific 0.4


Islander alone or in combination with one
or more other races

Some other race alone or in combination 7.0


with one or more other races
Survey research is useful in describing the characteristics of a large population
without having to interview each person in that population. In recent years,
computer technology has enhanced researchers’ ability to do multivariate
analysis—research involving more than two independent variables. For example, to
assess the influence of religion on suicidal behavior among African Americans, a
researcher might look at the effects of age, sex, income level, and other variables all
at once to determine which of these independent variables influences suicide the
most or least and how influential each variable is relative to the others. However, a
weakness of survey research is the use of standardized questions; this approach
tends to force respondents into categories in which they may or may not belong.
Moreover, survey research relies on self-reported information, and some people
may be less than truthful, particularly on emotionally charged issues such as
suicide.

Secondary Analysis of Existing Data


LO9
In secondary analysis, researchers use existing material and analyze data that
were originally collected by others. Existing data sources include public records,
official reports of organizations or government agencies, and raw data collected by
other researchers. For example, Durkheim used vital statistics (death records) that
were originally collected for other purposes to examine the relationship among
variables such as age, marital status, and the circumstances surrounding the
person’s suicide. Today, many researchers studying suicide use data compiled by
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Center
for Injury Prevention and Control. For example, look at Figure 1.20, “National
Suicide Statistics at a Glance ,” based on data compiled by the CDC, and try to
develop several plausible sociological explanations for why suicide rates are the
highest in the western and northwestern regions of the United States. Patterns of
high suicide rates are also reported among some counties in the central Midwest,
the South, and Central Florida. Can you provide an explanation of why rates might
be higher in these areas?
Figure 1.20National Suicide Statistics at a Glance
Age-adjusted suicide rate per 100,000 population per state, 2000–2006, United States.
Secondary analysis also includes content analysis—the systematic examination
of cultural artifacts or various forms of communication to extract thematic
data and draw conclusions about social life. Among the materials studied are
written records (such as books, diaries, poems, and graffiti), narratives and visual
texts (such as movies, television shows, advertisements, and greeting cards), and
material culture (such as music, art, and even garbage). In content analysis,
researchers look for regular patterns, such as the frequency of suicide as a topic on
television talk shows. They may also examine subject matter to determine how it
has been represented, such as how the mass media frame presentations of suicide
(see “Suicide in the Media”).
One strength of secondary analysis is that data are readily available and
inexpensive. Another is that because the researcher often does not collect the data
personally, the chances of bias may be reduced. In addition, the use of existing
sources makes it possible to analyze longitudinal data (things that take place over a
period of time or at several different points in time) to provide a historical context
within which to locate original research. However, secondary analysis has inherent
problems. For one thing, the researcher does not always know if the data are
incomplete, unauthentic, or inaccurate.

Field Research
Field research is the study of social life in its natural setting: observing and
interviewing people where they live, work, and play. Some kinds of behavior can
be best studied by “being there”; a fuller understanding can be developed through
observations, face-to-face discussions, and participation in events. Researchers use
these methods to generate qualitative data: observations that are best described
verbally rather than numerically.
Sociologists who are interested in observing social interaction as it occurs may use
participant observation—the process of collecting systematic observations
while being part of the activities of the group that the researcher is studying.
Participant observation generates more “inside” information than simply asking
questions or observing from the outside. For example, to learn more about how
coroners make a ruling of “suicide” in connection with a death and to analyze what
(if any) effect such a ruling has on the accuracy of “official” suicide statistics, the
sociologist Steve Taylor (1982) engaged in participant observation at a coroner’s
office over a six-month period. As he followed a number of cases from the initial
report of death through the various stages of investigation, Taylor learned that it
was important to “be around” so that he could listen to discussions and ask the
coroners questions because intuition and guesswork play a large part in some
decisions to rule a death as a suicide.
Another approach to field research is the ethnography—a detailed study of the
life and activities of a group of people by researchers who may live with that
group over a period of years. Unlike participant observation, ethnographic studies
usually take place over a longer period of time. For example, the sociologist Sudhir
Venkatesh (2013) conducted more than a decade of research on New York City’s
underground economy before writing his book Floating City: A Rogue Sociologist
Lost and Found in New York’s Underground Economy (Figure 1.21 and Figure
1.22). He observed and interviewed a wide array of people, many of whom were
involved in illegal transactions. Among his participants were poor immigrants, drug
bosses and dealers, prostitutes, businesspeople, socialites, and academics, all of
whom had their own stories to tell. Based on his extensive ethnographic research,
Venkatesh was able to describe in great detail how a vast underground economy
serves to unite the wealthy and poor in New York and other large cities.
Suicide in the Media
Reporting on Bullying and Suicide: A Cause-and-Effect Relationship?
The media offer us different vantage points from which to view a given social event based on how they
frame the information they provide to their audience. The term media framing refers to the process by
which information and entertainment are packaged by the mass media (newspapers, magazines, radio and
television stations and networks, the Internet, and various social media networks). For example, recurring
media stories about suicides among young people have focused on individuals such as Rebecca Ann
Sedwick (mentioned at the beginning of this chapter); Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old girl who moved to
Massachusetts from Ireland and killed herself after being bullied by high school classmates; and Amanda
Cummings, another 15-year-old who committed suicide after what her family referred to as relentless
bullying in New York. In the aftermath of these supposedly bullying-related suicides, media personnel
often have framed extensive—and sometimes sensationalized—stories based on what they consider to be
the “cause-and-effect” relationship between being bullied and committing suicide, especially among
young people.
However, a question has been raised by mental health professionals and suicide-prevention workers: Is
this the best way to inform media audiences about suicide, or is the framing of these stories far too
simplistic? According to one specialist at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, “Bullying is
so at the top of our consciousness that we’re bending over backwards to get it into the story. Years and
years of research has taught us that the overwhelming number of people who die by suicide had a
diagnosable mental disorder at the time of their death” (qtd. in Bindley, 2012). From this perspective,
other contributing factors, such as depression, family life, and the ending of a relationship, must also be
considered when writing about suicidal behavior. Sometimes bullying becomes the “easy” answer, and
we turn to it quickly because it is easy to understand, particularly when it is so often the focus of media
reports on suicide by young people.
Thinking sociologically, what problems exist in how the media frame stories about a social issue such as
bullying and suicide? As discussed in this chapter, the early sociologist Emile Durkheim believed that we
should view even seemingly individual actions—such as suicide—from a sociological perspective that
focuses on the part that social groups and societies play in patterns of behavior rather than focusing on
individuals. If we use a sociological approach to analyzing how the media frame stories about suicide,
here are three questions to consider:
 Do television and newspaper reports of suicides simplify the reasons for the suicide? The media often
report a final precipitating situation (such as a fight with a boyfriend or girlfriend, losing one’s job, or
being bullied) that distressed the individual prior to suicide but do not inform audiences that this was not
the only cause of this suicide.
 Are readers and viewers provided with repetitive, ongoing, and excessive reporting on a suicide?
Repeated sensationalistic framing of stories about suicide may contribute to suicide contagion. Some
people are more at risk because of age, stress, and/or other personal problems. For example, suicide
clusters (suicides occurring close together in time and location) are most common among people 15 to 24
years of age who may have learned details from the media. Do the media use dramatic photographs (such
as of the person committing suicide or of friends and family weeping and showing great emotion at the
victim’s funeral) primarily to sell papers or increase viewer ratings? Photographs and other sensational
material are potentially most damaging for people who have long-standing mental health problems or who
have limited social networks to provide them with hope, encouragement, and guidance.
The media frequently employ images when covering suicide. Do such images affect the way that you
perceive the event?

In our mass-mediated culture, many sociologists agree that the media do much more than simply mirror
society: The media help shape our society and our cultural perceptions on many issues, including
seemingly individual behavior such as suicide.

Experiments
An experiment is a carefully designed situation in which the researcher studies
the impact of certain variables on subjects’ attitudes or behavior. Experiments
are designed to create “real-life” situations, ideally under controlled circumstances,
in which the influence of different variables can be modified and measured.
Conventional experiments require that subjects be divided into two groups: an
experimental group and a control group. The experimental group contains the
subjects who are exposed to an independent variable (the experimental
condition) to study its effect on them. The control group contains the subjects
who are not exposed to the independent variable. For example, the sociologist
Arturo Biblarz and colleagues (1991) examined the effects of media violence and
depictions of suicide on attitudes toward suicide by showing one group of subjects
(an experimental group) a film about suicide, while a second (another experimental
group) saw a film about violence, and a third (the control group) saw a film
containing neither suicide nor violence. The research found some evidence that
people exposed to suicidal acts or violence in the media may be more likely to
demonstrate an emotional state favorable to suicidal behavior, particularly if they
are already “at risk” for suicide. If we were able to replicate this study today, do
you believe that we would find similar results? Why or why not?
Researchers may use experiments when they want to demonstrate that a cause-and-
effect relationship exists between variables, such as whether violent video games
cause an increase in violent tendencies in people who use them (Figure 1.23). In
order to show that a change in one variable causes a change in another, three
conditions must be satisfied:
 (1)
a correlation between the two variables must be shown to exist (correlation exists
when two variables are associated more frequently than could be expected by
chance),
 (2)
the independent variable must have occurred prior to the dependent variable, and
 (3)
any change in the dependent variable must not have been due to an extraneous
variable—one outside the stated hypothesis.
Do extremely violent video games cause an increase in violent tendencies in their users? Experiments are
one way to test a researcher’s hypothesis about this relationship.

The major advantage of an experiment is the researcher’s control over the


environment and the ability to isolate the experimental variable. Because many
experiments require relatively little time and money and can be conducted with
limited numbers of subjects, it is possible for researchers to replicate an experiment
several times by using different groups of subjects (Babbie, 2013). Perhaps the
greatest limitation of experiments is that they are artificial: Social processes that are
set up by researchers or that take place in a laboratory setting are often not the same
as real-life occurrences (see Concept Quick Review 2).
Concept Quick Review 2
Strengths and Weaknesses of Social Research Methods
Research Strengths Weaknesses
Method

Experiments Control over research Artificial by nature


(laboratory,
field, natural)

Ability to isolate Frequent reliance on volunteers or captive audiences


experimental factors

Relatively little time and Ethical questions of deception


money required

Replication possible,
except for natural
experiments

Survey Useful in describing Potentially forced answers


research features of a large
(questionnaire, population without
interview, interviewing everyone
telephone
survey)

Relatively large samples Respondent untruthfulness on emotional issues


possible

Multivariate analysis Data that are not always “hard facts” presented as such in
possible statistical analyses
Research Strengths Weaknesses
Method

Secondary Data often readily Difficulty in determining accuracy of some of the data
analysis of available, inexpensive to
existing data collect
(existing
statistics,
content
analysis)

Longitudinal and Failure of data gathered by others to meet goals of current


comparative studies research

Replication possible Questions of privacy when using diaries, other personal


documents

Field research Opportunity to gain Problems in generalizing results to a larger population


(participant insider’s view
observation,
case study,
ethnography,
unstructured)

Useful for studying Imprecise data measurements


attitudes and behavior in
natural settings

Longitudinal/comparative Inability to demonstrate cause/effect relationships or test


studies possible theories

Documentation of Difficult to make comparisons because of lack of structure


important social
problems of excluded
groups possible

Access to people’s ideas Not a representative sample


in their words

Forum for previously


excluded groups

Documentation of need
for social reform

Ethical Issues in Sociological Research


LO10
The study of people (“human subjects”) raises vital questions about ethical
concerns in sociological research. Researchers are required to obtain written
“informed consent” statements from the persons they study—but what constitutes
“informed consent”? And how do researchers protect the identity and
confidentiality of their sources?
The American Sociological Association (ASA) Code of Ethics (1999) sets forth
certain basic standards that sociologists must follow in conducting research. Among
these standards are the following:
1. Researchers must endeavor to maintain objectivity and integrity in their research by
disclosing their research findings in full and including all possible interpretations of
the data (even when these interpretations do not support their own viewpoints).
2. Researchers must safeguard the participants’ right to privacy and dignity while
protecting them from harm.
3. Researchers must protect confidential information provided by participants, even
when this information is not considered to be “privileged” (legally protected, as is
the case between doctor and patient and between attorney and client) and legal
pressure is applied to reveal this information.
4. Researchers must acknowledge research collaboration and assistance they receive
from others and disclose all sources of financial support.
Sociologists are obligated to adhere to this code and to protect research participants;
however, many ethical issues still arise. A now-classic study in sociology illustrates
this point. In the 1970s, sociologist William Zellner (1978) wanted to look at fatal
single-occupant automobile accidents to determine if some drivers were actually
committing suicide when they were involved in car crashes. To examine this issue
further, he sought to interview the family, friends, and acquaintances of persons
killed in single-car crashes to determine if the deaths were possibly intentional. To
recruit respondents, Zellner told them that he hoped the research would reduce the
number of automobile accidents in the future. He did not mention that he suspected
“autocide” might have occurred in the case of their friend or loved one. From his
data, Zellner concluded that at least 12 percent of the fatal single-occupant crashes
were suicides—and that these crashes sometimes also killed or critically injured
other people as well. However, Zellner’s research raised important research
questions: Was his research unethical? Did he misrepresent the reasons for his
study?
In the twenty-first century, other researchers have called attention to the ethics of
suicide research. These ethical problems include how to maintain the
confidentiality of research participants, as well as how to respond in a sensitive and
supportive manner to meet the needs of participants (Lakeman and Fitzgerald,
2009). When studies of suicides are conducted to provide better insights on how to
reduce rates of suicide, these ethical concerns are important in all stages of the
research process.
In this chapter we have looked at how theory and research work together to provide
us with insights on human behavior. Theory and research are the “lifeblood” of
sociology. Theory provides the framework for analysis; research provides
opportunities for us to use our sociological imagination to generate new knowledge.
Our challenge today is to find new ways of integrating knowledge and action and to
include all people in the theory and research process in order to help fill the gaps in
our existing knowledge about social life and how it is shaped by gender, race, class,
age, and the broader social and cultural context in which everyday life occurs.

Chapter Review
 LO1 What is sociology, and how can it help us understand others and ourselves?
o Sociology is the systematic study of human society and social interaction. We study sociology to
understand how human behavior is shaped by group life and, in turn, how individuals affect group life.
Our culture tends to emphasize individualism, and sociology pushes us to consider more-complex
connections between our personal lives and the larger world.
 LO2 What is meant by the sociological imagination, and how can we develop a global sociological
imagination?
o According to C. Wright Mills, the sociological imagination helps us understand how seemingly personal
troubles, such as suicide, are actually related to larger social forces. It is the ability to see the relationship
between individual experiences and the larger society. To develop a global sociological imagination, we
must reach beyond past studies that have focused primarily on the United States and seek to develop a
more comprehensive global approach. It is important to have a global sociological imagination because
the future of this nation is deeply intertwined with the future of all nations of the world on economic,
political, and humanitarian levels.
 LO3 What was the historical context in which sociological thinking developed, and why were many early
social thinkers concerned with social order and stability?
o The origins of sociological thinking as we know it today can be traced to the scientific revolution in the
late-seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and to the Age of Enlightenment. Industrialization and
urbanization increased rapidly in the late eighteenth century, and social thinkers began to examine the
consequences of these powerful forces. As a result of rapid social change in societies, early thinkers—
such as Auguste Comte, Harriet Martineau, Herbert Spencer, and Emile Durkheim—focused on social
order and stability, and many of their ideas had a dramatic influence on modern sociology. Comte coined
the term sociology to describe a new science that would engage in the study of society. Comte’s works
were made more accessible for a wide variety of scholars through the efforts of Martineau. Spencer’s
major contribution to sociology was an evolutionary perspective on social order and social change.
Durkheim argued that rapid social change produces strains in society and that the loss of shared values
and purpose can lead to a condition of anomie.
 LO4 Why were many later social thinkers concerned with social change?
o In sharp contrast to Durkheim’s focus on the stability of society, German economist and philosopher Karl
Marx stressed that history is a continuous clash between conflicting ideas and forces. He believed that
conflict—especially class conflict—is necessary in order to produce social change and a better society.
Although he disagreed with Marx’s idea that economics is the central force in social change, German
social scientist Max Weber acknowledged that economic interests are important in shaping human action.
Weber was particularly concerned with changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution and the
influences these changes had on human behavior. In particular, Weber was concerned that large-scale
organizations were becoming increasingly oriented toward routine administration and a specialized
division of labor, which he believed were destructive to human vitality and freedom. Whereas other
sociologists primarily focused on society as a whole, Simmel explored small social groups and argued
that society was best seen as a web of patterned interactions among people.
 LO5 What are key differences in functionalist, conflict, symbolic interactionist, and postmodern
perspectives on contemporary social life?
o Functionalist perspectives assume that society is a stable, orderly system characterized by societal
consensus. Conflict perspectives argue that society is a continuous power struggle among competing
groups, often based on class, race, ethnicity, or gender. Symbolic interactionist perspectives focus on how
people make sense of their everyday social interactions. From an alternative perspective, postmodern
theorists believe that entirely new ways of examining social life are needed and that it is time to move
beyond functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist approaches.
 LO6 Why is sociological research necessary, and how does it challenge our commonsense beliefs about
pressing social issues such as suicide?
o Sociological research provides a factual and objective counterpoint to commonsense knowledge and ill-
informed sources of information. It is based on an empirical approach that answers questions through a
direct, systematic collection and analysis of data.
 LO7 How does quantitative research differ from qualitative research? What steps are involved in each
method?
o Quantitative research focuses on data that can be measured numerically (comparing rates of suicide, for
example). Qualitative research focuses on interpretive description (words) rather than statistics to analyze
underlying meanings and patterns of social relationships. Key steps in the quantitative research process
include
 (1)
selecting and defining the research problem;
 (2)
reviewing previous research;
 (3)
formulating the hypothesis, which involves constructing variables;
 (4)
developing the research design;
 (5)
collecting and analyzing the data; and
 (6)
drawing conclusions and reporting the findings.
o By contrast, key steps in the qualitative approach often include
 (1)
reviewing the literature and formulating the problem to be studied instead of creating a hypothesis,
 (2)
collecting and analyzing the data, and
 (3)
reporting the results.
 LO8 What is survey research, and what are the three types of surveys?
o The main types of research methods are surveys, secondary analysis of existing data, field research, and
experiments. Surveys are polls used to gather facts about people’s attitudes, opinions, or behaviors; a
representative sample of respondents provides data through questionnaires or interviews. Survey data are
collected by using self-administered questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, and telephone or computer
surveys.
 LO9 How do the following research methods compare: surveys, secondary analysis of existing data, field
research, and experiments?
o Surveys are polls used to gather facts about people’s attitudes, opinions, or behaviors; a representative
sample of respondents provides data through questionnaires or interviews. In secondary analysis,
researchers analyze existing data, such as a government census, or cultural artifacts, such as a diary. In
field research, sociologists study social life in its natural setting through participant observation, case
studies, unstructured interviews, and ethnography. Through experiments, researchers study the impact of
certain variables on their subjects.
 LO10 What ethical issues are involved in sociological research, and what professional codes protect
research participants?
o Because sociology involves the study of people (“human subjects”), researchers are required to obtain the
informed consent of the people they study; however, in some instances what constitutes “informed
consent” may be difficult to determine. The American Sociological Association (ASA) Code of Ethics
(1999) sets forth certain basic standards that sociologists must follow in conducting research.

You might also like