ASSIGNMENT No.

02
Sociological Theory-I (4682) Msc Sociology
Spring, 2022
Q.1 Compare and contrast the functionalist and Marxist perspectives. Which theory is more
suitable in explaining the social world? (20)

A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. Conflicts
of interest involve a person who has two relationships that might compete with each other for the
person's loyalties. For example, the person might have a loyalty to an employer and also loyalty to a
family business. Each of these businesses expects the person to have its best interest first. Thus, the
conflict.

A conflict of interest can exist in many different situations. The easiest way to explain the concept of
conflict of interest is by using some examples:

 with a public official whose personal interests conflict with his/her professional position.
 with a person who has a position of authority in one organization that conflicts with his or her
interests in another organization
 with a person who has conflicting responsibilities.

Types of activities that can create a possible conflict of interest include:

Nepotism is the practice of giving favors to relatives and close friends, often by hiring them. The term
comes from the word for "nephew," it was common practice in ancient times. Nepotism is considered a
conflict of interest because the relative may not be the best person for the job.

Self-dealing is a situation in which someone in a position of responsibility in an organization has

outside conflicting interests and acts in their own interest rather than the interest of the organization.
It often comes up in fiduciary situations, where someone is in a position of trust and violates that trust.
An example might be a real estate agent who benefits from the sale of a property.

Avoid What Looks Like a Conflict of Interest

Some activities create the conditions for a conflict of interest or what looks at first glance like a
conflict. For example, a business executive hiring her daughter might not be a conflict of interest
unless the daughter is given preferential treatment, like giving her a salary higher than others in her
pay level. If the executive isn't in a position to give favors, there's not a conflict of interest. The
relative might justly deserve the higher salary, but it's hard to tell from the outside.

Is Conflict of Interest a Crime?

Like other types of illegal or unethical activities, conflict of interest activities carry the risk of
consequences.

Public Sector. Federal and state laws have been set up to criminalize conflicts of interest in the public
sector (government entities). In certain circumstances, conflict of interest can result in prosecution. For
example, public officials, like state legislators, are specifically prohibited from activities that would
result in a personal gain because of conflict of interest.

Private Businesses. In most cases in private business situations, conflict of interest matters are
handled in court by a civil lawsuit. For example, if a company has proof that a board member profited
from her role on the board, the board member has violated her duty of loyalty and can be taken to
court.

1
Conflicts of Interest in the Workplace

Here are some workplace situations in which conflicts of interest in the workplace occur:

 An employee may work for one company but he or she may have a side business that competes
with the employer. In this case, the employee would likely be asked to resign or be fired.
 A common workplace conflict of interest involves a manager and his or her employee who are
married or dating and have a relationship. This is a conflict because the manager has the power
to give raises or promotions to the employee. Discussions about the company between the two
people may also breach confidentiality restrictions.

 An employee who has a friendship with a supplier and allows that supplier to go around the
bidding process or gives the supplier the bid.
 A former employee may take his former company's customer list and directly compete. Non-
compete agreements are often required of executives and business owners for this reason.

Most organizations have policies and procedures that don't allow a conflict of interest, to avoid a
potential problem before it occurs. For example, in the situation above, many businesses have policies
against hiring relatives in certain situations.

Conflicts of Interest by Boards of Directors

Members of a corporate board of directors sign conflict of interest policy statements. If a board
member has a conflict of interest, he could be kicked off the board and possibly sued. For example, if a
board member has a sexual relationship with an employee, or if he is taking business away from the
company and giving it to others.

A common conflict occurs when a board member hears of a potential deal that might affect the selling
price of company stock (up or down). The board member's attempt to profit from this knowledge is
called insider trading; it's illegal as well as being a conflict of interest.

Non-profit boards have the same issues. In fact, the IRS requires non-profits to disclose potential
conflicts of interest.

Conflicts of Interest in the Public Sector

Judges must recuse themselves (take themselves off a case) if there is a conflict of interest. For
example, if the judge has a financial relationship with one of the parties in a case, she must disclose
that relationship immediately and recuse herself from the case.

Any public servant, in the federal, state, or local government, may have a conflict of interest based on
their knowledge of events. For example, if a bill passed by a state legislature benefits one of the
legislators, that could be a conflict of interest. If a legislator buys stock in a company based on the
knowledge that would affect the stock price, that would be a conflict of interest - and insider trading.

Conflicts of Interest in the Professions

 Attorneys are bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar
Association. One common example of conflict of interest by an attorney is if the attorney
tries to represent both parties in a case (like a divorce).
 Physicians have the same types of conflicts of interest as attorneys. For example, physicians
should not be handling financial matters for patients and should avoid improprieties with
patients and staff.

Marx's Conflict Theory

Conflict theory originated in the work of Karl Marx, who focused on the causes and consequences of
class conflict between the bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production and the capitalists) and
the proletariat (the working class and the poor). Focusing on the economic, social, and political
implications of the rise of capitalism in Europe, Marx theorized that this system, premised on the
2
existence of a powerful minority class (the bourgeoisie) and an oppressed majority class (the
proletariat), created class conflict because the interests of the two were at odds, and resources were
unjustly distributed among them.

Within this system an unequal social order was maintained through ideological coercion which created
consensus--and acceptance of the values, expectations, and conditions as determined by the
bourgeoisie. Marx theorized that the work of producing consensus was done in the "superstructure" of
society, which is composed of social institutions, political structures, and culture, and what it produced
consensus for was the "base," the economic relations of production. (Read more about Marx's theory of
base and superstructure here.)

Marx reasoned that as the socio-economic conditions worsened for the proletariat, they would develop
a class consciousness that revealed their exploitation at the hands of the wealthy capitalist class of
bourgeoisie, and then they would revolt, demanding changes to smooth the conflict.

According to Marx, if the changes made to appease conflict maintained a capitalist system, then the
cycle of conflict would repeat. However, if the changes made created a new system, like socialism,
then peace and stability would be achieved.

Evolution of Conflict Theory

Many social theorists have built on Marx's conflict theory to bolster it, grow it, and refine it over the
years.

Explaining why Marx's theory of revolution did not manifest in his lifetime, Italian scholar and activist
Antonio Gramsci argued that the power of ideology was stronger than Marx had realized, and that
more work needed to be done to overcome cultural hegemony, or rule through common sense. Max
Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, critical theorists who were part of The Frankfurt School, focused their
work on how the rise of mass culture--mass produced art, music, and media--contributed to the
maintenance of cultural hegemony. More recently, C. Wright Mills drew on conflict theory to describe
the rise of a tiny "power elite" composed of military, economic, and political figures who have ruled
America from the mid-twentieth century.

Many others have drawn on conflict theory to develop other types of theory within the social sciences,
including feminist theory, critical race theory, postmodern and postcolonial theory, queer theory, post-
structural theory, and theories of globalization and world systems. So, while initially conflict theory
described class conflicts specifically, it has lent itself over the years to studies of how other kinds of
conflicts, like those premised on race, gender, sexuality, religion, culture, and nationality, among
others, are a part of contemporary social structures, and how they affect our lives.

Derives from the ideas of Karl Marx

The conflict perspective, or conflict theory, derives from the ideas of Karl Marx, who believed society is
a dynamic entity constantly undergoing change driven by class conflict. Whereas functionalism
understands society as a complex system striving for equilibrium, the conflict perspective views social
life as competition. According to the conflict perspective, society is made up of individuals competing
for limited resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.). Competition over scarce resources is
at the heart of all social relationships. Competition, rather than consensus, is characteristic of human
relationships. Broader social structures and organizations (e.g., religions, government, etc.) reflect the
competition for resources and the inherent inequality competition entails; some people and
organizations have more resources (i.e., power and influence), and use those resources to maintain
their positions of power in society.

C. Wright Mills is known as the founder of modern conflict theory. In his work, he believes social
structures are created because of conflict between differing interests. People are then impacted by the
creation of social structures, and the usual result is a differential of power between the "elite" and the
"others". Examples of the "elite" would be government and large corporations. G. William Domhoff
believes in a similar philosophy as Mills and has written about the "power elite of America".

Sociologists who work from the conflict perspective study the distribution of resources, power, and
inequality. When studying a social institution or phenomenon, they ask, "Who benefits from this
element of society?
3
Conflict Theory and Change

While functionalism emphasizes stability, conflict theory emphasizes change. According to the conflict
perspective, society is constantly in conflict over resources, and that conflict drives social change. For
example, conflict theorists might explain the civil rights movements of the 1960s by studying how
activists challenged the racially unequal distribution of political power and economic resources. As in
this example, conflict theorists generally see social change as abrupt, even revolutionary, rather than
incremental. In the conflict perspective, change comes about through conflict between competing
interests, not consensus or adaptation. Conflict theory, therefore, gives sociologists a framework for
explaining social change, thereby addressing one of the problems with the functionalist perspective.

Criticism of Conflict Theory

Predictably, conflict theory has been criticized for its focus on change and neglect of social stability.
Some critics acknowledge that societies are in a constant state of change, but point out that much of
the change is minor or incremental, not revolutionary. For example, many modern capitalist states
have avoided a communist revolution, and have instead instituted elaborate social service programs.
Although conflict theorists often focus on social change, they have, in fact, also developed a theory to
explain social stability. According to the conflict perspective, inequalities in power and reward are built
into all social structures. Individuals and groups who benefit from any particular structure strive to see
it maintained. For example, the wealthy may fight to maintain their privileged access to higher
education by opposing measures that would broaden access, such as affirmative action or public
funding.

Q.2 Write down a comprehensive note on social action theory and the concept of verstehen.
(20)

The sociological approach called ''Verstehen'' was part of the antipositivist sociology movement, which
valued qualitative data over quantitative data. Discover the definition of ''Verstehen,'' positivism, and
antipositivism, and explore how ''Verstehen'' can be used in research.

Definition of Verstehen
Verstehen is a German word meaning to 'understand in a deep way' that also refers to an approach
within sociology. In this approach, when a researcher aims to understand another person's experience,
he can try to put himself in the other person's shoes. He can do this by learning from the other person,
through conversations and interactions that give the researcher greater insight.

Verstehen and Antipositivist Sociology

This approach was developed by late 19th-century sociologists Max Weber and Wilhelm Dilthey, who
saw the flaws in trying to research a culture in the same way natural scientists researched the natural
world. Before Weber and Dilthey, sociology had been founded with a positivist perspective. Positivists
believed that you could look at society and identify social facts and specific truths similar to how a
biologist observes the structure of a living being. Much like a biologist could point to a biological
process as being predictable and consistent, positivists argued that society and cultures operated with
similar laws that could be uncovered through testing theories.
Moving away from this idea, Weber and his antipositivist colleagues saw another route to take. They
were critical of relying too heavily on quantitative data, as we refer to it today, such as survey results
and statistics. Antiposivitists saw the benefits of qualitative data, including interviews with individuals
and smaller groups and experiencing a subculture directly. They hoped to better understand the
meaning within a culture rather than assuming that any one set of laws and values could apply to all of
human experience.
Antipositivists were also concerned that they were at risk of having their own cultural biases affect
their research and so aimed to pay particular attention to this challenge. Even if direct experience with
a group of people meant running the risk of a cultural bias, antipositivists saw greater value in looking
at the subject of research with empathy rather than viewing it as an object of purely scientific study.
Quantitative data could be counted and measured, but it did not dig very deeply into the real
experiences and daily life of actual human beings. Verstehen was attempting to provide an answer to
this limitation.
4
Verstehen in Action
Let's imagine that you are a sociologist with funding to research the subculture of cricket fans, and
after considering several countries as your potential location for your research, you decide to head to
England. Your research will be a combination of interviews with experts in British culture, particularly
those who were born and raised in the United Kingdom, plus interviews with cricket fans and cricket
players and time spent at actual cricket matches as a spectator yourself.
Max Weber created a concept called the 'rationalization of society,' which refers to how society has
become increasingly concerned with various aspects, such as efficiency. Learn more about the
definition of this concept, and learn about the four types of rationality, as outlined by Weber. Finally,
consider some examples which demonstrate how rationalization can be seen in modern
society. Updated: 09/15/2021

Rationalization of Society
The rationalization of society is a concept that was created by Max Weber. Rationalization refers to
the process by which modern society has increasingly become concerned with:

 Efficiency: achieving the maximum results with a minimum amount of effort

 Predictability: a desire to predict what will happen in the future
 Calculability: a concern with numerical data, i.e., statistics and scoring
 Dehumanization: employing technology as a means to control human behavior

Rationalization is a product of scientific study and technological advances in the Western world. By
reducing tradition's hold on society, rationalization led to new practices. Instead of human behavior
being motivated by customs and traditions, rationalization led to behaviors that were guided by reason
and practicality. Rationalization not only transformed modern society, it played an important role in the
development of capitalism. Though rationalization was first apparent in the creation of bureaucracies, it
has spread to all aspects of society.

Types of Rationality
According to Weber, there are four types of rationality:

 Practical rationality involves systematically deciding the best way to achieve a desired end
based on what is practical.
 Theoretical rationality involves understanding the world through abstract concepts.
 Substantive rationality involves deciding the best choice of a means to an end as guided by all
of your collective values. In other words, you are attempting to make your system of values
and your actions congruent with each other.
 Formal rationality involves making choices based on universal rules, regulations, and the larger
social structure of your society. It involves calculating or quantifying the most efficient means to
an end.

Formal rationality forces order on modern society through rigid, quantifiable terms by means of
decisions that are based on rules and regulations that are universal. Formal rationality has contributed
to the rise of bureaucracy, which is able to closely direct and manipulate behavior.
As one of the 'founding fathers of sociology,' Max Weber created the term 'Verstehen,' which refers to
the basic understanding of why people do the things they do. In the same vein, Weber dove into the
advantages and disadvantages of the rationalization of society. In this lesson, explore Weber's concept
of 'Verstehen,' the rationalization of society, bureaucracy, the iron cage, and the three main types of
rationality: theoretical, substantive, and formal. Updated: 08/27/2021
Note: For the purposes of this video, the instructor is using American pronunciations.

Max Weber and Verstehen

Why do people act differently in each of their social groups? How have social groups, formal
organizations, and society as a whole changed with time? These are questions that Max Weber, one of
the founding fathers of sociology, would ask. He thought of sociology as a science of social action.
Weber believed that understanding why people do the things they do is the basic building block of

5
sociology, a concept he termed Verstehen. He believed that sociologists should not just study a group
of people but also try to gain an empathetic understanding for the individuals in that group.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'put yourself in his shoes' or 'walk a mile in each other's shoes.' This
common sentiment illustrates what Verstehen is all about: gaining an understanding of social action
from the insider's point of view in order to better understand the interactions within a group and the
group's purpose. This, in turn, helps to explain how groups of people make sense of the world around
them, how they fit into society as a whole, and how they've helped society evolve over time.

The Rationalization of Society

Think about the technological advances we've made just in the last decade. If you were to travel back
in time and introduce the same technology hundreds of years sooner, the people of that time period
would likely think it was magic. In fact, I'm sure you learned in history class - or even by watching TV -
that many traditions of ancient societies were practiced because of a belief that everyday phenomena
were supernatural occurrences. In our modern society, however, we attribute the same phenomena to
simple science.
Weber introduced the concept of rationalization to explain how Western society has shifted from a
mystic or traditional orientation to a more rational orientation. Rationalization is the process of
replacing traditional and emotional thought with reason and practicality. Weber believed that most
societies throughout history were governed by tradition and that the most significant trend in modern
sociology is an increasing rationalization of every part of our daily lives. The rise of scientific study, the
development of capitalism, and the introduction of bureaucracy into government over the last 200
years or so are all large examples of this trend.
We can look at additional evidence just in the last few generations. For example, how did you or would
you choose which college to attend? If you chose a college for its ability to prepare you for a desired
profession, you would be using rational thought to make your decision. On the other hand, if you were
to choose a college simply because your parents and grandparents went there, you would be using
traditional thought to make your decision. As rationalization continues to occur in our society, more
and more college students use rational thought over the traditional thought of past generations.

Bureaucracy
There are both advantages and disadvantages to the continued rationalization of our society. Weber
believed that a bureaucracy - a rigid, formalized organizational structure - was, for the most part, an
example of an advantage or positive consequence of rationalization. According to him, the
characteristics of an ideal bureaucracy made it the most stable type of organization. As a result,
bureaucratic systems are capable of handling more complex operations than traditional systems, which
has helped our society grow and advance.

Q.3 Compare the work of different theorists on theory of social exchange. (20)

We define and discuss theory and what it predicts about romantic relationships. We also define and
discuss the theory's three components: cost-benefit analysis, comparison level, and comparison level
of alternatives.

Social Exchange Theory Definition

Can you think of someone that used to be your friend but whom you never see anymore? How many
people would you say have left your life, even if they were at some point very important to you? It's a
fact of life that not all friendships or romances last forever. But why? Why do we stay connected with
some people but not to others?

In another lesson, we discussed the fact that an equal exchange of benefits is desirable and perceived
inequality puts a relationship in jeopardy. However, there is another theory used to explain why we
choose to start and continue only certain relationships. Social exchange theory proposes that the
relationships we choose to create and maintain are the ones that maximize our rewards and minimize
our costs. According to this, we are more self-centered and not necessarily concerned with equality.
The basic idea is that relationships that give us the most benefits for the least amount of effort are the
ones we value the most and are likely to keep long-term.

6
It is important to note that social exchange theory is a bit more complex than a simple economic
model of costs and rewards. It actually suggests that we feel positively or negatively about our
relationships because of a combination of three factors:

1. Cost-benefit analysis
2. Comparison level
3. Comparison level of alternatives

Let's go over the definition of each one of these components.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

First, a cost-benefit analysis is a process for calculating the value of a relationship in terms of
potential rewards and costs. The potential costs of a relationship are those things that we see as
negative: being needy, annoying habits, and so on. The rewards or benefits of a relationship are
those things that we see as positive: desirable personality traits, physical attractiveness, how we feel
when we are around him or her, and so on. This cost-benefit analysis is the economic model that can
predict or keep track of our net rewards and the overall value of the relationship.

For example, imagine that Bridgette Bachelorette is trying to decide between three potential suitors.
Bridgette conducts a cost-benefit analysis and determines the initial value of each potential relationship
by subtracting the perceived costs from the perceived benefits. She chooses the suitor with the best
results, which happens to be Brad Bachelor. She may dislike his lack of money and quick temper but
feels that the benefits (he is handsome, caring, and fun to be around) outweigh the costs.

Comparison Level

According to social exchange theory, we use a cost-benefit analysis at the beginning of a

relationship to help us decide if we want to start it. However, we also continue to use cost-benefit
analysis as the relationship develops to decide if we want to continue it. The same is true of the other
two components of social exchange theory mentioned earlier: comparison level and comparison level of
alternatives. Comparison level refers to the expectations for the relationship based on past
experience. Basically, we compare the costs and benefits of the current relationship to the costs and
benefits of our past relationships. Some people have a high comparison level and expect a high
number of rewards.

For example, Bridgette Bachelorette is used to having rewarding relationships with boyfriends who pay
a lot of attention to her and treat her well. She will expect her relationship with Brad to be similar. If it
is not, we would predict that she may rethink her decision of dating him. However, another woman
may have a much lower comparison level. We could predict that this second woman would be much
happier in the same relationship with Brad because her expectations are not as high.

Social psychologists disagree on why people help others. Two theories on the subject are social
exchange theory and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. In this lesson, we'll learn more about each of
these theories.

Causes of Prosocial Behavior

Think about a time when someone asked for your help. Maybe a friend needed an ear after a bad
break-up, or someone in class asked you to explain a concept that she didn't understand when the
professor taught it. Maybe you were asked to run an errand for someone or to volunteer your time for
a good cause. Under what circumstances did you help out? When would you not help someone out?

For years, social psychologists have studied the causes of prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is
any action that is meant to help others. Psychologists study prosocial behavior to try to understand
why people help others.

But there's not a consensus on the answer; some psychologists believe that helping is essentially a
selfish act, while others believe that sometimes people help out of the goodness of their hearts. This
disagreement is often summarized as social exchange theory vs. the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. Let's look closer at both sides.

7
Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory is the belief that people will help others only when the benefits to
themselves outweigh the costs of helping. The basic idea behind social exchange theory is that most of
our behavior comes from a desire to maximize our rewards and minimize our costs.

Let's look at an example. Imagine that someone in your class asks you to help her by explaining a
concept that she didn't understand. The concept is pretty simple and will only take a couple of minutes
after class to explain, and you know that you might need her to explain something else to you later in
the semester. Do you help her?

Now consider this: The concept she needs help with is pretty complex and will take a while to explain.
Not only that, but she asks you to explain it in the middle of the professor's lecture. If you stop to help
her, you might miss something important. Do you still help her?

In the example above, social exchange theory says that you're more likely to help in the first scenario.
The cost (of your time) is not high, and the reward (that she might help you later on) is pretty good. In
the second scenario, the cost is higher (it will take more time and the time is valuable since you might
miss something the professor says). So, according to social exchange theory, the first scenario is more
likely to produce prosocial behavior.

Costs and Benefits of Helping

There are three major ways that helping is usually rewarded. First, it increases the chance that the
helper will receive help in the future, such as when you decide you might need your classmate's help
on another concept.

Second, helping can decrease the personal distress of the helper. If you see a homeless person
begging for money and that makes you feel sad, you might give him a dollar to make yourself feel
better.

The third way that helping can be rewarded is through increased self-worth and/or social approval.
Let's say that you're on a date, and you see a kid whose kite is stuck in a tree. You might help the kid
with her kite in order to impress your date.

Likewise, helping can be costly in many different ways. Time, money and energy are just a few ways
that prosocial behavior can be costly. But according to social exchange theory, if the benefits outweigh
the costs, you are likely to offer help.

Q.4 Which sociological theory inspires you the most? Please give arguments to support
your answer. (20)

Isidore Marie Auguste Francois Xavier Comte, known as Auguste Comte, was a French philosopher,
born on January 19, 1798, in Montpellier, France, and died on September 5, 1857, in Paris. Auguste
Comte is recognized as the founder of sociology and postulator of the theory of positivity. He
sought to establish sociology at the top of the sciences and envisioned it as the means to resolve the
social chaos caused by the French Revolution. Auguste Comte was a key figure during the period in
which he lived to achieve the coexistence between philosophy and science that would begin in the 19th
century and continue to this day. His work was briefly interrupted in 1826 after he was admitted to a
hospital for psychiatric care due to his persecutory delusions and depression. After leaving the
internment, he tried to commit suicide, but his creative ability and passion helped him get ahead,
becoming one of the most important figures of philosophical thought in history.

Auguste Comte's Sociology Journey

Comte carried out his first studies at the Montpellier Lyceum, where he showed himself to be a
rebellious and misbehaving student. At sixteen, he entered the Polytechnic School to become one of its
most outstanding and brilliant students. However, the school was temporarily closed due to serious
disciplinary problems of the students, in which Auguste Comte figured as the leader. After being
reopened, Auguste did not enroll again.

During this time he returned to live with his family in Montpellier, but the ideological differences with
his Catholic and monarchist father led him to leave his home and settle in Paris, where he would
8
survive doing temporary jobs. One of these jobs was to serve as secretary of Henri de Saint-
Simon starting in 1817, which would put him in contact with the intellectual and philosophical society
of Paris and would represent one of the greatest influences on his later theories. Under the tutelage of
Saint-Simon, Comte wrote several essays and began to shape his philosophical ideas. However, in
1824, Comte left Saint-Simon due to ideological differences and continued his work under the
sponsorship of friends and intellectuals.

With the help of his friends and collaborators, Auguste Comte developed his theories that would be
embodied in works such as Plan of Scientific Studies Necessary for the Reorganization of
Society (1822), The Course in Positive Philosophy (1830-1842), where he established that society
progresses based on a set of laws and which would be the basis of his theory of positivity, and A
General View of Positivism (1848). These books would lay the foundations for the union between
science and philosophy attributed to Auguste Comte and from which he would coin the name
''sociology.''

Auguste Comte's Theory of Positivity

The main contribution of Comte to sociology, which he helped to found, was the theory of positivity,
which proposes that society and human behavour should be explained with the help of the scientific
method. According to Comte, humanity goes through three stages of evolution in the search for truth,
which is basically scientific knowledge. This is what Comte named as the law of the three stages, which
are theological stage, metaphysical stage, and positive stage.

Fundamental to the development of this theory was his break with the Catholic Church and his total
support for science and philosophy as the disciplines that would generate the evolution of society. For
Comte, sociology would be able to unite the ideas of order and progress in society that until then were
considered irreconcilable. For this, the physical sciences should come first to establish the norms of the
new society, which Comte anticipated, to finally reach a level of maximum development hand-in-hand
with sociology.

Theorist Auguste Comte was one of the founders of the study of sociology who offered classic
arguments for how global society has evolved over time. Learn about Comte and examine the three
stages of society that he identified, including the theological, metaphysical, and scientific stages, as
well as his theory of positivism and how it affected the study of sociology. Updated: 08/25/2021

Who Was Comte?

When you look up at the night sky, you can see both stars and planets. What do you think the planets
are? This probably seems like a weird question - of course you know the planets are big balls of gas or
rock that revolve around the sun. But is that the same answer someone would have given a thousand
years ago? Do you think the answer might be different a thousand years in the future?

Our understanding of the world reflects how global society has changed over time and how people in
general understand our world. Philosophers have been talking about the nature of society for
thousands of years, going all the way back to ancient Chinese and Greek philosophers such as
Confucius or Plato. This lesson focuses on a much more modern theorist - a sociologist named Auguste
Comte.

Comte is famous for being the person who actually came up with the term 'sociology' way back in 1838
to define the study of society. So what did Comte say about how global society has changed over time?

Comte believed that sociology could identify three major stages to the development of global society.
The first and earliest stage is called the theological stage. Starting at the very beginning of human
beings and social groups, Comte believed that in this stage, people viewed the world and events in that
world as a direct expression of the will of various gods. In other words, ancient people believed that
everything around them was a sign of active gods influencing their lives.

For example, ancient people actually believed that planets were gods in the sky, looking down on
Earth. Even the sun was part of the world of the gods; ancient Greeks believed the sun was one wheel
on the massive chariot steered by Apollo. If something bad happened, like a community experienced
bad weather or an earthquake, people in the theological stage would explain that event as a god being
upset and showing his or her anger to the people. In short, the theological stage meant that people
used supernatural or divine explanations to understand society and the world.
9
Comte's second stage of society is called the metaphysical stage. Comte said that this stage started
around the Middle Ages in Europe, or somewhere around the 1300s. In the metaphysical stage of
society, people viewed the world and events as natural reflections of human tendencies. People in this
stage still believed in divine powers or gods, but they believed that these beings are more abstract and
less directly involved in what happens on a daily basis. Instead, problems in the world are due to
defects in humanity.

An example of thinking in the metaphysical stage is people who believed that the planets were physical
objects in space but that they influenced people's lives via astrology. Do you know what astrological
sign you are? I was born in March, so I'm a Pisces. According to astrology, I'm supposed to be both
imaginative and secretive. The idea here is that societies in the metaphysical stage still believe in some
supernatural or magical aspects of life, but they are also rooted in the concrete parts of life.

Q.5 Critically evaluate the work of Mr. Weber. (20)

The reading for this section is Max Weber, Economy and Society, volume 1, pp. 4-7 and pp. 22-31. On
these pages, Weber outlines and discusses his definition of social action and social relationship.
References to Weber are from this section and references to Cohen are from the second edition of the
text. As you read this, in addition to understanding how Weber defines social action and social
relationhips, take note of:

 How Weber conducts careful analysis. Each part of this section is an attempt to carefully
sort through and categorize the variety of human actions and consider what is socially meaningful and
what is not.
 Ideal types and averages. Weber notes how “concrete cases of action” (p. 26) may
involve a variety of the modes of orientation and the “conceptually pure form certain sociologically
important types” although these can only be demonstrated to be useful “in terms of their results” (p.
26).
 In this section, Weber is not concerned with what is true or false, good or bad, valid or
invalid, cooperative or conflictual – aspects of each of these may be involved in social action. Rather,
he is concerned with their meaning for the actor and the categorization he develops is to define what
he considers to be sociologically meaningful action.

1. Sociology

Prior to defining social action, Weber states that sociology “is a science concerning itself with the
interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and
consequences” (Weber, p. 4). In other writings, Weber expands more on his definition of sociology
and the social, but it is worth noting how this short definition summarizes his approach to the study of
society. Key aspects of this definition are:

 Scientific systematic – it is possible to study in an objective manner.

 “Interpretive understanding” as a method or approach to such study.
 “Social action” as the subject matter, where such action has a “course and consequences.”
 “Causal explanation” as the method and result of the study.

Later in this set of readings, Weber also states “sociological investigation is concerned with these
typical modes of action” (p. 29). In these pages, Weber distinguishes sociology from:

Social Action

For Weber, meaning is basic to defining social action. Cohen notes how Weber always defers to the
actor, and is always concerned with how actors define their own actions, and how this is defined in
terms of some meaning for the actor. “He defines almost every aspect of the natural environment and
the human condition from the actor’s existential point of view” (p. 76), that is from the actor’s own,
unique perspective. Further, unlike some philosophic perspectives that speculate about the essential
aspects of human nature, Weber argued that “social scientists respect the social actor’s inalienable
right to define what his or her social action means for himself or herself” (Cohen, p. 75).

10
In Economy and Society, Weber defines action that is social as those actions

insofar as the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to his behavior – be it overt or covert,
omission or acquiescence. Action is “social” insofar as its subjective meaning takes account of the
behavior of other and is thereby oriented in its course.

While Weber does not initially mention subjective consciousness, this concept becomes important in his
later consideration of what forms of action are socially meaningful and what are not. For example, he
notes that it is not always clear what is “unconscious and seldom fully self-conscious” (p. 24) and there
are “varying degrees of self-consciouness” (p. 25). Cohen highlights this focus on consciousness in
theories of action and Weber uses this concept to assist in distinguishing habitual, traditional, or
imitative forms of behavior from those that are

Several other aspects of Weber’s approach are also worthy of note. These are as follows.

a. Empirical. Weber’s method is empirical and social, not abstract and philosophical. That is,
sociologists and historians observe individuals as actors and examine their conduct and social actions –
they do not just theorize about abstract or ideal forms of human conduct. This means careful,
empirical study of the social world in which sociologists live and operate, that is, “actual existing
meaning in the given concrete case of a particular actor” (Weber, p. 4).

At the same time, Weber developed ideal types of subjective meaning. These could be situations with
“subjective meaning attributed to the hypothetical actor or actors in a given type of action” (Weber, p.
4). Cohen notes how Weber considered these clear and unambiguous, even though “actors often only
vaguely understands the meaning of what they do” (Turner, p. 113). But ideal types come, not only
from theorizing, but from careful abstraction after close definition and observation of situations,
actions, and actors. For example, when Weber discusses status honour associated with a peer group,
this means carefully examining ways those in a group attach meaning to particular practices or forms
of conduct. While members of the group might not be able to define these themselves, these
practices and forms of conduct would need to have meaning to group members, and sociological study
should be able to describe and understand these.

b. Meaning and orientation. Weber does not appear to define “meaning” so a reader has to infer what
it is that Weber associates with this concept. One guide is the four-fold classification of types of social
action (pp. 24-25), although meaning could be broader than this. This includes actions that are
associated with ends that the actor wishes to pursue, actions or ends that have value of their own sake
for the actor (spiritual, ethical, emotional), “feeling states” (Weber, p. 25) associated with affectual
and emotional activities and interests, and traditional and habitual feelings, concerns, and interests
that may derive from experiences and socialization. Some activities that Weber does not consider to
be social action, like contemplation or spiritual activities, also having meaning for the individual but
these either do not involved others or are not oriented.

Weber’s first reference to meaning notes that this is “actual existing meaning in the given concrete
case of a particular actor” or alternatively, “to the average or approximate meaning attributable to a
given plurality of actors” (Weber, p. 4). In the case of the individual, Cohen notes how this means
conduct that the actor subjectively orients to the behaviour of others. This includes some idea of
subjective consciousness, awareness of others, attention to others, having some understanding of how
one’s actions respond to others, or are likely to affect others. It is also oriented in its course, implying
that it has some purpose, aim, or end, so that the actor has presumably considered how it takes others
into account.

Weber also discusses a group or plurality, noting that average or approximate meaning is associated
with this type of social action. In a case of such action, the meaning of the action for each actor may
differ somewhat, but actors forming the plurality may have similar ways of orienting their action. A
group of workers at a workplace, developing an understanding of workplace problems, might each
respond in a similar manner. This is not automatic reflex action by the workers though, but
considered ways that they respond to the situation. For example, secretaries might each devise ways
to create more control over their work situation.

11
c. Range of social action. In much of Weber’s discussion on these pages, he defines and analyzes the
range of social action and the categorization of such actions.

One way that social action can be understood is by considering what is not social action. Among these
are actions such as the following:

 Reactive behaviour where there is “no subjective meaning” and generally “merely reactive
imitation” is not socially meaningful.
 Traditional behaviour although this may cross the line between what is meaningful and not
and “almost automatic reation to habitual stimuli”.
 Psychological processes may not be meaningful, at least not discernable by those other than a
psychologist .
 Mystical experiences are not ordinarily social since they are entirely personal and
“contemplation and solitary prayer” .
 Psychic or psychophysical phenomena such as “fatigue, habituation, memory … states of
euphoria” and variations in individual reaction times or precision .
 Non-social if overt action directed toward inanimate objects. What about action directed
toward non-human animals, eg. walking a dog?
 Natural actions such as “a mere collision of two cyclists” although subsequent actions such as
insult, blows, or friendly discussion are ordinarily social meaningful.
 Common actions in a crowd, crowd psychology, mass action. These might be socially
meaningful in some circumstances but tend to be more habitual, impulsive (cheering or booing at a
sporting event or clapping after a music performance, eg. after every solo in jazz), automatic, or
reactive.
 Imitation may be meaningful or not, depending on its form and results. Weber argues that
this is difficult to analyze – imitation may be merely reactive or it may be a learning process that has
subjective meaning associated with this. The reactive learning of language by children is of this sort
and it is difficult to determine the extent to which subjective meaning is involved.
 “Purely affectual behavior” is also on the borderline – affectual action is one form of social
action but if the activity is merely reactive or habitual, it may not be so meaningful in each
circumstance.

All of the above show the difficulty of defining social action since the dividing line between what is
meaningful or considered differs by individual and situation. While Weber fairly clearly distinguishes
between what is social action and what is not in analytical terms, any study of social action requires
careful empirical study and sympathetic understanding by a sociologist.

Among the types of action that have meaning attached to them and result from conscious
consideration, Weber notes the following.

d. Four types of social action. Weber argues that there are four major types of social action. These
are ideal types in that each is analytically distinct from the other, are average forms of behaviour, are
“conceptually pure” (p. 26), and “sociologically important”. The four forms are:

Instrumentally rational action. These are social actions with “rationally pursued and calculated
ends” (p. 24) and where “the end, the means, and the secondary results are rationally taken into
account and weighed” (p. 26). This may involve an actor’s calculation of the best means of achieving a
given end (eg. consumption activity in economic sphere) or even a consideration of different ends. For
the latter, Weber notes that the utility of each may be considered and there may be a ranking of the
utility associated with each end so ends having greater utility are pursued first and less important ends
may have less urgency associated with them.

Value-rational action. These are social actions where the end or value may be pursued for its own
sake. In such actions there is “self-conscious formulation of the ultimate values governing the action”
and consistently planned orientation of its detailed course. Examples of this form of social action
include religious or spiritual actions, pursuit of ethical ends, or pursuit of artistic or aesthetic goals. For
these actions, it is frequently the case that the action itself may mean both pursuit of and
accomplishment of the end. For example, group prayer or attendance at a memorial service may
create the goal of spiritual peace for the individual; performing music for others or creating a work of
art to be publicly displayed may be a means by which an artist achieves aesthetic goals. Weber

12
mentions actions such as personal loyalty, duty, a religious call, whereby “human action is motivated
by the fulfillment of such unconditional demands”.

13