Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sociology
First published in 1962, this seminal work is an introduction to sociology in a world context,
and a sophisticated guide to the major themes, problems and controversies in contemporary
sociology. The book remains unique in its organisation and presentation of sociological
ideas and problems, in its lack of insularity (its wide coverage of diverse types of society
and of sociological thought from various cultural traditions), and in its systematic connection of sociology with the broad themes of modern social and political thought.
A work of authority and mature scholarshipof a consistently high standard.
Times Literary Supplement
A book which glows with knowledge, but which is also balanced and literate.
Tribune
Sociology
A guide to problems and literature
T.B.Bottomore
SOCIOLOGY
A Guide to Problems and Literature
BY
T.B.BOTTOMORE
LONDON
FOR MARY
PREFACE
The occasion for this book was a request to UNESCO from the Indian National Commission for UNESCO, for the preparation of a guide to sociology which would present sociological concepts, theories and methods in relation to the culture and institutions of Indian
society. Such a book, it was thought, would provide a better introduction to the subject
for Indian students than the existing textbooks, which deal very largely with the Western
societies.
When the Social Sciences Department of UNESCO invited me to write the book I
accepted readily. In the first place, I had already a general interest in the under-developed
countries and in the social changes accompanying their industrialization; and I was particularly interested in the economic and social development of India. Moreover, I considered
that an attempt to set out the principles and methods of sociology in their bearing upon the
study of Indian society might be illuminating not only for Indian students, but for others.
It would show how far the accepted sociological concepts and categories are adequate and
universally valid, and would reveal some of the major difficulties in classification, comparison and generalization. Finally, I have used this opportunity to introduce sociology in a
way which seems to me most likely to be useful and stimulating for the student. Throughout
the book I have aimed to formulate the difficult theoretical problems with which sociology
is concerned, and to show how sociologists have tried to reduce the complexity of the problems and to make them amenable to scientific enquiry. As a prelude to this I have discussed
in the first part of the book some general difficulties of sociological theory and method.
After the first version of this book had been written I had the opportunity to spend several months in India and to discuss it with Indian scholars. I have benefited greatly from
their criticisms and suggestions in re-writing the book. If I do not mention them by name
here it is because there are so many who helped me.
T.B.B.
CONTENTS
PREFACE
vii
1.
2.
Sociological Theory
11
3.
Sociological Methods
25
4.
35
49
5.
50
6.
59
69
7.
70
8.
Economic Institutions
85
9.
Political Institutions
98
10.
109
11.
Social Stratification
122
144
12.
147
13.
153
14.
Law
163
15.
Education
172
Contents ix
PART V. SOCIAL CHANGE
184
16.
185
17.
195
205
18.
206
19.
Social Problems
217
INDEX
226
PART ONE
THE SCOPE AND METHODS
OF SOCIOLOGY
CHAPTER 1
THE STUDY OF SOCIETY
For thousands of years men have observed and reflected upon the societies and groups
in which they live. Yet sociology is a modern science, not much more than a century old.
Auguste Comte, in his classification of the sciences, made sociology both logically and
chronologically posterior to the other sciences, as the least general and most complex of
all And one of the greatest of modern anthropologists observed that the science of human
society is as yet in its extreme infancy.1
It is true that we can find, in the writings of philosophers, religious teachers, and legislators of all civilizations and epochs, observations and ideas which are relevant to modern
sociology. Kautilyas Arthashstra and Aristotles Politics analyze political systems in ways
which are still of interest to the sociologist. Nevertheless, there is a real sense in which a
new science of society, and not merely a new name,2 was created in the nineteenth century.
It is worthwhile to consider the circumstances in which this happened, and to examine the
characteristics which distinguish sociology from earlier social thought.3
The circumstances in which sociology appeared may be distinguished into intellectual
and material, and I shall discuss them in turn. Naturally, they were interwoven, and an
adequate sociological history of sociology, which has not yet been attempted, would have to
take account of these interconnections. In this brief introduction I can only mention some
of the more important factors.
The chief intellectual antecedents of sociology are not difficult to identify. Broadly it
may be said that sociology has had a fourfold origin in political philosophy, the philosophy of history, biological theories of evolution, and the movements for social and political
reform which found it necessary to undertake surveys of social conditions.1 Two of these,
the philosophy of history and the social survey, were particularly important at the outset.
They were themselves latecomers in the intellectual history of man.
A.R.Radcliffe-Brown, Structure and Function in Primitive Society (1952).
It was Comte who named the new science Sociology. At one time he regretted the hybrid character
of the word, derived from the Latin socius and Greek logos, but later suggested that there is a compensationfor this etymological defect, in the fact that it recalls the two historical sourcesthe
one intellectual, the other socialfrom which modern civilization has sprung. System of Positive
Polity (trans. J.H.Bridges), Vol. I, p. 326.
3
The histories of social thought emphasise unduly its continuity. It would be helpful and illuminating
to have for sociology and the modern social sciences, an account similar to that which H.Butterfield
has provided for the natural sciences in The Origins of Modern Science (London 1950), where he
gives prominence to a radical change in attitude to the physical world.
1
M.Ginsberg, Reason and Unreason in Society (1947), p. 2.
1
2
H.Zetterberg (ed.), Sociology in the United States of America (UNESCO. 1956) p. 18.
The extent of sociological work in this field can be seen from two trend reports published in Current Sociology; III(4) 19545, Electoral Behaviour by G.Dupeux, and VI(2) 1957, Political Sociology by R.Bendix and S.M. Lipset.
2
These instances are referred to only as examples. The relations between sociology and other social
sciences will be discussed more fully in Chapter 4.
3
1
It is true they were inclined to attribute a special importance to the Western societies, as having
attained a stage of civilization which other societies would eventually reach after going through
similar stages of development. In this way Comte justified the limitation of his investigations to the
elite or avant garde of humanity (i.e. the European nations). The view was not entirely unfounded
in as much as Western science and technology have been the principal factors in transforming the
modern world.
Hans Gerth and C.Wright Mills, Character and Social Structure, (London, 1954), p. 27.
CHAPTER 2
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
There is not, at the present time, any general body of sociological theory which has been
validated or widely accepted. The early sociologists believed that they had discovered a
number of fundamental social laws, principally laws of social evolution, which constituted a body of theory capable of guiding both thought and action. Modern sociologists
have been, on the whole, more modest in their claims. They have been chiefly concerned to
elucidate the character of the sociological approach (i.e. with methodology rather than theory), and to work out more precise concepts and more adequate classifications. In the latter
activity they have formulated mainly that kind of limited generalisation which is involved
by the activity of classification itself. R.B.Braithwaite,1 makes a distinction between sciences at different stages of development, and says: If a science is in a highly developed
stage, as in physics, the laws which have been established will form a hierarchy in which
many special laws appear as logical consequences of a small number of highly general
laws expressed in a very sophisticated manner; if the science is in an early stage of developmentwhat is sometimes called its natural-history stagethe laws may be merely the
generalisations involved in classifying things into various classes.2
As to the so-called laws of social evolution, it has become doubtful whether they should
be regarded as laws at all. K.R.Popper, in his discussion of historicism observes: The
evolution of life on earth, or of human society, is a unique historical process. Such a process, we may assume, proceeds in accordance with all kinds of causal laws, for example,
the laws of mechanics, of chemistry, of heredity and segregation, of natural selection, etc.
Its description, however, is not a law, but only a singular historical statement. Universal
laws make assertions concerning some unvarying order i.e. concerning all processes of
a certain kind But we cannot hope to test a universal hypothesis nor to find a natural law
acceptable to science if we are for ever confined to the observation of one unique process.1
1
2
See M.Ginsberg, Essays in Sociology and Social Philosophy (London 1957) Vol. 1., On the concept of evolution in sociology.
3
For further discussion see Chapter 17 below.
4
Op cit. p. 129.
5
It is an important question for the economically under-developed countries. There is an attempt
to specify the conditions for such a trend, using sociological as well as economic concepts, in
W.Arthur Lewis, The Theory of Economic Growth (London 1955).
1
Cf. E.Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, where it is argued that the business of the
sociologist is to establish causal connections and causal laws; and A.R.Radcliffe-Brown, A Natural
Science of Society, p. 3. The theses to be maintained here are that a theoretical science of human
society is possible; that there can only be one such science
2
Diltheys works have not been translated into English. There is, however, a good exposition and
discussion of his views in two books by H.A.Hodges, Wilhelm Dilthey: An Introduction (London
1944) and The Philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey (London 1952).
2
Sociological Theory 13
from Max Webers essays on the methods of the social sciences.3 In England, Collingwood
put forward views similar to those of Dilthey but had little direct influence on the social
sciences. However, a number of English writers have claimed the social sciences as historical disciplines.4 In Italy, Croces historical philosophy was for a long time the dominant
influence in social studies. The more Hegelian of Marxist writers have also proposed a
philosophical theory of history in opposition to sociology as a generalising science.1
Over the past century this has been one of the fundamental controversies in the social
sciences and especially in sociology. It is too large a question to be examined thoroughly
here. It will be convenient to examine some aspects of the problem in discussing sociological methods in the next chapter, since a part of the dispute turns upon the question whether
the methods of the natural sciences can appropriately be used in studying social phenomena. But there are some general points which may be rapidly reviewed.
One powerful argument against the scientific character of the social sciences has been that
they have not in fact produced anything resembling a natural law. This might be answered
(and often is) by referring to the youthfulness of the social sciences, and implying that they
will eventually reach a higher theoretical level. But the answer is not entirely convincing;
critics would say that the plea of immaturity has been made for a long time, without much
sign of growth. Yet the criticism is exaggerated. In sociology, despite the complexity of the
subject matter, causal connections and functional correlations have been established with
a reasonable degree of probability. Durkheims study of suicide and Max Webers analysis of the relations between Protestantism and capitalism establish such connections, and
there are other examples which we shall examine later. Moreover, those who dispute the
scientific character of sociology are themselves open to criticism. If, as they hold, sociology is concerned with historical interpretation, or with interpreting the social actions of
individuals on the basis of introspective knowledge of our own states of mind, the scientific
Max Weber, Methodology of the Social Sciences (English translation, 1949) especially the essays,
Critical Studies in the logic of the cultural sciences. But Weber also believed that causal explanation was possible and necessary in sociology: it cannot be too strongly emphasized that any
understanding of, or insight into, the [human] action in question must be carefully verified by the
customary methods of causal inference.
4
E.E.Evans-Pritchard in his Social Anthropology (London 1951) says, In my view [social anthropology] is much more like certain branches of historical scholarshipsocial history and the history of
institutions and of ideas as contrasted with narrative and political historythan it is like any of the
natural sciences. Sir A.M.Carr-Saunders, in a recent lecture (Natural Science and Social Science,
Liverpool, 1958) argues that: Social science aims at interpreting social facts, that is the actions of
men in relation to things, and to one another. These facts are entangled in a network so intricate that an
attempt to discover invariable sequences must meet with failure. Such sequences, however, if discoverable, would not yield an interpretation of social facts in the light of our knowledge of people, and
that is the interpretation which social science seeks. (p. 11.) He concludes the lecture by asserting a
close affinity between social science and history; and since no one doubts that the place of history is
among the humanities, the place of social science must be there also (p. 15).
1
One of the most influential writings of this tendency is G.Lukcs, Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein (1923). A more recent book which critically examines sociology from this point of view is
H.Marcuse, Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory (New York, 1941).
3
1
2
3
Sociological Theory 15
These views might lead to various conceptions of sociology; as historical interpretation,
or as a critical philosophy (Marcuse), as ultimately reducible to psychology plus historical knowledge, or as a generalizing science whose laws have a very limited range. Some
of these points will be considered further in the next chapter. I propose next to examine
sociological theory as it has developed up to the present time, under three headings: types
of generalization, basic concepts and schemes of classification, and explanatory theories.
Types of generalization
It is perhaps surprising, in view of the claims sometimes made for the scientific maturity of
sociology, that there have been so few attempts to set out in a systematic way, and to evaluate, the different types of generalization to be found in sociological work. One such attempt
is the brief discussion in M.Ginsbergs essay on The problems and methods of sociology.2
Ginsberg finds six types of generalization in social science:
1. Empirical correlations between concrete social phenomena (e.g. urban life and divorce
rates).
2. Generalizations formulating the conditions under which institutions or other social
formations arise (e.g. various accounts of the origins of capitalism).
3. Generalizations asserting that changes in given institutions are regularly associated
with changes in other institutions (e.g. association between changes in class structure
and other social changes, in Marxs theory).
4. Generalizations asserting rhythmical recurrences or phasesequences of various kinds
(e.g. attempts to distinguish the stages of economic development, Bcher, Schmoller
and others).
5. Generalizations describing the main trends in the evolution of humanity as a whole
(e.g. Comtes law of the three stages, the Marxist theory of development from primitive society to communist society, Hobhouses theory of social development).
6. Laws stating the implications of assumptions regarding human behaviour (e.g. some
laws in economic theory).
It will be seen that these types of generalization are very different in range and level; and
that they differ also in the extent to which they can be regarded as validated. Those of the
first type are empirical generalizations; many of them can be considered well established,
but they have not been incorporated in a more general system of laws in such a way as to
form part of a scientific theory. The generalizations of types (2) and (3) can be regarded as
formulations of universal laws relating to trends, of the kind discussed earlier (p. 26). On
the other hand, the generalizations of types (4) and (5) are not really theoretical generalizations; they are compounds of descriptive-historical statements and interpretations. Comtes
law of the three stages and Hobhouses theory of social development describe the growth
of knowledge; the Marxist theory of social development describes the growth of technology and productive powers. All of them also interpret historical changes in terms of the
phenomena which they emphasise. Finally, the generalizations of type (6) seem to occur