Community

The term community is one of the most elusive and vague in sociology and is by now largely without specific meaning. At the minimum it refers to a collection of people in a geographical area. Three other elements may be present in any usage of the term community.

(a) Communities may be thought of as collections of people with a particular social structure; there are, therefore, collections which are not communities. Such a notion often equates community with rural or preindustrial society and may, in addition, treat urban or industrial society as positively destructive.

(b) A sense of belonging or community spirit.

(c) All the daily activities of a community, work and non-work, take place within the geographical area; it is self-contained.

Different accounts of community will contain any or all of these additional elements. Many 19th century sociologists used a concept of community, explicitly or implicitly, in that they operated with dichotomies between preindustrial and industrial, or rural and urban societies. Ferdinand Tonnies, for example, in his distinction between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft, treats communities as particular kinds of society which are predominantly rural, united by kinship and a sense of belonging, and self-contained. For many 19th century sociologists, the term community was part of their critique of urban, industrial society. On the one hand, communities were associated with all the good characteristics that were thought to be possessed by rural societies. Urban societies, on the other, represented a destruction of community values. Some of these attitudes persist today. However, it became clear that societies could not be sharply divided into rural or urban, communities or non-communities, and sociologists proposed a rural-urban continuum instead, along which sentiments could be ranged according to various features of their social structure.

There was little agreement about what features differentiated settlements along the continuum, beyond an insistence on the significance of kinship, friendship and self-containment. The community study tradition was also important in its development of techniques of participant observation but has lost favour recently, partly because, as national considerations become important, communities become less self-contained, and partly because urban sociologists have become interested in other problems. Amitai Etzioni in New Golden Rule (1996) points out that community may be defined with reasonable precision. Community has two characteristics:

(a) A web of affect-laden relationships among a group of individuals, relationships that often crisscross and reinforce one another (as opposed to one-on-one relationships);

(b) A measure of commitment to a set of shared histories and identities – in short, a particular culture.

David E. Pearson (1995) states: To earn the appellation of “community”, it seems to me, groups must be able to exert moral suasion and extract a measure of compliance from their members. That is, communities are necessarily, indeed by definition, coercive as well as moral, threatening their members with the stick of sanctions if they stray, offering them the carrot of certainty and stability if they don‟t. More recently, the term community has been used to indicate a sense of identity or belonging that may or may not be tied to geographical location. In this sense, a community is formed when people have a reasonably clear idea of who has something in common with them and who has not. Communities are, therefore, essentially mental constructs, formed by imagined boundaries between groups (Anderson 2006). An example of this is the nation as a community (for example, „Indianness‟) and thereby different from other nations even when they could not know personally other members of the imagined community. The term community continues to have some practical and normative force. For example, the ideal of the rural community still has some grip and we often see town planners aim at creating a community spirit in these designs.

Source:

NPTEL – Humanities and Social Sciences – Introduction to Sociology

Joint initiative of IITs and IISc – Funded by MHRD 

Classification of Societies

Sociologists classify societies into various categories depending on certain criteria. One such criterion is level of economic and technological development attained by countries. Thus, the countries of the world are classified as First World, Second World, and Third World; First World Countries are those which are highly industrially advanced and economically rich, such as the USA, Japan, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and Canada and so on. The Second World Countries are also industrially advanced but not as much as the first category. The Third World societies are thus which are least developed, or in the process of developing. Some writers add a fourth category, namely, Fourth World countries. These countries may be regarded as the "poorest of the poor" (Giddens, 1996).

Another important criterion for classifying societies may be that which takes into account temporal succession and the major source of economic organization (Lensiki and Lensiki, 1995). When societies modernize they transform from one form to another. 

Hunting and Gathering Society

The simplest type of society that is in existence today and that may be regarded the oldest is that whose economic organization is based on hunting and gathering. They are called hunting and gathering societies. This society depends on hunting and gathering for its survival. As Gerhard Len Ski pointed out in his “Human Societies” (1970) the oldest and the simplest type of society is the hunting society. Such a society is characterized by a small and sparse population; a nomadic way of life and a very primitive technology. They have the most primitive tools such as stone axes, spears and knives.

Hunting societies consist of very small, primary groups and their number not exceed generally 40-50 members. They are nomadic in nature they have to leave one area as soon as they have exhausted its food resources. Family and kinship are the only interconnected social institutions which these societies have political institution are not found as all people are considered to be equal as they virtually have no property. Division of labour is limited along the lines of age and sex. Men and women, young and old perform different role, but there are no specialised occupational roles. There is gender based division of labour, but there is no gender inequality as such, production is communal and cooperative and the distribution system is based on sharing. Religion is not developed among these people in to a complex institution. They tend to see the world as populated by unseen spirits that must be taken into account but not necessarily worshipped.

The economy of hunting and food gathering societies is subsistence based. They collect enough for the needs of their people and there is hardly any surplus in such a economy. The primary means of production consist of their hunting and gathering skills and their own labour. All able bodied bodies adults and children engage in hunting and food gathering activities. Sharing is one of the central economic characteristics of a hunting and food gathering society. The most common type of social relationship is co-operation. Co-operation is important because hunting and gathering activities need group efforts. The sharing of the produce is common. There is no competition and conflict too is minimal as there is no accumulated surplus to fight over. The concept of private property as it applies to personal possessions is absent. Hence, private property as we understand it did not exist in hunting and gathering societies.

The rate of social change in nomadic hunting and gathering societies was very slow. A few such societies still exist, for e.g the Bushmen of South Africa, some Eskimo tribes etc. Around 10 to 12 thousand years ago, some hunting and food gathering groups began to adopt a new subsistence strategy based on the domestication of herds of animals. Many people living in deserts of other regions which are not suited for cultivation, adopted strategy and started taming animals such as goats or sheep which could be used as a source of food. 

Pastoral and Horticultural Societies

The second types are referred to as pastoral and horticultural societies. Pastoral societies are those whose livelihood is based on pasturing of animals, such as cattle, camels, sheep and goats. 

Horticultural societies are those whose economy is based on cultivating plants by the use of simple tools, such as digging sticks, hoes, axes,etc. Horticultural societies first came into existence in the Middle East about 4000 BC and subsequently spread to China and Europe; those that survive today are found mainly in sub Saharan Africa.

Horticultural society is associated with the elementary discovery that plants can be grown from seeds. While herding is common in areas with poor soil, horticultural is more common as means of subsistence in regions with fertile soil. Horticultural societies first appeared at about the same time as pastoral societies. Examples for horticultural societies are Gururumba tribe in New Guinea and Masai people of kenya. 

Horticultural societies are just subsistence societies like hunting gathering societies. They specialise in growing plants such as wheat, rice and the horticulturists is typically based on a ‘slash and burn’ technology. This is a type of strategy in which people clear areas of land, burn the trees and plants they have cut down, rise crops for 2 to 3 years until the soil is exhausted and then repeat the process elsewhere. Unlike the pastoralists, horticulturists have larger population and stay in one place longer before they migrate in search of better conditions.

As this society assures better food supply there is an existence of surplus which leads to specialisation of roles which supported production and trading of variety of products such as boats, salt, pottery etc. This allowed some wealthy individuals to become more powerful than others and lead to emergence of political institutions in the form of chieftainships. Warfare became more common in these societies and horticultural societies are also the first known societies to support the institution of slavery. As these people had a permanent settlement they could create more elaborate cultural artifacts like houses, thrones etc.

Agricultural Societies and feudal societies

The third types are agricultural societies and feudal societies. This society, which still is dominant in most parts of the world, is based on large-scale agriculture, which largely depends on ploughs using animal labor. The Industrial Revolution which began in Great Britain during 18th century, gave rise to the emergence of a fourth type of society called the Industrial Society. An industrial society is one in which goods are produced by machines powered by fuels instead of by animal and human energy (Ibid.).

Agricultural societies first arose in ancient Egypt and were based on the introduction of the harnessing of animal power. The mode of production of the hunter gathering society which produces none of its food, and the horticultural society which produces food in small gardens rather than big fields. Invention of the plough had enabled people to make a great leap forward in food production and has enabled a person to achieve great productivity. It also made it possible to work on land which as been previously useless for food production. Size of the agricultural societies is much greater than the horticultural of pastoral communities. The full time specialists who engage themselves in non-agricultural activities tend to concentrate in some compact places which lead to the birth of cities.

In course of time, agricultural societies led to the establishment of more elaborate political institutions. Power was concentrated in the hand of a single individual and a hereditary monarchy emerged who became powerful. Court system providing justice also emerged and these developments made the state a separate powerful institution. For the first time, two distinct social classes those who own the land and those who work on the land of others made their appearance and this created major differences between the strata. Warfare became a regular feature and for the first time, full time permanent armies made their appearances. Proper roads, waterways were developed and such developments brought the previously isolated communities into contact with on another. Since more food was produced than is necessary for subsistence, agricultural societies were able to support people whose sole purpose is to provide creative ideas to the culture. Hence poets, writers, artists, scientists were encouraged and new cultural artifacts such as paintings, statues, building and stadiums came into existence. Hence the agricultural societies had a more complex social structure and culture compared to the earlier societies.

Feudal societies emerged in Europe at that stage when the state was unable any longer to exercise direct control over the population. Political power was decentralised in the sense that warriors were able to claim rights over a local territory and enforce their own brand of justice by means of military might. Unarmed peasants were unable to challenge the power of the warrior (or noble) who had personal supporters with horses and weapons. Military power was linked to wealth, which meant, in this case, agricultural land. The greater a noble’s military power, the more land he could control; and the larger his estates, the more warriors he could support in order to secure his domain.

Production activity was carried out by peasants, who lived on and cultivated the land which was controlled by the feudal lords. The lords compelled the peasants to hand over a considerable portion of the agricultural goods that they produced and also to perform customary personal services for the benefit of the lord.

In the early periods of feudalism, the link between a noble and his peasants was maintained in the form of a personal agreement which ended upon the death of either party. But eventually the condition of the peasants and the privileged status of the nobles became hereditary, passing down from one generation to another.

The nobility and the serfs thus emerged as two distinct strata in feudal society and the clergy formed a third stratum. The Catholic Church had enormous secular power, since it possessed the right to income from vast expanses of land. As men of learning, clergymen were taken for granted by most of the population, a world view which included the nation that the supremacy of the king, the privileges of the nobility and the lowly position of serfs were all ordained by God. Thus the power of the Church was used to legitimate the system of social inequality.

In Europe from the twelfth century onward, feudal society was affected by the gradual transformation of local markets into permanent towns, with important implications for the emergence of a fourth stratum. Eventually the townsmen (or burgesses), using wealth acquired form trade strengthened the economic power of the burgesses as against that of the nobility.

Thus, feudal society came to comprise four distinct social strata: the nobility and the clergy, who controlled most of the land and enjoyed the agricultural surplus; the serfs, who cultivated the and and were bound to it ; and the burgesses. These classes were, by and large, closed ; access to the nobility or the peasantry was determined by birth, though occasionally peasants could escape from feudal bondage to the towns, and rich merchants were sometimes able to purchase titles and estates. The clergy was, of course an exception to the rule of hereditary classes and they had no legal heirs. Hence the agricultural and feudal societies had a far more complex Social Structure compared to the earlier societies.

Industrial Society

The industrial mode of production began in England about 250 years ago. It became a very successful one and has since spread all over the world. Industrial societies have existed only in the very modern era, dating from the industrialisation of Great Britain in the late 18 century. The most advanced industrial societies today are found in North America, Europe and East Asia including Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. Countries such as India, Mexico, Brazil and some African countries have also become industrialised to a great extent.

Industrial Revolution spanning the later 18th to the early 19th centuries is an event of great socio-economic and historical significance. Technology based on modern scientific knowledge lead to higher rate of technology innovation. These innovations in turn brought about a flood of social changes. New technologies

such as steam engine, electrical power, atomic energy brought about a lot of changes in the society. this stimulated population growth with increasing members living in cities and metropolitan areas where most jobs are located. New medical technologies and improved living standards served to extend life expectancy.

Division of labour became highly complex and tens of thousands new specialised jobs were created. The family lost many of its function as it no longer remained as a producing unit but had to be content with as a unit of consumption. Various technological and scientific developments made religion lose its hold in controlling the behaviour of the people. Education evolved into an independent and distinct institution and formal education became a compulsory rather than a luxury for a few. Hereditary monarchies died out giving place to more democratic institutions. State assumed the central power in the industrial society ad was more

known for its welfare activities.

Industrial societies gave rise to a number of secondary group such as corporations, political parties, business houses and orgainsations of various kind. Primary groups tend to loose their importance and more social life takes place in the context of secondary groups. New life styles and values created a much more heterogeneous culture which spread its influence far and wide.

Families and kinship as social institutions tend to lose their importance. The family lost many of his functions. It no longer remained as a producing unit but has to be content with as a unit of consumption. It lost the main responsibility of educating the young ones. Kinship ties are weakened. Kinship does not play an important role in unifying and controlling people. Religious institutions are no longer paying an important role in controlling the behaviour of the people. People hold many different and competing values and beliefs. The world no longer remains as the God – centred world for it is looked upon as the man-centred one. Various technological and scientific development have made religion lose its hold as an unquestioned source of moral authority.

For the first time, science emerges out as a new and very important social institution. Science looked upon as a promising and an effective means of socio-economic progress. Similarly education has evolved in to an independent and distinct institution. Any industrial society for that matter requires a literate population to

understand and make use of the modern technological innovations. For the first time, formal education becomes a compulsory thing for majority of people rather than a luxury for the few. State which assumed the central power in the industrial society is more known for its welfare activities than for the regulative functions. State is increasingly involved in the economic, educational, medical, military and other activities. Industrialism is normally associated with the emergence of the two social classes the rich and the poor between whom sharp inequalities are found. They are referred to by Marx as the haves and the have nots.

Industrial societies give rise to a number of secondary group such as corporation, political parties, business houses, government bureaucracies, cultural and literary associations and special purpose organisation of various kind. New life styles and values created a much heterogeneous culture which spread its influence

far and wide.

Post-industrial society

Sociologists also have come up with an emerging type of society called post-industrial society. This is a society based on information, services and high technology, rather than on raw materials and manufacturing. The highly industrialized which have now passed to the post-industrial level include the USA, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe.

The concept of Post Industrial Society was first formulated in 1962 by Daniel Bell and subsequently in his seminal work (Coming of post industrial Society – 1974). It described the economic and social changes in the late twentieth century. According to Bell in the economy this is reflected in the decline of goods production and manufacturing as the main form of economic activity, to be replaced by services. With regard to class structure, a new class of professional and technical occupations have come in to existence.

In all spheres like economic, political and social decision making this new class influenced in making a new intellectual technology. The post industrial society is predominated by a manufacturing based economy and moved on to a structure of society based on the provision of information, innovation, finance and services. The economy underwent a transition from the production of goods to the provision of services and knowledge became a valued form of capital. Through the process of globalisation and automation, the value and importance to the economy of the blue collar, unionized work, including manual labour (eg-assembly- line work) declined and those of professional workers) grew in value and prevalence. Behavioral and information sciences and technologies are developed and implemented.

Thus through these different types of societies we have understood that the type of society in which man lived in the beginning is very different from the type of society in which he lives today. The story of human social life has undergone several forms and changes. Historically, societies have taken number of different forms and have changed in ways that are unique themselves.

The Concept of Society

Definitions

The term society is derived from a Latin word socius. The term directly means association, togetherness, gregariousness, or simply group life. The concept of society refers to a relatively large grouping or collectivity of people who share more or less common and distinct culture, occupying a certain geographical locality, with the feeling of identity or belongingness, having all the necessary social arrangements or insinuations to sustain itself.

Calhoun et al (1994): "A society is an autonomous grouping of people who inhabit a common territory, have a common culture (shared set of values, beliefs, customs and so forth) and are linked to one another through routinized social interactions and interdependent statuses and roles." 

August Comte the father of sociology saw society as a social organism possessing a harmony of structure and function.

Emile Durkheim the founding father of the modern sociology treated society as a reality in its own right. 

According to Talcott Parsons Society is a total complex of human relationships in so far as they grow out of the action in terms of means-end relationship intrinsic or symbolic.

G.H Mead conceived society as an exchange of gestures which involves the use of symbols. 

Morris Ginsberg defines society as a collection of individuals united by certain relations or mode of behavior which mark them off from others who do not enter into these relations or who differ from them in behavior. 

G D M Cole sees Society as the complex of organized associations and institutions with a community. 

According to Maclver and Page society is a system of usages and procedures of authority and mutual aid of many groupings and divisions, of controls of human behavior and liberties. This ever changing complex system which is called society is a web of social relationship.

Basic Features of a Society

First, a society is usually a relatively large grouping of people in terms of size. In a very important sense, thus, society may be regarded as the largest and the most complex social group that sociologists study. 

Second, as the above definitions show, the most important thing about a society is that its members share common and distinct culture. This sets it apart from the other population groups. 

Third, a society also has a definite, limited space or territory. The populations that make up a given society are thus locatable in a definite geographical area. The people consider that area as their own. 

Fourth, the people who make up a society have the feeling of identity and belongingness. There is

also the feeling of oneness. Such identity feeling emanates from the routinized pattern of social

interaction that exists among the people and the various groups that make up the society. (Henslin and Nelson, 1995; Giddens, 1996; Calhoun et al., 1994)

Fifth, members of a society are considered to have a common origin and common historical experience. They feel that they have also common destiny. 

Sixth, members of a society may also speak a common mother tongue or a major language that may serve as a national heritage.

Seventh, a society is autonomous and independent in the sense that it has all the necessary social institutions and organizational arrangements to sustain the system.

However, a society is not an island, in the sense that societies are interdependent. There has always been inter– societal relations. People interact socially, economically and politically.

It is important to note that the above features of a society are by no means exhaustive and they may not apply to all societies. The level of a society’s economic and technological development, the type of economic or livelihood system a society is engaged in, etc may create some variations among societies in terms of these basic features.

Conceptualizing Society at Various Levels

As indicated above, in a general sense and at an abstract level, all people of the earth may be considered as a society. The earth is a common territory for the whole world's people. All people of the earth share common origin; inhabit common planet; have common bio psychological unity; and exhibit similar basic interests, desires and fears; and are heading towards common destiny (Calhoun, et al., 1994).

At another level, every continent may be considered as a society. Thus, we may speak of the European society, the African society, the Asian society, the Latin American society, etc. This may be because, each of these continents share its own territory, historical experiences, shared culture, and so on. At a more practical level, each nation-state or country is regarded as a society. For example, the people of Ethiopia or Kenya, Japan are considered as a society.

Going far farther still, another level of society is that within each nation-state, there may be ethnolinguistically distinct groups of people having a territory that they consider as their own. They are thus societies in their own right. Some Such society may extend beyond the boundaries of nation-states.

Source:

www.cartercenter.org_resources_pdfs

Individual and Society

The Human beings are social animals. They live in social groups in communities and in society. Human life and society almost go together. Human beings cannot live without society. Human beings are biologically and psychologically equipped to live in groups, in society. Society has become an essential condition for human life to arise and to continue. The relationship between individual and society is ultimately one of the profound of all the problems of social philosophy. It is both philosophical and sociological because it involves the question of practices on the one hand, and, norms and values on the other. Human beings depend on society. It is in the society that an individual is surrounded and encompassed by culture, a societal force. It is in the society again that s/he has to conform to the norms, occupy statuses and become members of groups. The question of the relationship between the individual and the society is the starting point of many discussions. There are two main theories regarding the relationship of the individual and society. They are the social contract theory and the organismic theory. 

Social Contract Theory 

The social contract theory throws light on the origin of the society. According to this theory, all human beings are born free and equal. Society came into existence because of the agreement entered into by the individuals. The classical representatives of this school of thought are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. 

Thomas Hobbes 

Thomas Hobbes was of opinion that society came into being as a means for the protection of human beings against the consequences of their own nature. Human beings in the state of nature were in perpetual conflict with their neighbors on account of their essentially selfish nature. „The life of [human beings] was solitary poor, nasty, brutish and short‟. Every human being was an enemy to every other human being. Hobbes in his book Leviathan has made it clear that human beings found nothing but grief in the company of their fellows. Since the conditions in the state of nature were intolerable and human beings longed for peace, the people entered into a kind of social contract to ensure for themselves security and certainty of life and property. By mutual agreement they decided to surrender their natural rights into the hands of a few or one with authority to command. The agreement was of each with all and of all with each other. The contract became binding on the whole community as perpetual social bond. Thus in order to protect themselves against the evil consequences of their own nature human beings organized themselves in society in order to live in peace with all.

John Locke

John Locke believed that human beings in the state of nature were enjoying an ideal liberty free from all sorts of rules and regulations. The state of nature was a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation. But there was no recognized system of law and justice. Hence the peaceful life was often upset by the corruption and viciousness of degenerate human beings. Human beings were forced to live in full of fears and continual dangers. In order to escape from this and to gain certainty and security human beings made a contract to enter into civil society or the state. This contract Locke called social contract. This contract put an end to the state of nature and substituted it by civil society. The social contract was no more than a surrender of rights and powers so that the remaining rights of human beings would be protected and preserved. The contract was for limited and specific purposes and what was given up or surrendered to the whole community and not to a single individual or to an assembly of individuals. According to Locke, the social contract later on contributed to the governmental control. The governmental contract was made by the society when it established a government and selected a ruler to remove the inconveniences of ill-condition.

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau, the French writer of the 18th century in his famous book The Social Contract, wrote that human beings in the state of nature were a noble savage who led a life of primitive simplicity and idyllic happiness. They were independent, contented, self-sufficient, healthy, fearless and good. It was only primitive instinct and sympathy which united them all. They knew neither right or wrong and were free from all notions of virtue and vice. Human beings enjoyed a pure, unsophisticated, innocent life of perfect freedom and equality in the state of nature. But these conditions did not last long. Population increased and reason was dawned. Simplicity and idyllic happiness disappeared. Families were established, institution of property emerged and human equality ended. Human beings began to think in terms of private ownership. When equality and happiness of the early state was lost, war, murder, conflicts became the order of the day. The escape from this was found in the formation of a civil society. Natural freedom gave place to civil freedom by a social contract. As a result of this contract a multitude of individuals became a collective unity, a civil society. Rousseau said that by virtue of this contract everyone while uniting herself/himself to all remains as free as before. There was only one contract which was social as well as political. The individual surrendered herself/himself completely and unconditionally to the will of the body of which s/he became a member. The body so created was a moral and collective body and Rousseau called it the general will. The unique feature of the general will was that it represented collective good as distinguished from the private interests of its members. Early law was more communal than individual and the unit of society was not the individual but the family. Society has moved from status to contract and not from contract to status as the theorists of the social contract argued. According to Sir Henry Maine contract is not the beginning of society but the end of it.

Organismic Theory of Society

This view, at least as ancient as the contract idea, conceives society as a biological system, a greater organism, alike in its structure and its functions. This theory can even be dated back to Plato and Aristotle. Plato compared society and state to a magnified human being. He divided society into three classes of rulers, the warriors and artisans based upon the three faculties of the human soul that is wisdom, courage and desire. Aristotle drew a comparison between the symmetry of the state and symmetry of the body and firmly held that the individual is an intrinsic part of society. The parallelism between an individual organism and social organism has been worked out to the minutest possible extent by Herbert Spencer during the recent times. The organismic theory considers society to be a unity similar to that which characterizes a biological organism. The union of individuals forming the society has been described as similar to the union between the several parts of an animal body, wherein all parts are functionally related. Just as the body has a natural unity, so has a social group. The animal body is composed of cells, so is the society composed of individuals, and as is the “relation of the hand to the body or the leaf to the tree, so is the relation of human beings to society. Human beings exist in society and society in human beings”. The ancient and medieval writers had merely drawn an analogy between the society and an organism. They held that the society resembled an organism. But the writers of the 19th century regarded society as an organism. They tried to analyze the structure and function of society in comparison with those of an organism.

Views of Herbert Spencer

English social philosopher Herbert Spencer has been the chief exponent of this theory. He said that society is an organism and it does not differ in essential principle from the other biological organisms. The attributes of an organism and the society, he maintained, are similar. Both exhibit the same process of development. The animal and social bodies, Spencer affirmed, begin as germs, all similar and simple in structure. As they grow and develop, they become unlike and complex in structure. Their process of development is the same, both moving from similarity and simplicity to dissimilarity and complexity. “As the lowest type of animal is all stomach, respiratory surface, or limb, so primitive society is all warriors, all hunter, all builder, or all tool-maker. As society grows in complexity, division of labour follows.

In each case there is mutual dependence of parts. Just as the hand depends on the arm and the arm on the body and head, so do the parts of social organism depend on each other. Every organism depends for its life and full performance of its functions on the proper coordination and interrelation of the units. As the diseased condition of one organ affects the health and proper functioning of other organs, similarly, individuals who form society are inseparably connected with one another for the realization of their best self. There is so much dependence of one on the other that the distress of one paralyses the rest of the society. The society and organism, it is pointed out, are subject to wear and tear and then replacement. (Just as cell tissues and blood corpuscles in the animal organism, wear out and are replaced by new ones, in the same manner, old, infirm, and diseased persons die giving place to newly born persons). 

Spencer gives striking structural analogies between society and organism. He says, society, too, has three systems corresponding to the 

(a) sustaining system, 

(b) the distributary system, and 

(c) the regulating system in an organism. 

The sustaining system in an organism consists of mouth, gullet, stomach and intestines. It is by means of this system that food is digested and the whole organic machine is sustained. Society has its own sustaining system which refers to the productive system comprising the manufacturing districts and agricultural areas. The workers, i.e., the men who farm the soil, work the mines and factories and workshops are the alimentary organs of a society. The distributors system in an organism consists of the blood vessels, heart, arteries and veins and they carry blood to all parts of the body. Means of communication and transport and along with them the wholesalers, retailers, bankers, railway and steamship men and others may correspond to the distributor or vascular system of an organism. Society's Cells are individuals only. And what the arteries and veins mean to the human body, roads, railways, post and telegraph services, institutions and associations, mean to society. Finally, the regulating system is the nerve-motor mechanism which regulates the whole body. Government in society regulates and controls the activities of the individuals. The professional men-doctors, lawyers, engineers, rulers, priests, the thinkers, in short, perform the functions of the brain and the nervous system. Further, as Spencer opined society also passes through the organic processes of birth, youth, maturity, old age and death. In a nutshell, Spencer indicates that society resembles an organism in the following important respects.

(i) Society like organism grows or develops gradually. The human organism goes through the laws of development, maturation and decline. Similarly society also passes through some laws such as the laws of birth, growth and change or decay.

(ii) Both society and organism begin germs.

(iii)Society and organism both exhibit differential structure functions.

(iv) Both society and organism are composed of units. Society is composed of the individuals and thus, individuals are considered as the units of society. Similarly, organism is also composed of different organs such as eyes, ears, hands, legs, head etc., and these are regarded as the units of an organism.

(v) In both society and organism there exists close integration or interdependence of parts. Just as the different parts of the organism are mutually interdependence and on the whole, also the individuals in a dependant are mutually interdependent like the cells in an organism dependent in the whole.

Murray sums up the points of resemblance between a society and an individual organism as noted by Spencer in the following ways:

(a) Society as well as individual organism grows in size.

(b) They grow from comparatively a simple structure to that of an increasingly complex one.

(c) Increasing differentiation leads to increasing mutual dependence of the component parts. The life and normal functioning of each becomes dependent on the life of the whole.

(d) The life of the whole becomes independent and lasts longer than the life of the component.

However, Spencer is of the view that society differs from human organism in the following important respects:

(i) In organic growth, nature plays a dominant and organismic naturally grows. Social growth may be checked or stimulated by human beings themselves.

(ii) The units of a society are not fixed in their respective positions like those of the individual organism.

(iii) In an organism, consciousness is concentrated in the small part of the aggregate, that is, in the nervous system while in a society it is diffused throughout whole aggregate.

Source:

NPTEL – Humanities and Social Sciences – Introduction to Sociology

Joint initiative of IITs and IISc – Funded by MHRD 

Sociological Imagination

Sociologist C. Wright (1959 b) described sociological reasoning as the “Sociological imagination- the ability to see the relationship between individual experiences and the larger society. This awareness enables us to understand the link between our personal experiences and the social context in which they occur. The sociological imagination helps us distinguish between personal trouble and social (or public) issues. ( Kendall ; 2007). A key element in the sociological imagination is the ability to view one’s own Society as an outsider would, rather than from the limited perspective of personal experiences and cultural biases. Sociological imagination allow us to go beyond personal experience and in attempting to understand social behavior, sociologists rely on an unusual type of creating thinking. C. Wright Mills (1959) described such thinking as the sociological imagination- an awareness of the relationship between an individual and the wider society. This awareness allows people (not simply sociologists) to comprehend the links between their immediate, personal social settings and the remote, impersonal social world that surrounds them and helps to shape them.

A key element in the sociological imagination is the ability to view one’s own society as an outsider would, rather than from the limited perspective of personal experiences and cultural biases. Sociological imagination allows us to go beyond personal experiences and observations to understand broader public issues. Unemployment, for example, is unquestionably a personal hardship for a man or woman without a job. However, C. Wright Mills pointed out that when unemployment is a social problem shared by millions of people, it is appropriate to question the way that a society is structured or organized. Similarly, Mills advocated use of the sociological imagination to view divorce not simply as the personal problem of a particular man and woman, but rather as a structural problem, since it is the outcome of many marriages. And he was writing this in the 1950s, when the divorce rate was but a fraction of what it is today ( I . Horowitz, 1983:87-108)

Sociological imagination can bring new understanding to daily life around us.

 A SOCIOLOGICAL OUTLOOK

The sociological imagination require us, above all, to ‘think ourselves away from the familiar routines of our daily life in order to look at them a new. Consider the simple act of drinking Coffee. What could we find to say, from a sociological point of view about such an apparently uninteresting piece of behavior an enormous amount. 

We could point out first of all that coffee is not just refreshment. It possesses Symbolic value as part of our day-to-day Social activities, Often the ritual associated with coffee drinking is much more important than the act of consuming the drink itself. For many westerners the morning cup of coffee stands at the centre of a personal routine. It is an essential first step to starting the day. Morning coffee is often followed later in the day by coffee with others-the basis of a social ritual. Two people who arrange to meet for coffee are probably more interested in getting together & chatting than in what they actually drink. Drinking and eating in all societies, in fact, provide occasions for social interaction and the enactment of rituals- and these offer a rich subject matter for sociological study.

Second, coffee is a drug, containing caffeine, which has a Stimulating effect on the brain. Many people drink coffee for the extra lift it provides. Long days at the office and late nights studying are made more tolerable by coffee breaks. Coffee is a habit – forming substance, but coffee addicts are not regarded by most people in Western culture as drug users.

Third the individual who drinks cup of coffee is caught up in a complicated set of social & economic relationships stretching across the world. Coffee is a product which links people in some of the wealthiest & most impoverished parts of the planet, it is consumed in great quantities in wealthy Countries, but is grown primarily in poor ones, and it provides many countries, with their largest source of foreign exchange. The production & transportation of coffee require continuous transactions between people thousands of miles away from the coffee drinker. Studying such global transactions is an important task of sociology since many aspects of our lives are now affected by worldwide social influences and communications.

Fourth, the act of sipping a coffee presumes a whole process of past social & economic development. Along with other now familiar items of western diets – like teas, bananas, potatoes & white sugar – coffee became widely consumed only from the late 1800s. Although the drink originated in the Middle East , its mass consumption dates, from the period of Western expansion about a century & a half ago. Virtually all the coffee we drink today comes from areas (South America & Africa) that were colonized by Europeans, it is in no sense a ‘natural’ part of the Western diet. The colonial legacy has had an enormous impact of the development of the global coffee trade.

Fifth coffee is a product that stands at the heart of contemporary debates, about globalization, international trade, human rights & environmental destruction. As coffee has grown in popularity, it has become ‘branded’ & politicized; the decisions that consumers make about what kind of coffee to drink & where to purchase it have become life style choices. Individuals may choose to drink only organic coffee, natural decaffeinated coffee or coffee that has been ‘fairly traded’ through schemes, that pay full market prices, to small coffee producers in developing countries. They may opt to patronize ‘independent’ coffee houses, rather than corporate coffee chains such as starbuch which is a brand in UK . Coffee drinkers might decide to boycott coffee from certain, with poor human rights & environmental records. Sociologist are interested to understand how globalization heightens people awareness of issues accruing in distant corners of the planet & prompts them to act on new knowledge in their own life.

Source: Study Material, Mumbai University. Foundation of Sociology 

Sociological Perspectives

Sociologists view society in different ways. Some see the world basically as a stable and ongoing entity. They are impressed with the endurance of the family, organized religion, and other

social institutions. Some sociologists see society as composed of many groups in conflict, competing for scarce resources. To other sociologists, the most fascinating aspects of the social world are the everyday, routine interactions among individuals that we sometimes take for granted. 

Functionalist Perspective

Also known as functionalism and structural functionalism, functionalist perspective is based on the assumption that society is stable, orderly system. This stable system is characterized by societal consensus, whereby the majority of members show a common set of values, belief and behavioral expectation. According to this perspective a society is composed of interrelated parts, each of which serves a function and contributes to the overall stability of the society. Societies develop social structure 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 part are affected and the system no longer functions properly.

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979). a Harvard university sociologist was a key figure in the development of functionalist theory. Parson had been greatly influenced by the works of Emile Durkheim, Max

Weber and other European sociologists. Under the functionalist approach, if an aspect of social life does not contribute to a society stability or survival- if it does not serve some identifiable useful

function or promote value consensus among member of a society it will not be passed on from one generation to the next.

Manifest and Latent Functions

Manifest function are intended or overly recognized by the participants in a social unit. In contrast, latent function is unintended function that is hidden and remains unacknowledged by participants. For example, a manifest function of education is the transmission of knowledge and skills from 1 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 un-desirable consequences of any element of a society. A dysfunction of education in United States is the perpetuation of gender, racial and clam inequalities. Such dysfunction may threaten the capacity of a society to adopt and survive.

Conflict Perspective

According to conflict perspectives, group 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 matter. 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 continuous power struggle among competing social group.

Karl Marx viewed struggle between social classes as inevitable, given the exploitation of workers under capitalism. Expanding on Marx’s work, sociologists and other social scientist have come to see conflict not merely as a class phenomenon but as a part of everyday life in all societies. Thus, in studying any culture, organization, or social group, sociologists want to know who benefits, who suffers and who dominates at the expense of other. They are concerned with the conflict between women and men, parents and children, cities and suburbs and whites and African Americans, to name only few. In studying such questions, conflict theorists are interested in how society’s institutions including the family, govt., religion, education and the media- may help to maintain the privileges of some groups and keep others in a subservient position.

Like functionalist, conflict sociologists tend to use the Macro-level approach. Obviously, though, there is a striking difference between these two sociological perspectives. Conflict theorists are primarily concerned with the kinds of changes that can bring about, whereas functionalists look for stability and consensus. The conflict model is viewed as more “radial” and “activist” because of its emphasis on social change and the need for redistribution of resources to eliminate existing social inequality. On the other hand, the functionalist perspective, because of its focus on stability, is generally seen as more “conservation” (Dahrendorf,1958)

Currently, conflict theory is accepted within the discipline of sociology as one valid way to gain insight into a society.

One important contribution of conflict theory is that it has encouraged sociologists to view society through the eyes of those segments of the population that rarely influence decision making.

Feminist theory builds in important way on the conflict perspective. Like other conflict theorists, feminist scholars see gender differences as a reflection of the subjugation of one group (women) by another group (men). Drawing on the work of Marx and Engels, contemporary feminist theorists often view women’s subordination as inherent in capitalist societies. Some radical feminist theorists, however, view the oppression of women as inevitable in all male-dominated societies, including those labeled as capitalist, socialist and communist (Tuchman,1992).

Symbolic Interactionist 

The functionalist and conflict perspectives both analyze behavior in terms of society wide patterns. However, many contemporary sociologists are more interested in understanding society as a whole through an examination of social interactions such as small groups conducting meetings, two friends talking casually with each other, a family celebrating a birthday and so forth. The interactionist perspective generalizes about fundamental or everyday forms of social interaction. Interactionism is a sociological framework for viewing human beings as living in a world of meaningful objects. These “objects” may include material things, actions, other people, relationships and even symbols.

Focusing on everyday behavior permits interactions to better understand the larger society.

George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) is widely regarded as the founder of the interactionist perspective. Mead was interested in observing the minutest forms of communication-smiles, frowns, nods of the head- and in understanding how such individual behavior was influenced by the larger context of a group or society. Interactionists see symbols as an especially important part of human communication. In fact, the interactionist perspective is sometime referred to as the symbolic interactionist perspective.

Such researchers note that both a clenched fist and a salute have social meaning which are shared and understood by the members of a society. In the U.S, a salute symbolizes respect, while a clenched fist signifies defiance. However in another culture different gestures might be used to convey a feeling of respect or defiance.

Let us examine how various societies portray suicide without the use of words. People in the U.S point a finger at the head (shooting); urban Japanese bring a fist against the stomach (stabbing); and the south fore of Papua , New Guinea , clench a hand at the throat (hanging). These types of symbolic interaction are classified as forms of nonverbal communication, which can include many other gestures, facial expressions, and postures.

Erving Goffman (1922-1982) made a distinctive contribution by popularizing a particular type of interactionist method known as the dramaturgical approach. The dramaturgist compares everyday life to the setting of the theater and stage. Just as actors present certain images, all of us seek to present particular features of our personalities while we hide other qualities. Thus, in a class, we may feel the need to project a serious image; at a party, it may seem important to look like a relaxed and entertaining person.

Feminist Perspective:

Feminism is a conflict theory that concentrates on gender inequality-the unequal situation between men and women that exists in most societies. For some feminist theorists gender inequality is as or more significant than class based inequality and has a longer history. Male domination of society continues even today, though women's political activism has made an impact in many areas of life, bringing about some measure of equal treatment.(Abbott et al. 2005)
As a conflict perspective in sociology, feminism draws attention to issues that sociologists previously ignored. In particular, feminist research and theorizing looks at the micro level as well as the macro level world of large social structures. The campaigning activity of women's movement in the 1960s and 1970s led to many legislative changes aimed at tackling the unequal position of woman in society. (Giddens 2013)
The Feminist theory is a conflict theory that studies gender, patriarchy and oppression of woman.

Feminist theory believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes. The movement organised around this belief. This theory is an outgrowth of the general movement to empower women worldwide. Feminism can be defined as a recognition and critique of male supremacy combined with efforts to change it.

Feminism developed in three stages:

• First stage focussed on suffrage and political rights(19th to early 20th century)
• The second stage focussed on social inequality between the genders.(1960-80s)
• The current, third stage emphasises the concept of globalization, post colonialism, post structuralism and postmodernism.(1990-2000)

Simply put-

Feminists fight for the equality of women and argue that women should share equally in society's opportunities and scarce resources.

Relationship of Sociology and other Social sciences

Sociology is one of a group of social sciences, which also includes anthropology, economics, political science and history. The divisions among the various social sciences are not clear cut, and all share a certain range of common interests, concepts and methods. It is therefore very important to understand that the distinctions of the disciplines are to some extent arbitrary and should not be seen in a straitjacket fashion. To differentiate the social sciences would be to exaggerate the differences and gloss over the similarities. Furthermore feminist theories have also shown the greater need of interdisciplinary approach. For instance how would a political scientist or economist study gender roles and their implications for politics or the economy without a sociology of the family or gender division of labour.

Sociology and Economics

Economics is the study of production and distribution of goods and services. The classical economic approach dealt almost exclusively with the interrelations of pure economic variables: the relations of price, demand and supply; money flows; output and input ratios, and the like. The focus of traditional economics has been on a narrow understanding of ‘economic activity’, namely the allocation of scarce goods and services within a society.

Economists who are influenced by a political economy approach seek to understand economic activity in a broader framework of ownership of and relationship to means of production. The objective of the dominant trend in economic analysis was however to formulate precise laws of economic behaviour. The sociological approach looks at economic behaviour in a broader context of social norms, values, practices and interests. The corporate sector managers are aware of this. The large investment in the advertisement industry is directly linked to the need to reshape lifestyles and consumption patterns. Trends within economics such as feminist economics seek to broaden the focus, drawing in gender as a central organising principle of society. For instance they would look at how work in the home is linked to productivity outside. The defined scope of economics has helped in facilitating its development as a highly focused, coherent discipline. Sociologists often envy the economists for the precision of their terminology and the exactness of their measures.

And the ability to translate the results of their theoretical work into practical suggestions having major implications for public policy. Yet economists’ predictive abilities often suffer precisely because of their neglect of individual behaviour, cultural norms and institutional resistance which sociologists study.

A true economic science would look at all the costs of the economy-not only at the costs that corporations are concerned with, but also at crimes, suicides, and so on. We need to put forward an economics of happiness, which would take note of all the profits, individual and collective, material and symbolic, associated with activity (such as security), and also the material and symbolic costs associated with inactivity or precarious employment (for example consumption of medicines: France holds the world record for the use of tranquilisers), (cited in Swedberg 2003).

Sociology unlike economics usually does not provide technical solutions. But it encourages a questioning and critical perspective. This helps questioning of basic assumptions. And thereby facilitates a discussion of not just the technical means towards a given goal, but also about the social desirability of a goal itself. Recent trends have seen a resurgence of economic sociology perhaps because of both this wider and critical perspective of sociology.

Sociology provides clearer or more adequate understanding of a social situation than existed before. This can be either on the level of factual knowledge, or through gaining an improved grasp of why something is happening (in other words, by means of theoretical understanding).

Sociology and economics both study industry but do so differently. Economics would study economic factors of industry, productivity, labour, industrial policy, marketing, etc., whereas a sociologist would study the impact of industrialisation on society. 

Economists study economic institutions such as factories, banks, trade and transportation  but are not concerned with religion, family or politics. Sociology is interested in interaction between the economic institutions and other institutions in society, namely, political and religious. 

Social life, in modern times, is very complex and no discipline by itself can study all of it in depth. While each social discipline focuses on a particular aspect of the society,  there is need to keep in mind the inter-relations of institutions of society. Only some social sciences have been discussed so as to give a feel of relationships among social sciences. Similar analysis of the relation of sociology can be made to philosophy, history, public administration, etc. 

Sociology and Political Science

As in the case of economics, there is an increased interaction of methods and approaches between sociology and political science. Conventional political science was focused primarily on two elements: political theory and government administration. Neither branch involves extensive contact with political behaviour. The theory part usually focuses on the ideas about government from Plato to Marx while courses on administration generally deal with the formal structure of government rather than its actual operation.

Sociology is devoted to the study of all aspects of society, whereas conventional political science restricted itself mainly to the study of power as embodied in formal organisation. Sociology stresses the inter relationships between sets of institutions including government, whereas political science tends to turn attention towards the processes within the government.

However, sociology long shared similar interests of research with political science. Sociologists like Max Weber worked in what can be termed as political sociology. The focus of political sociology has been increasingly on the actual study of political behaviour. Even in the recent Indian elections one has seen the extensive study of political patterns of voting. Studies have also been conducted in membership of political organisations, process of decision-making in organisations, sociological reasons for support of political parties, the role of gender in politics, etc.

Sociology and History

Historians almost as a rule study the past, sociologists are more interested in the contemporary or recent past. Historians earlier were content to delineate the actual events, to establish how things actually happened, while in sociology the focus was to seek to establish causal relationships. History studies concrete details while the sociologist is more likely to abstract from concrete reality, categorise and generalise. Historians today are equally involved in doing sociological methods and concepts in their analysis. Conventional history has been about the history of kings and war. The history of less glamorous or exciting events as changes in land relations or gender relations within the family have traditionally been less studied by historians but formed the core area of the sociologist’s interest. Today however history is far more sociological and social history is the stuff of history. It looks at social patterns, gender relations, mores, customs and important institutions other than the acts of rulers, wars and monarchy.

Sociology and Psychology

Psychology is often defined as the science of behaviour. It involves itself primarily with the individual. It is interested in her/his intelligence and learning, motivations and memory, nervous system and reaction time, hopes and fears. Social psychology, which serves as a bridge between psychology and sociology, maintains a primary interest in the individual but concerns itself with the way in which the individual behaves in social groups, collectively with other individuals.

Sociology attempts to understand behaviour as it is organised in society, that is the way in which personality is shaped by different aspects of society. For instance, economic and political system, their family and kinship structure, their culture, norms and values. It is interesting to recall that Durkheim who sought to establish a clear scope and method for sociology in his well-known study of suicide left out individual intentions of those who commit or try to commit suicide in favour of statistics concerning various social characteristics of these individuals.

Social Psychology and Sociology

Psychology is often defined as the science of behaviour. it involves itself primarily with the individual. it is interested in his/her learning, motivation, memory, nervous system and reaction time, hopes and fear. Social psychology, which serves as a bridge between psychology and sociology maintains a primary interest in the individual but concerns itself with the way in which the individuals behave in a social groups, collectively with other individuals. Sociology attempts to understand behaviour as it is organised in society, that is the way in which personality is shaped up by different aspects of society.

Social psychology is the study of social and cultural influences on the individual. It  focuses on the behaviour of a single person and hence, differs from sociology, which is  more concerned with relations among groups. 

However, there are areas of common interest such as socialisation, norms and values. Moreover, the influences of the group on the individual and of the individual on the  group are also of interest to both social psychology and sociology.

Sociology and Social Anthropology

Anthropology in most countries incorporates archaeology, physical anthropology, cultural history, many branches of linguistics and the study of all aspects of life in “simple societies”. Our concern here is with social anthropology and cultural anthropology for it is that which is close to the study of sociology. Sociology is deemed to be the study of modern, complex societies while social anthropology was deemed to be the study of simple societies.

As we saw earlier, each discipline has its own history or biography. Social anthropology developed in the west at a time when it meant that western- trained social anthropologists studied non- European societies often thought of as exotic, barbaric and uncivilised. This unequal relationship

between those who studied and those who were studied as not remarked upon too often earlier. But times have changed and we have the erstwhile ‘natives’ be they Indians or Sudanese, Nagas or Santhals, who now speak and write about their own societies. The anthropologists of the past documented the details of simple societies apparently in a neutral scientific fashion. In practice they were constantly comparing those societies with the model of the western modern societies as a benchmark.

Other changes have also redefined the nature of sociology and social anthropology. Modernity as we saw led to a process whereby the smallest village was impacted by global processes. The most obvious example is colonialism. The most remote village of India under British colonialism saw its land laws and administration change, its revenue extraction alter, its manufacturing industries collapse.

Contemporary global processes have further accentuated this ‘shrinking of the globe’. The assumption of studying a simple society was that it was bounded. We know this is not so today.

The traditional study of simple, non-literate societies by social anthropology had a pervasive influence on the content and the subject matter of the discipline. Social anthropology tended to study society (simple societies) in all their aspects, as wholes.

In so far as they specialised, it was on the basis of area as for example the Andaman Islands, the Nuers or Melanesia. Sociologists study complex societies and would therefore often focus on parts of society like the bureaucracy or religion or caste or a process such as social mobility. Social anthropology was characterised by long field work tradition, living in the community studied and

using ethnographic research methods.

Sociologists have often relied on survey method and quantitative data using statistics and the questionnaire mode.

Today the distinction between a simple society and a complex one itself needs major rethinking. India itself is a complex mix of tradition and modernity, of the village and the city, of caste and tribe, of class and community. Villages nestle right in the heart of the capital city of Delhi. Call

centres serve European and American clients from different towns of the country.

Indian sociology has been far more eclectic in borrowing from both traditions. Indian sociologists often studied Indian societies that were both part of and not of one’s own culture. It could also be dealing with both complex differentiated societies of urban modern India as well as the study of tribes in a holistic fashion. It had been feared that with the decline of simple societies, social anthropology would lose its specificity and merge with sociology. However there have been fruitful interchanges between the two disciplines and today often methods and techniques are drawn from both. There have been anthropological studies of the state and globalisation, which are very different from the traditional subject matter of social anthropology. On the other hand, sociology too has been using quantitative and qualitative techniques, macro and micro approaches for studying the complexities of modern societies.

Sociology and Philosophy

Sociology originated largely in philosophical ambition; to account for the course of human history, to explain social crisis of the european nineteenth century and to provide a social doctrine which would guide social policy. Sociology and philosophy remains connected in at least three respects.

Firstly, there is a philosophy of sociology that is, an examination of methods, concepts and arguments used in sociology.

Secondly, there is a close relationship between sociology and moral and social philosophy. The subject matter of sociology is human social behaviour, which is directed by values as well as by impulses and interests. Thus, sociologists studies values and human valuations as social facts.

Thirdly, it may be held that sociology leads on directly to philosophical thought. For instance, Durkheim wrote 'I believe that sociology, more than any other science has a contribution to make to the renewal of philosophical questions. Mannheim and Durkheim both seemed to claim that sociology can make a direct contribution to philosophy, in the sense of settling philosophical questions.

As mentioned earlier, sociology has a broad perspective. It is concerned with those aspects of social life, which are present in all forms. It embraces every social setting.  Most related social sciences have restricted range of specialisations. It must be pointed out that human behaviour cannot be divided neatly into different compartments and  each assigned to a specific social science. Hence, the boundaries between the disciplines  are often overlapping. Almost all the social sciences get outside their 'own' and into 'somebody else's' domain with great frequency.

Source:

NCERT "Introducing Sociology"
IGNOU Basic Concepts Sociology

T B Bottomore Sociology: A guide to problems and Literature