The Sociology of Knowledge and Philosophy of Social Science - Literature review Example

The sociology of knowledge rather than philosophy of social science is a more useful starting point for research. Discuss   Research is a “a careful critical inquiry or examination in seeking facts or principle diligent investigation in order to ascertain something.” – The Webster’s International Dictionary This definition may be limited in scope as research envisages a lot more than what is explained. One of the most obvious functions of research would be the to add new knowledge to the existing ones. Simply put, any scholarly investigation in search of truths or facts could be termed, research. Research provides an analytical framework for the subject matter under investigation. Social research is that part of research that studies human behaviour as part of society. Usually social research aims to find answers to unexplained social phenomena and also maybe to correct misconceived facts of social life. Social research could play a vital role in social planning. A sound knowledge of all aspects of society – social resources, people and their preferences, organisations and their operative controls, etc- should be taken into consideration if planning has to be effective. The role of a researcher cannot be underestimated in such situations. A reliable store of factual knowledge would be the contribution of a social researcher. In order to fulfill all the above said facts, it is necessary that the research is well grounded in knowledge rather than philosophy. To do so, let us first understand what ‘knowledge’ means. A layman would say that knowledge was something which could be gained through familiarity with a subject and could be improved through experience and understanding. A formal definition of knowledge is that “knowledge is information of which a person, organization or other entity is aware.” Knowledge is gained either by experience, learning and perception or through association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose. The unreliability of memory limits the certainty of knowledge about the past, while unpredictability of events yet to occur limits the certainty of knowledge about the future.” Another important definition of knowledge is Knowledge is "information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection. It is a high-value form of information that is ready to apply to decisions and actions." (T. Davenport et al., 1998) Sociology of Knowledge The next concept that we need to examine is the sociology of knowledge. This branch of Sociology is mainly concerned with the study of the social origins of ideas, and of the effects of these prevailing ideas on societies. The sociology of knowledge is that branch of sociology that is mainly concerned with problems that have existed over a long period of time. We can understand it better as we trace its growth. Ernst Grunwald, a historian indicates that some of its dominant conceptions are simply more systematic and more clearly formulated restatements of views that found expression in the writings of the philosopher, Francis Bacon. Though most of the classical theorists have used this theory, many have not specifically mentioned it but it has to be assumed from their theories. We will discuss the ideas of a few sociologists in order to obtain a better understanding of why sociology of knowledge is conducive for research. In the early decades of the 20th century, this new field of Sociology gained widespread acceptance in France and Germany. Most of the studies done at that time were mainly concerned with the socio-cultural factors influencing the development of beliefs and opinion rather than of positive knowledge. So, the term, "Wissen" –Knowledge - must be thought of as referring to social ideas and thought generally, and not to the physical sciences, except where it has been otherwise indicated. “Briefly stated, the sociology of knowledge is primarily concerned with the “dependence of knowledge upon social position (1) and, to an excessive and fruitless degree, with the epistemological implications of such dependence. In fact, as we shall see, there is a growing tendency to repudiate this latter problem as it becomes increasingly apparent that the social genesis of thought has no necessary bearing on its validity or falsity.”1 Due to the dominance of Functionalism in the through the middle years of the 20th century, the sociology of knowledge tended to remain on the periphery of mainstream sociological thought. In the 1960s, it again gained importance due to the efforts of Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. The sociology of knowledge is still central for methods dealing with qualitative understanding of human society. The works of Durkheim, relates man’s religious commitments and social commitments, and his theory postulates that the categories of man's thought, that is, his ways of conceiving space and time, can be traced to his mode of social life. Durkheim claimed that time and space was not only transmitted by society, but they were social creations. “His sociology of knowledge attempts to establish connections between concrete philosophical, religious, artistic, and scientific thought and the overall cultural mentalities in which this thought appears and flourishes.”2 Sorokin’s theory of the sociology of knowledge, Merton’s analysis and Karl Mannheim’s philosophy, all of which add to these dimensions encourage us to agree with the concept that the sociology of knowledge would be a better point of starting a research rather than the philosophy of social science. C. Wright Mills, eminent sociologist, talks of a perspective called the "sociological imagination". He says that this perspective could be used to interpret perceptions of social life. This perspective also distinguishes between knowledge and its socio-cultural contexts. The Sociology of knowledge studies the social sources and consequences of knowledge. There is a causal connection between knowledge and society- Society is shaped by knowledge and vice versa. The theory of cultural lag could be a good explanation at this point. Ogburn was the chief proponent of this theory. In this theory he distinguishes between material and non material culture. By material culture, he means things like tools, machinery, discoveries, etc while non-material was supposed to be family, religion, government, etc. When there is a material change in society, it would also bring about a corresponding change in non-material culture but the rate at which the changes take place differs. The non-material culture is always slow to adapt to the new rapid inventions of the material culture. When this happens, there is lag between the two. This lag between the material and non-material culture is called cultural lag. For example, when the steam engine was invented, it changed the pace of life and the speed and safety of transportation forever but it took a while for the people to trust this new contraption spewing steam. The time taken for it to be accepted into the minds of people was longer than the time taken for it to be used by the railways. This particular period of time was the lag in this case. This scenario makes it clear that knowledge and society depend on each other for their sustenance and enhancement. Mills also says that the inherent limitation in the study of social phenomena would limit the status of any social science, to art and not science. Most of the social events are unique and could not be duplicated. Social phenomena do not follow natural laws and the application of scientific laws to the social events would result in destroying the essential meaning of the event. Max Weber, another great sociologist talks about the multiple causes of social phenomenon. He interpreted causality through probabilities and thought that due to the character of human beings, it would be impossible to make rational predictions about their behaviour. Prediction is possible only in a system of theory that will focus our concern on a few social forces out of the huge resources of forces and their interactions that make up reality. Due to all such limitations, causal certainty in social research is not attainable. Weber says that the best that can be done is to focus our theories on the most important relationships between social forces, and to forecast from that theory in terms of probabilities. Karl Mannheim was acknowledged to be the main force behind the development of the sociology of knowledge. He is primarily concerned with the human thought in political life. Mannheim assumes that the will of the group members to change or maintain the status quo in maintaining their societal realms leads to the emergence of their problems and thought. He seeks to identify and categorize different styles of thinking in order to connect them to the groups in which they arise. All these ideas are developed through his discussion of two concepts- ideology and Utopia. “The concept 'ideology' is an outgrowth of political conflict in the course of which it appears that ruling groups can in their thinking become so intensively interest-bound to a situation that they are simply no longer able to see certain facts which would undermine their sense of domination."3 The second concept proposed by Mannheim is Utopia- this is a state which is still non existent but could be realised because if these conceptions could pass into action resulting in the prevalent social order breaking up and thus leading to utopia. In his discussion, Mannheim has proposed a number of theorems that could be called “suggestive hypotheses.” He believed that relativism could be attained only in a complex and evolving society characterised by a high degree of social mobility and democratisation. Such a society would pave the way for the emergence of the sociology of knowledge because there would be destruction of old and out moded values and the resurgence of new ideas and values. It is under such conditions that social research would thrive. The Sociology of Knowledge is a branch of Sociology that is most conducive to research as the underlying thread of thought of all the thinkers in this field, is that of a causal explanation of social facts. The inquisitiveness and the thirst for knowledge required by a researcher can be satisfied by the theories in this field and could be an excellent start to a thought provoking research problem. The works of classical sociologists like Weber and Durkheim encourage the researcher to find multiple causes to all the happenings in society. They also understood the difficulty of accurate predictions in human relations due to the complexities of the subject matter. Though most of them wanted to make Sociological predictions on par with scientific theories, they failed to do so, but have suggested alternate methods of study without compromising on the validity and outcome of social research. Philosophy of social sciences Social science is a rational and systematic study of human society in all its forms with the aim of arriving at an understanding of all social phenomena. In order to confirm the status of social sciences as a science, it needs to have a body of knowledge that has been accepted. If social sciences could have an all-pervasive understanding of social phenomena and all the concerned people accept this knowledge, then we could call it a science. Philosophy, inspite of being a rational activity cannot be called a science because there is no consensus regarding how disagreements may be resolved, other than continued discussion and debate, and this again may only lead to more chaos rather than the resolution of disagreement. The philosophy of social science could be considered a learned explanation and active discussion about the nature of the social sciences, their relations to each other, and their relations to the natural sciences. The philosophy of social science aims to provide an interpretation of the social sciences that permits answers to questions like- the criteria of a good social explanation, whether the social sciences are distinct from natural sciences, the exclusive methods for social research, whether there are irreducible social laws, whether there were causal relations among social phenomena, etc. Just like natural sciences, the philosophy of social sciences also has a descriptive as well as well as prescriptive side. There are two fields in this area, one is concerned with the social sciences itself -the methods, theories, hypotheses, etc. and the other is epistemic which means that it deals with the fact that the scientific theories put forward are found to be true and justified on rational grounds. The philosopher therefore wants to be able to provide a critical evaluation of existing social science methods insofar as these methods are found to be less truth-enhancing than they might be. These two aspects of the philosophical enterprise suggest that philosophy of social science should be construed as a rational reconstruction of existing social science practice-a reconstruction that is guided by existing practice but that goes beyond that practice by identifying faulty assumptions, forms of reasoning, or explanatory frameworks.4 August Comte did all the pioneering work to establish social sciences, especially sociology as a science. He tried to determine the nature of human society and the laws and principles underlying its growth and the methods to be employed while studying social phenomena. He formulated three stages through which human knowledge develops- the theological, he Metaphysical and the Positivist or empirical stage. He maintained that only when the last stage has been realised, is science possible. In the positive stage, objective observation is substituted for speculation and there is a concentration upon the discovery of causal relationships rather than first causes. In the first stage, everything is understood only through supernatural-the family, the priests and the military. The second stage is characterised by abstract sources that assume to be the source of explanation. The state replaces the family as the prototypical social unit as was commonly seen in the Middle Ages where the church and the lawyers held political dominance. In the third and final stage, the mind would give up the fruitless search for the origin of the universe and its various causes and applies itself to the study of the laws of nature. It is in this scientific phase that the laws of the universe would be studied through experimentation and comparison. Spencer, who was also a positivist, carried Comte’s study forward. Spencer employed an inductive method in his studies- that is –he arrived at his conclusions after an examination and analysis of data based upon what was then known as the life of primitive man. One of his best theories was that social phenomena or the ‘super-organic’ as he termed them, always underwent an evolutionary process of growth from the simple and homogeneous to the complex and heterogeneous. Another significant contribution of Spencer was his organic analogy in which he compared society to the human organism. Societies were not simply collections of individuals but organisms with a life of their own. He was concerned with the evolutionary nature of change in social structures and social institutions and was the first to believe that human society also evolved according to the principles of natural laws. Spencer argued for a policy of non-interference in human affairs and society. He was against legislation to solve social problems as he believed them to interfere with the natural process. He also opposed free education because he believed that those who really wanted to learn would find a way. Just as societies that could not adapt would perish, so would individuals who did not fit in. His theory was not very well accepted later but his conviction that scientific method could be applied to the study of society was widely accepted. Durkheim was another important sociologist who has made major contributions to the philosophy of social sciences. His approach could also be termed ‘positivist’. In his book, “The Rules of Sociological Method”, he outlines his views on the methods of sociological inquiry. According to him all the social facts like the belief systems, customs, and institutions should be considered as things just like objects and events of the natural world. Although social facts enter the consciousness of individuals, (like the belief systems of a society forming a part of the outlook of its members) social facts are still external to the individuals. They are impressed upon them by society but they exist outside the individual and so, can be studied objectively. In Durkheim’s view, society is not simply a collection of individuals acting independently in terms of their particular psychology but collective beliefs and values direct it i.e by social facts that are external to the individual. Thus social facts constrain individuals to behave in a particular manner. So the explanation of human behaviour involves an examination of how that behaviour is shaped by social facts. Just as the behaviour of matter can be seen as a reaction to external stimuli, so can the behaviour of man be seen as a response to external constraints of social facts. Given this view of the nature of man and society, social facts could be subject to analysis in terms of natural science methodology. In so far as Durkheim was concerned, the philosophy of social science was essential in creating an atmosphere for social research. His contribution to the sociology of knowledge as well the philosophy of social science makes it evident that both the branches of sociology do not exist separate from each other but go hand in hand as far as research goes. When we talk of the philosophy of social sciences, we cannot forget the contribution of Max Weber. He thought of social sciences “as a science which attempts the interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects”5. This approach was called the “verstehen” approach-understanding human actions by examining the subjective meaning that people attach to their own behaviour and to the behaviour of others. There has always been a debate about the relation between social and natural sciences. In the naturalist position, the philosophers tend to think that the methods of social sciences should closely follow the methods of the natural sciences. The other side holds that social sciences are unique and cannot be equated with the natural sciences, as they are intentional- that is - they depend on the meaningful actions of individuals. This anti-naturalist position also says that there is a corresponding difference between the methods to be used for natural and social science. Weber's verstehen method talks about such a factor. Weber argued that social class involves subjective perceptions of power, wealth, ownership and social prestige as well as objective aspects of these factors. The main contribution of Weber was the study of capitalism. In his book called, “The Protestantic Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism”, he has made a detailed study of the relationship between capitalistic thoughts being developed as a result of religious orientation. He considered that success in profit making to be an indication that an organisation was running smoothly. In the calvinistic form of protestantism, salvation was thought to be predetermined i.e, when a person was born, he was already saved by god or condemned to hell but they also believed that worldly success was an indication that they were chosen by God. Calvinism stressed that the people should work at whatever they did and also practice self-discipline. Thus hard work and discipline were important to a calvinist. Weber noted that the behaviour promoted by the doctrines of calvinism was conducive to the development of mature capitalism. While the methodical self-control and rationalisation practiced by the Protestant increases his success in worldly life, as measured principally by success in business, rational asceticism demands that the profits made from business should not be wasted in luxury but should be ploughed back into the business to make it more successful. Slowly, this process would increase the market share of the product and pave the way for a level of control over the external world which in turn would lead to the control over his subjective world or inner world. He considers this aspect to be the one of the most important characteristice of the modern capitalistic society, whose political leaders control people and natural resources and exploit both in an efficient manner. He thought that if the general economic conditions were ripe for the development of capitalism, then the Protestantic ethic would stimulate its emergence. He also studied the economic systems and religions of India and China and concluded that economic conditions alone could not guarantee the development of capitalism but an ethical or moral system that promotes behaviour conducive to capitalism should also be prevalent. Interpretative sociology chooses an approach to provide interpretations to human conduct within the context of culturally specific meaningful arrangements. This approach relates a literary text to social phenomena. Just as a book shows the contents without meaning and asks the reader to interpret its contents, so it is with social phenomena. The researcher has to eke out the meaning in a particular situation so that it makes sense in that moment. Weber's treatment of the protestantic ethic is also an example of such an approach. Causal explanation is a central issue in interpretative sociology. Many of them do not accept that there could be a causal explanation in social sciences. Though it may be true to a certain extent, it cannot be completely ruled out. The causal relationships in social sciences may not be as airtight as natural sciences but there could be a general idea of a causal relation between two circumstances. We may not be able to predict why a war takes place between two countries but we could always sat that the activity of an underwater earthquake could trigger a tsunami. Still we could say that the democracy encourages free thought and enterprise, which would also be a causal statement. Central to causal arguments in the social sciences is the idea of a causal mechanism-a series of events or actions leading from cause to effect. The materialistic explanation is an important point in causal explanation. This aspect tries to explain society from a materialistic angle. Karl Marx was the main supporter of this theory. He says that it is the development of technology that would ease the way for the development of property relations and political systems. This explanation also accepts the fact that social phenomena always depend on the deliberate actions of individuals. Sociology of Knowledge versus Philosophy of Social Sciences In scientific research, a scientist does not judge whether it is good or bad when two chemicals merge. They would be interested only in the outcome. In social research such objectivity may be difficult as the researcher’s desire may unconsciously affect the results of the study. Judgements may also enter into the kind of research that a researcher wants to undertake. Freedom to conduct research may result in over emphasis in certain topics and under emphasis on some topics, for example, India is facing an alarming increase in population and there are innumerable studies about how population could be controlled. When we concentrate on this aspect, we tend to forget that there are also people who have no children. Very few studies provide sufficient amount of guidance for childless couples. This example makes it clear that care should be taken by the researcher to see that his/her research creates some new ideas and not continue with an already much studied idea. Such studies would give no value addition to the existing storehouses of knowledge. Research should always strive to create more interest in a topic and should not be part of many ‘already dones’. Research provides an analytical framework for the subject matter under investigation. It establishes a relationship between different variables, especially between the dependent and independent variable. The cause and effect relationships between different variables have to be identified, leading to crucial observations, generalisations and conclusions. Research stimulates the process to understanding on one hand and deepens the insight on the other. After an exhaustive discussion of both the concepts, it seems to be clear that there is no clear winner. Classical thinkers like Durkheim and Weber have had a lot to say in both aspects. A balanced blend of both sociology of knowledge and the philosophy of social sciences would be an ideal situation to start a research process. The philosophy of social sciences would provide the framework to build on and the sociology of knowledge would be the platform on which a solid research could be erected. Scientific research is a cumulative process and rejective process in the social sciences and understanding can be enhanced not only by gains in knowledge but also by discarding worn out and out of date assumptions. To conclude we could use P.V Young ‘s definition on social research. According to him, “Social research may be defined as a scientific undertaking which, by means of logical and systematized techniques seeks to: (1) discover new facts or verify and test old facts; (2) analyse their sequences, inter-relationships and causal explanations which were derived within an appropriate theoretical frame of reference; (3) develop new scientific tools; concepts and theories which would facilitate reliable and valid study of human behaviour. Social research is a systematic method of exploring, analysing, and conceptualising social life, in order to extend, correct or verify knowledge, whether that knowledge aids in the construction of a theory or in the practice of an art” 6 References 1. Coser, Lewis A.,1977, Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed., Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 129-143 2. Merton, Robert K., July 2002 The Competitiveness of Nations in a Global Knowledge-Based Economy, Harvard University. Volume 27, Issue 3, Nov. 1937, 493-503. 3. Little, Daniel (1991). Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Westview Press. 23-26 4. Ruben, David-Hillel (1998). Social science, philosophy of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved August 08, 2006, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/R047 5. Gupta, Santosh (1993). Research Methodology and Statistical Techniques. Deep and Deep publications. 6-9 6. Nisbet, Robert. A. (1967). The Sociological Tradition. London., 1-6 7. Merton, R.K (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, 2nd ed, Glencoe, The Free Press, 9-14 8. Gopal, M.H (1964). Introduction to Research Procedure in Social Science, Bombay, Kitab Mahal, 45-48 9. Tandon, B.C (1987). Research Methodology in Social Sciences, Allahabad, Chaitanya Publishing House, 18-23 Read More