Public Opinion

The word public is generally used to refer to a large group of people. It is sometimes used as synonymous with crowd. The members of the public need not collect together in one place. They may be dispersed and not know each other. According to Parker and Anderson a public is that form of collectivity that includes a number of dispersed and non-organized individuals who are faced with an issue about which there may be differences of opinion.

According to Kimball Young,” An opinion is a belief somewhat stronger or more intense than a mere notion or impression but less stronger than positive knowledge based on complete or adequate proof. Opinions are really beliefs that one held on issues. Opinion implies careful thought and consideration. It is based on some kind of information or evidence. It is not necessary that opinion should always be correct.

According to John Dewey public opinion is judgment that is formed and entertained by those who constitute the public and is about public affairs. Morris Ginsberg says by public opinion is meant the mass of ideas and judgments operative in a community which are more or less definitely formulated and have a certain stability and are felt by the people who entertain or hold them to be social in the sense that they are result of many minds acting in common.

Public opinion is concerned with a matter of public importance .It is not concerned with the interests of a particular group of people. Public opinion is for social welfare. The welfare of society is an essential characteristic of public opinion. Public opinion is arrived at after careful thought. It is the tentative deliberative adjustment of public to a situation. It is the logical view of things. It is a cooperative product. Public opinion is related to a particular age or times. It is to be evaluated in the context of a particular situation. Public opinion has a cultural base. The culture of a society influences public opinion.

The Public

The word public is generally used to refer to a large group of people. It is sometimes used as synonymous with crowd. The members of the public need not collect together in one place. They may be dispersed and not know each other. According to Anderson and Parker a public is that form of collectivity which includes a number of dispersed and non-organized individuals who are faced with an issue about which there may be differences of opinion.

According to Kimball Young public refers to a rather loosely organized and conjoined grouping of people with a common interest. Ginsberg defines public as an unorganized and amorphous aggregation of individuals who are bound together by common opinion and desires but are too numerous for each to maintain personal relations with the others.

The public is an aggregation of persons, moving in a common universe of discourse, confronted by an issue or a value divided in their opinion regarding ways to meet the issue or to appraise the value and engaging in discussion.

The Opinion

According to Kimball Young an opinion is a belief somewhat stronger or more intense than a mere notion or impression but less strong than positive knowledge based on complete or adequate proof.Opinions is really a belief about some serious topic. Opinion implies careful thought and consideration. It is founded on some kind of information or evidence. It is not necessary that opinion should always be correct.

According to John Dewey public opinion is judgement which is formed and entertained by those who constitute the public and is about public affairs. Morris Ginberg says by public opinion is meant the mass of ideas and judgements operative in a community which are more or less definitely formulated and have a certain stability and are felt by the people who entertain or hold them to be social in the sense that they are a result of many minds acting in common. James T Young writes public opinion is a social judgment of a self-conscious community on a question of general importance after rational public discussion.

Main features of Public Opinion

Following are the features of Public Opinion

Public opinion is concerned with a matter of public importance. It is not concerned with the interests of particular group of people.

Public opinion is for social welfare. The welfare of society is an essential characteristic of public opinion.

Public opinion is arrived at after careful thought. It is the tentative deliberative adjustment of public to a situation. It is the logical view of things. Kimball Young is of the view that an opinion maybe rational or based upon some conviction or it may proceed from feeling and emotion.

It is the product of interaction of human minds.

Public opinion is related to a particular age or times .it is to be evaluated in the context of a particular situation.

Public opinion has a cultural base. The culture of a society influences public opinion.

Numbers are not necessary to constitute public opinion. A majority is not enough an unanimity is not required but the opinion must be such that while the minority may not share it they feel bound by conviction not by fear to accept it.

Public opinion may be defined as the opinion of the people held by them on any issue for the welfare of the whole community .It is a collective product. It is an opinion in which the public finds itself for any reason constrained. Public opinion is always moving toward a decision even though it never is unanimous.

The formation of Public Opinion

There are three stages in the formation of public opinion-The rise of an issue-discussion and proposed solutions and arrival at a consensus. As soon as a public issue emerges there is usually a preliminary phase of discussion. The issue is defined and a hope is expressed for its solution. Later as a discussion continues those concerned express their own views on the issue and propose various and often divergent solutions through letters, petitions, memoranda etc.In the course of time we pass on the third stage when opinion begins to crystallize and people began to take sides.

The formation of public opinion depends upon a number of factors. Symbols play a most important role in the process of forming opinions. Symbols are combination of words, personalities, music, drama and other such devices that make an impression upon the masses. They may be slogans or they may be factors linked to popular sentiments which arouse the imagination and cause individuals to respond readily as democracy,liberty,red,fair deal, pearl harbour.

All these are omnibus words or symbols carrying vague general meanings but which have specific meanings for particular groups. They are appealing symbols, devices to reduce discussion through associating an idea with a good or bad subject and thus to get the individual to approve or reject a proposal without examining the evidence. These words move the people and lead them to action.

Symbols are more effective with people whose basic predispositions are already in tune with the propaganda themes. Thus people with conservative predispositions would be less liberal than those with liberal predispositions. The formation of opinion tends in large measures to be the result of the previous experiences and attitudes. A large number of people are indifferent to public affairs. They have little leisure time for consideration of public affairs. They usually accept ready-made opinion from others. Though they neither make opinion as thinkers nor help to mould it as critics they swell its volume. Thus the opinion which originates with the few is communicated to the many who transform it into public opinion. The continuous advocacy of the opinion by the minority group leads the majority to believe that the opinion may be fairly universal and adopt it as their own and thus a public opinion is formed.

Article Credit : http://www.sociologyguide.com/

Micro Sociology and Macro Sociology

The study of everyday behavior in situations of face-to-face interaction is usually called microsociology. Macrosociology is the analysis of large-scale social systems, like the political system or the economic order. It also includes the analysis of long- term processes of change, such as the development of industrialism. At first glance, it might seem that microanalysis and macro analysis are distinct from one another. In fact, the two are closely connected. Macro analysis is essential if we are to understand the institutional background of daily life. The ways in which people live their everyday lives are greatly affected by the broader institutional framework, as is obvious when the daily cycle of activities of a culture like that of the medieval period is compared with life in an industrialized urban environment.

Micro studies are in turn necessary for illuminating broad institutional patterns. Face-to-face interaction is clearly the main basis of all forms of social organization, no matter how large scale. People do not live their lives as isolated individuals, nor are their lives completely determined by national states. Sociology tells us that our everyday life is lived in families, social groups, communities and neighborhoods. At this level the meso (or 'middle') level of society it is possible to see the influences and effects of both micro- and macro-level phenomena.

Many sociological studies of specific local communities deal with the macro sociological impact of huge social changes, such as industrialization and economic globalization. People do not live their lives as isolated individuals, nor are their lives completely determined by national states. Sociology tells us that our everyday life is lived in families, social groups, communities and neighborhoods. At this level the meso (or 'middle') level of society it is possible to see the influences and effects of both micro- and macro-level phenomena. Many sociological studies of specific local communities deal with the macro sociological impact of huge social changes, such as industrialization and economic globalization. But they also explore the way that individuals, groups and social movements cope with such changes and attempt to turn them to their advantage.

Article Credit : http://www.sociologyguide.com/

Evolutionary progress

Evolutionary progress is the idea that evolution is progressive, that is trending at a large scale towards some absolute goal such as increasing complexity. Prominent historical figures who have championed some form of evolutionary progress include Alfred Russel Wallace, Herbert Spencer, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Henri Bergson. Evolutionary progress is not currently highly regarded, although there is evidence that the ideas are still prevalent.

Charles Darwin seems to have believed in some form of progress (Darwin, 1859):

The inhabitants of each successive period in the world's history have beaten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, insofar, higher in the scale of nature; and this may account for that vague yet ill-defined sentiment, felt by many palaeontologists, that organisation on the whole has progressed.

As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.

Ruse (1997) presents a detailed and carefully researched survey of the idea of progress in evolutionary biology. He argues that belief in evolutionary progress is still prevalent among evolutionary biologists today, although it is often denied or veiled. Ruse (1997) writes, "A major conclusion of this study is that some of the most significant of today's evolutionists are progressionists, and that because of this we find (absolute) progressionism alive and well in their work." He claims that progressionism has harmed the status of evolutionary biology as a mature, professional science.

In examining the issue of evolutionary progress, the first step is to define progress. Ayala (1988) defines progress as "systematic change in a feature belonging to all the members of a sequence in such a way that posterior members of the sequence exhibit an improvement of that feature." He argues that there are two elements in this definition, directional change and improvement according to some standard. Whether a directional change constitutes an improvement is not a scientific question; therefore Ayala suggests that science should focus on the question of whether there is directional change, without regard to whether the change is "improvement". This may be compared to Gould's suggestion of "replacing the idea of progress with an operational notion of directionality".

Dawkins, on the other hand, proposes that Darwinian evolution is fundamentally progressive if progress is simply defined as "an increase, not in complexity, intelligence or some other anthropocentric value, but in the accumulating number of features contributing towards whatever adaptation the lineage in question exemplifies."

Article Credit : http://en.wikipedia.org/

Phenomenology

At the simplest level religion is the belief in the power of supernatural. These beliefs are present in all the societies and variations seem endless. A belief in the supernatural almost always incorporates the idea that supernatural forces have some influence or control upon the world. The first indication of a possible belief in the supernatural dates from about 60,000 years ago. Archaeological evidences reveal that Neanderthal man buried his dead with stone tools and jewellery.Religion is often defined as people’s organized response to the supernatural although several movements which deny or ignore supernatural concerns have belief and ritual systems which resemble those based on the supernatural. However these theories about the origin of religion can only be based on speculation and debate.

Though religion is a universal phenomenon it is understood differently by different people. On religion, opinions differ from the great religious leader down to an ordinary man. There is no consensus about the nature of religion. Sociologists are yet to find a satisfactory explanation of religion.

Durkheim in his The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life defines religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things that is to say things set apart and forbidden. James G Frazer in his The Golden Bough considered religion a belief in powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.Maclver and Page have defined religion as we understand the term, implies a relationship not merely between man and man but also between man and some higher power. According to Ogburn religion is an attitude towards superhuman powers.Max Muller defines religion as a mental faculty or disposition which enables man to apprehend the infinite.

To answer the question how did religion begin – two main theories animism and naturism were advanced. The early sociologists, adhering to evolutionary framework, advocated that societies passed through different stages of development and from simplicity to complexity is the nature of social progress. The scholars who have contributed to the field of magic, religion and science can broadly be divided into four different types such as

• evolutionary scholars
• fundamentalist
• symbolic theorists
• analytical functionalists

Article Credit : http://www.sociologyguide.com/

Post Modernism

Postmodern society is diverse and pluralistic. Postmodern society's images are perceived through films, videos, TV programmes and websites and circulated around the world. We come into contact with many ideas and values, having little connection with the history of the areas in which we live, or with our own personal histories. One important theorist of postmodernity is the French author Jean Baudrillard, who was strongly influenced by Marxism in his early days, believes that the electronic media have destroyed our relationship to the past and created a chaotic, empty world. He argues that the spread of electronic communication and the mass media has reversed the Marxist theorem that economic forces shape society. Instead, signs and images influence social life.

In a media-dominated age, Baudrillard says, meaning is created by the flow of images, as in TV programmes. Much of our world has become a sort of make-believe universe in which we are responding to media images rather than to real persons or places. Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman offers a two ways of thinking about postmodern ideas. On the one hand, we could argue that the social world has rapidly moved in a post- modern direction. The enormous growth and spread of the mass media, new information technologies, more fluid movement of people across the world and the development of multicultural societies. All of these mean that we no longer live in a modern world, but in a postmodern one. Modernity is dead and we are entering a period of postmodernity. The second view is that the postmodern changes cannot be analyzed using old sociological theories and concepts and we need to devise new ones. In short, we need a postmodern sociology for a postmodern world.

Bauman accepts that the modern project that originated in the European Enlightenment to rationally shape society no longer makes sense, at least not in the way thought possible by Comte, Marx or other classical theorists. However, since the turn of the century he has moved away from the term 'postmodern' which he says has become corrupted through too diverse usage and now describes the world as one of 'Liquid Modernity', reflecting the fact that it is in constant flux and uncertainty in spite of all attempts to impose a modern order and stability onto it.

Jiirgen Habermas a staunch critic of postmodern theory argued that now is not the time to give up on the 'project' of modernity. He sees modernity as 'an incomplete project' and instead of resigning it to the dustbin of history, we should be extending it: pushing for more democracy, freedom and rational policies. The postmodern analyses are now losing ground to the theory of globalization, which has become the dominant theoretical framework for understanding the direction of social change in the twenty-first century.

Anthony Giddens in his writings developed a theoretical perspective on the changes happening in the present day world. According to Giddens we live today in what is called a runaway world, a world marked by new risks and uncertainties of the sort. But we should place the notion of trust, which is the confidence in individuals and institutions alongside that of risk. In a world of rapid transformation, traditional forms of trust tend to become dissolved. Living in a more globalized society, however, our lives are influenced by people we never see or meet, who may be living on the far side of the world from us. Trust and risk are closely bound up with one another. We need to have confidence if we are to confront the risks that surround us, and react to them in an effective way. Living in an information age, means an increase in social reflexivity. According to Anthony Giddens social reflexivity refers to the fact that we have constantly to think about, or reflect upon, the circumstances in which we live our lives. When societies were more geared to custom and tradition, people could follow established ways of doing things in a more unreflective fashion. For us, many aspects of life that for earlier generations were simply taken for granted become matters of open decision-making.

In a global age, nations certainly lose some of the power they used to have. For instance, countries have less influence over economic policy than they once had. However, governments still retain a good deal of power. Acting collaboratively, nations can get together to reassert their influence over the runaway world. The agencies and movements working outside the formal framework of politics can have an important role. But they will not supplant orthodox democratic politics. Democracy is still crucial, because groups in the area of 'sub-politics' make divergent claims and have different interests. Democratic government must assess and react to these varying claims and concerns.

German sociologist, Ulrich Beck, also rejects postmodernism. According to Beck rather than living in a world 'beyond the modern', we are moving into a phase of 'the second modernity'. The second modernity refers to the fact that modern institutions are becoming global, while everyday life is breaking free from the hold of tradition and custom. The old industrial society is disappearing and getting replaced by a 'risk society'. What the postmodernists see as chaos, or lack of pattern, Beck sees as risk or uncertainty. The management of risk is the prime feature of the global order. The advance of science and technology creates new risk situations that are very different from those of previous ages. Science and technology provide many benefits for us. Yet they create risks that are hard to measure. Many decisions taken at the level of everyday life also become infused with risk. In 'The Cosmopolitan Vision' Beck argues that the national outlook fails to grasp that the political, economic and cultural action and their consequences know no borders. In the age of globalization, where national borders are becoming more permeable and individual states are less powerful, social reality is being transformed in a thoroughly cosmopolitan direction. If allowed to develop without direction, cosmopolitanization presents many threats as opportunities, particularly for those who are exploited by multinational corporations traversing the globe seeking cheaper labour and maximal profits.

Article Credit : http://www.sociologyguide.com/

Perspectives in Sociology

Three Major Perspectives in Sociology

Sociologists analyze social phenomena at different levels and from different perspectives. From concrete interpretations to sweeping generalizations of society and social behavior, sociologists study everything from specific events (the micro level of analysis of small social patterns) to the “big picture” (the macro level of analysis of large social patterns).

The pioneering European sociologists, however, also offered a broad conceptualization of the fundamentals of society and its workings. Their views form the basis for today's theoretical perspectives, or paradigms, which provide sociologists with an orienting framework—a philosophical position—for asking certain kinds of questions about society and its people.

Sociologists today employ three primary theoretical perspectives: the symbolic interactionist perspective, the functionalist perspective, and the conflict perspective. These perspectives offer sociologists theoretical paradigms for explaining how society influences people, and vice versa. Each perspective uniquely conceptualizes society, social forces, and human behavior

The symbolic interactionist perspective

The symbolic interactionist perspective, also known as symbolic interactionism, directs sociologists to consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean, and how people interact with each other. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber's assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world, the American philosopher George H. Mead (1863–1931) introduced this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.

According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols. Verbal conversations, in which spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make this subjective interpretation especially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the “sender,” and, during effective communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the “receiver.” In other terms, words are not static “things”; they require intention and interpretation. Conversation is an interaction of symbols between individuals who constantly interpret the world around them. Of course, anything can serve as a symbol as long as it refers to something beyond itself. Written music serves as an example. The black dots and lines become more than mere marks on the page; they refer to notes organized in such a way as to make musical sense. Thus, symbolic interactionists give serious thought to how people act, and then seek to determine what meanings individuals assign to their own actions and symbols, as well as to those of others.

Consider applying symbolic interactionism to the American institution of marriage. Symbols may include wedding bands, vows of life‐long commitment, a white bridal dress, a wedding cake, a Church ceremony, and flowers and music. American society attaches general meanings to these symbols, but individuals also maintain their own perceptions of what these and other symbols mean. For example, one of the spouses may see their circular wedding rings as symbolizing “never ending love,” while the other may see them as a mere financial expense. Much faulty communication can result from differences in the perception of the same events and symbols.

Critics claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the “big picture.” In other words, symbolic interactionists may miss the larger issues of society by focusing too closely on the “trees” (for example, the size of the diamond in the wedding ring) rather than the “forest” (for example, the quality of the marriage). The perspective also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions.

The functionalist perspective

According to the functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society's functioning as a whole. The government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law‐abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For example, during a financial recession with its high rates of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer programs. Families tighten their budgets. And a new social order, stability, and productivity occur.

Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, or cohesion, in which members of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society as a whole. Emile Durkheim suggested that social consensus takes one of two forms:

Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when people in a society maintain similar values and beliefs and engage in similar types of work. Mechanical solidarity most commonly occurs in traditional, simple societies such as those in which everyone herds cattle or farms. Amish society exemplifies mechanical solidarity.

In contrast, organic solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when the people in a society are interdependent, but hold to varying values and beliefs and engage in varying types of work. Organic solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized, complex societies such those in large American cities like New York in the 2000s.

The functionalist perspective achieved its greatest popularity among American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s. While European functionalists originally focused on explaining the inner workings of social order, American functionalists focused on discovering the functions of human behavior. Among these American functionalist sociologists is Robert Merton (b. 1910), who divides human functions into two types: manifest functions are intentional and obvious, while latent functions are unintentional and not obvious. The manifest function of attending a church or synagogue, for instance, is to worship as part of a religious community, but its latent function may be to help members learn to discern personal from institutional values. With common sense, manifest functions become easily apparent. Yet this is not necessarily the case for latent functions, which often demand a sociological approach to be revealed. A sociological approach in functionalism is the consideration of the relationship between the functions of smaller parts and the functions of the whole.

Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of an event such as divorce. Critics also claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency on the part of society's members. Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social environment, even when such change may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees active social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate naturally for any problems that may arise.

The conflict perspective

The conflict perspective, which originated primarily out of Karl Marx's writings on class struggles, presents society in a different light than do the functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives. While these latter perspectives focus on the positive aspects of society that contribute to its stability, the conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever‐changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this means social revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak. Conflict theorists, for example, may interpret an “elite” board of regents raising tuition to pay for esoteric new programs that raise the prestige of a local college as self‐serving rather than as beneficial for students.

Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict perspective in favor of the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain considerable interest in conflict theory. They also expanded Marx's idea that the key conflict in society was strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the ever‐changing nature of society.

Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society. The theory ultimately attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in preserving society and social order.

Article Credit : http://www.cliffsnotes.com/

The Founders of Sociology

The Founders of Sociology

Each field of academic study has its own cast of characters, and sociology is no exception. Although countless individuals have contributed to sociology's development into a social science, several individuals deserve special mention.

Auguste Comte

The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857)—often called the “father of sociology”—first used the term “sociology” in 1838 to refer to the scientific study of society. He believed that all societies develop and progress through the following stages: religious, metaphysical, and scientific. Comte argued that society needs scientific knowledge based on facts and evidence to solve its problems—not speculation and superstition, which characterize the religious and metaphysical stages of social development. Comte viewed the science of sociology as consisting of two branches: dynamics, or the study of the processes by which societies change; and statics, or the study of the processes by which societies endure. He also envisioned sociologists as eventually developing a base of scientific social knowledge that would guide society into positive directions.

Herbert Spencer

The 19th‐century Englishman Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) compared society to a living organism with interdependent parts. Change in one part of society causes change in the other parts, so that every part contributes to the stability and survival of society as a whole. If one part of society malfunctions, the other parts must adjust to the crisis and contribute even more to preserve society. Family, education, government, industry, and religion comprise just a few of the parts of the “organism” of society.

Spencer suggested that society will correct its own defects through the natural process of “survival of the fittest.” The societal “organism” naturally leans toward homeostasis, or balance and stability. Social problems work themselves out when the government leaves society alone. The “fittest”—the rich, powerful, and successful—enjoy their status because nature has “selected” them to do so. In contrast, nature has doomed the “unfit”—the poor, weak, and unsuccessful—to failure. They must fend for themselves without social assistance if society is to remain healthy and even progress to higher levels. Governmental interference in the “natural” order of society weakens society by wasting the efforts of its leadership in trying to defy the laws of nature.

Karl Marx

Not everyone has shared Spencer's vision of societal harmony and stability. Chief among those who disagreed was the German political philosopher and economist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who observed society's exploitation of the poor by the rich and powerful. Marx argued that Spencer's healthy societal “organism” was a falsehood. Rather than interdependence and stability, Marx claimed that social conflict, especially class conflict, and competition mark all societies.

The class of capitalists that Marx called the bourgeoisie particularly enraged him. Members of the bourgeoisie own the means of production and exploit the class of laborers, called the proletariat, who do not own the means of production. Marx believed that the very natures of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat inescapably lock the two classes in conflict. But he then took his ideas of class conflict one step further: He predicted that the laborers are not selectively “unfit,” but are destined to overthrow the capitalists. Such a class revolution would establish a “class‐free” society in which all people work according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.

Unlike Spencer, Marx believed that economics, not natural selection, determines the differences between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He further claimed that a society's economic system decides peoples' norms, values, mores, and religious beliefs, as well as the nature of the society's political, governmental, and educational systems. Also unlike Spencer, Marx urged people to take an active role in changing society rather than simply trusting it to evolve positively on its own.

Emile Durkheim

Despite their differences, Marx, Spencer, and Comte all acknowledged the importance of using science to study society, although none actually used scientific methods. Not until Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) did a person systematically apply scientific methods to sociology as a discipline. A French philosopher and sociologist, Durkheim stressed the importance of studying social facts, or patterns of behavior characteristic of a particular group. The phenomenon of suicide especially interested Durkheim. But he did not limit his ideas on the topic to mere speculation. Durkheim formulated his conclusions about the causes of suicide based on the analysis of large amounts of statistical data collected from various European countries.

Durkheim certainly advocated the use of systematic observation to study sociological events, but he also recommended that sociologists avoid considering people's attitudes when explaining society. Sociologists should only consider as objective “evidence” what they themselves can directly observe. In other words, they must not concern themselves with people's subjective experiences.

Max Weber

The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) disagreed with the “objective evidence only” position of Durkheim. He argued that sociologists must also consider people's interpretations of events—not just the events themselves. Weber believed that individuals' behaviors cannot exist apart from their interpretations of the meaning of their own behaviors, and that people tend to act according to these interpretations. Because of the ties between objective behavior and subjective interpretation, Weber believed that sociologists must inquire into people's thoughts, feelings, and perceptions regarding their own behaviors. Weber recommended that sociologists adopt his method of Verstehen (vûrst e hen), or empathetic understanding. Verstehen allows sociologists to mentally put themselves into “the other person's shoes” and thus obtain an “interpretive understanding” of the meanings of individuals' behaviors.

Article Credit : http://www.cliffsnotes.com/