I attached the book and need to read pages 173-174 on Max Weber a biographical sketch only. Also, it must be in ASA format in the citation. Also must use academic articles such as CSUDH Library or databases: SocioINDEX, Social Sciences Full Text (Wilson), PsyInfo, Psychology Databases, PsycARTICLES, ProQuest, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Toro Online Catalog of Books the finding in the articles should be most of your summary should be focused and a minimum of 1/2 and 3/4 of a page in length.
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DOMINGUEZ HILLS
Modern Social Theories: Fall 2020
SOC 355:10 – CRN: 46292 – Lab Assignment Example
Erving Goffman: A Biographical Sketch
I was first introduced to Erving Goffman early in my sociological journey when the course
discussion turned to symbolic interactionist such as Cooley looking glass-self and Mead self.
Goffman dramaturgy perspective was an interesting concept relating social interactions to
theatrical performance. Something we do all the time in various situations such as; job
interviews, when first meeting someone, and other interactions as well. There were a few points
from the biography that were interesting about Goffman. The first point was his exceptional
career as a Professor and endowed Chair at prestigious institutions considering the fact he was
regarded as a cult figure and a rebel. According to the biography Goffman has a reputation as an
iconoclast which is defined as a person that attacks cherished beliefs or institutions, was another
characteristic I found interesting. This quality is something that I can strongly relate too, because
I have always wondered about the odd man out when studies report 4 out of 5 professionals
selected this brand. I’ve always asked why it was not 5 out of 5 that chose a certain item. My
final point of interest in the biography was although he earned advance degrees from the
University of Chicago, which is said to be among the top sociology department in the world,
Goffman related more to social anthropology, which influenced his earlier works more than the
symbolic interactionism perspective had on him.
Cho, Charles H., Matias Laine, Robin W. Roberts and Michelle Rodriguez. 2018. “The
Frontstage and Backstage of Corporate Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Bill.” Journal of Business Ethics 152(3):865-886.
Richey, Michelle, Mayasandra Nagaraja Ravishankar and Christine Coupland. 2016. “Exploring
Situationally Inappropriate Social Media Posts.” Information Technology &
People 29(3):597-617.
The purpose of this study is to address the question ‘why do individuals in organizational
context make situationally inappropriate post to social media’. Specifically focusing on the
individual-level triggers of the inappropriate post to social media in organizational settings. This
study is based on a qualitative study of teams promoting favorable views using social media of
their company using the most popular platforms, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. This
qualitative study conducted forty-four interviews from 31 companies conducted in 2012.
Participants were contacted using two government supported small business network in the
United Kingdom (UK) offering social media training seminars as part of the support program.
Each of the participating company had from 1,000 to 15,000 followers, as well as used at least
one of the following platforms, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube. The study found
several accounts of inappropriate posting and embarrassments ranging from saying the wrong
thing to reputational damage to the company centered around relies posted on their media page.
Lab Writing Assignment Example – 1
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DOMINGUEZ HILLS
Modern Social Theories: Fall 2020
SOC 355:10 – CRN: 46292 – Lab Assignment Example
The analysis also highlights four triggers of inappropriate social media post, the first is the ‘the
demands of speed and spontaneity’; informants felt their followers expected a response to media
comment quickly and spontaneously. many participants felt if someone demanded attention on
social media they could not be ignored, to prevent the situation for getting out of control or to
keep followers waiting was a concern. another trigger was ‘the demands of informality’;
participants felt the traditional corporate tones in communicating were not suited for social
media where communicating on this platform were causal. Informant struggled balancing
professionalism with the relaxed style of communicating on social media. To provide a ‘human,
personal impression’ of the company resulted in language that was inappropriate for the
audience. The third trigger was ‘blurred boundaries’; the sample expressed concerns regarding
their private life be visible to professional clients and customers. they tended to be in a relaxing
mode and adopting a ‘back-stage’ style of communicating in a ‘front-stage’ setting.
Additionally, this trigger has resulted in problems at two levels; the first is at the managerial
level, although users are responding on a personal account, followers are able to connect them to
their company. Resulting in many of them opening two separate accounts, one personal and the
other professional. Although, measures were taken to control personal media post, there was
potential for the post to surface at the staff level. Slip-ups on this level were difficult to detect
and control unless a problem arose or the post was reported. The blurred boundaries caused
many of the employees to be unclear as to when they represented the employer and when they
weren’t. The fourth trigger was ‘the missing audience’; this trigger is linked to the users not
communicating to an individual that is physically in their presence view. Overlooking the fact,
the post may be seen by a follower from their ‘front-stage’ audience. ‘Back-stage’ post seen by
‘front-stage’ audiences cause the user to have concerns regarding their business reputation.
There were instances in which the reverse occurred, where posts intended to the users’ ‘frontstage’ audience were not viewed positively by the users’ back-stage’ followers. The study found
how the triggers associated with social media lead to inappropriate post. Social media furthers
complicate normal encounters in impression management by its ‘situation-like’ characteristics.
Social media does not provide the cues used in face-to-face situations such as facial expression,
voice tone, or temporal settings. The study discovered some media platforms have introduced
alternative tools, like emoticons to provide insight into the emotional state of the follower.
However, it may be unclear if the emoticon is real or being posted ironically
Sallaz, Jeffrey J. 2016. “Can we Scale Up Goffman? from Vegas to the World Stage.” UNLV
Gaming Research & Review Journal 20(1):79-86.
Lab Writing Assignment Example – 2
Theorist Biography & Annotated Bibliography Assignment Instructions Sheet
(Theorist Biography 5 @ 5pts ea. – Theorist/Annotated Bibliography 5 @ 5 pts. ea.)
This is a two-part assignment, both parts of these assigned writing assignments are to be
completed. Below are the requirements/instructions for both Part I and Part II
Part I – students are to read the biography of the assigned theorist (see schedule at the bottom of
page two below). After reading the biography in a minimum of a 1/2-page single spaced writeup students are to discuss what they found interesting about the theorist; I do not want a
summary of the autobiography.
Part II – of the assignment requires going online and searching the CSUDH library electronic
data base for three (3) academic research articles related to the theorist,
✓ including studies using the theory,
✓ studies discussing the details of the theory,
✓ other theories developed from the theory or that expand the theory discussed in
Part One.
✓ Students may research any aspect of the theorist or their theory.
Once the academic research articles have been selected, all three (3) articles are to be cited in
ASA (American Sociological Association) format. Next students are to summarize three (3) of
the three (3) articles selected. These summaries should also be singled spaced with a minimum
of half (1/2) a page to three quarters (3/4) of a page in length (see page two for required
information to be included in your journal summary).
For the ASA formatting instruction, I will post the Purdue Owl link in Blackboard under the
Content link and included the link with these directions for your convenience. All summaries are
due on Friday by 11:59 p.m. in Blackboard using the Assignments Link (see due dates in the
table below). Please edit and proof this assignment prior to submitting the work; this is an upper
division undergraduate course; your work should reflect this status.
•
NOTE: This assignment is to be completed using Microsoft office word software, no
Google Doc. or any other software will be accepted. DO NOT submit the assignment as
an attachment that must be downloaded; these will not be opened or downloaded due to
the risk of a virus. Assignments received in any other format or as an attachment will
receive a grade of zero (0) points. Students having problems submitting the assignment
please feel free to contact me for help. Below is the link for the Purdue Owl website with
the ASA citation manual included.
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/asa_style/references_page_formatting.html
Keywords: name of theorist i.e., Karl Marx, George Simmel, and others; sociological theories,
Conflict Theory, Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, Feminist Theory, AGIL
imperative, dialectical philosophy
The following information must be included in your summaries of each source:
1) The author(s) research question or the purpose of the study; be brief no more than a few
sentences.
2) The research methodology used, was it quantitative or qualitative, and the specific
method e.g., focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, meta-analysis, survey, mixed, etc.)
also should be brief no more than a few sentences.
3) The sample size (number of participants) and the demographics (age, gender, race,
offenses, etc.); this should be brief usually no more than a few sentences.
4) The findings in the article(s). This is where most of your summary should be focused. The
overwhelming majority of your sentences should be devoted to the findings on the
research presented in the article(s), spelled out explicitly.
ANNOTATED BIOGRAPHY (25 points) – WRITING SUMMARIES – (25 points)
This is a combination writing summary and annotated bibliography assignment; the easiest
money you’ll ever make (Shaft the movie; 2000). You will be assigned five (5) writing
assignments from the text. This assignment not only will require going on the CSUDH library
database and searching for three (3) academic articles related to the assigned writing. The
assignment will also require students to discuss interesting points found in the reading in a halfpage write-up. Additional instructions will be provided for the assignment under the link for
the lab. Please use the following databases: SocioINDEX, Social Sciences Full Text (Wilson),
PsyInfo, Psychology Databases, PsycARTICLES, ProQuest, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Toro
Online Catalog of Books, as well as other databases provided by the university through the
library to locate sources of interest. These articles are to be cited in the American Sociological
Associations (ASA) format which can be found on the Purdue Owl website. Instructions on how
to access both of these sites (Purdue Owl and CSUDH library) will be provided during the
semester, as well as additional details for this assignment. These assignments will be due on
Friday’s by 11:59 p.m.; due date can be found on the list of writing assignments posted in
Blackboard under the content link.
•
This assignment is two assignments in one: a writing assignment and a library research
assignment. Meaning, for each assigned writing summary you must go to the library and
search the data base for three (3) academic articles that are related to the assigned
writing summary.
Sociological Theory
Tenth Edition
2
To David, with love
—GR
For Mom and Dad, with love
—JS
3
Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support the dissemination of usable knowledge
and educate a global community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over 800 new books each
year, spanning a wide range of subject areas. Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data,
case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after her lifetime will become
owned by a charitable trust that secures the company’s continued independence.
Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne
4
Sociological Theory
Tenth Edition
GEORGE RITZER
University of Maryland
JEFFREY STEPNISKY
MacEwan University
Los Angeles
London
New Delhi
Singapore
Washington DC
Melbourne
5
Copyright © 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
FOR INFORMATION:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: order@sagepub.com
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London, EC1Y 1SP
United Kingdom
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
India
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
3 Church Street
#10–04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Acquisitions Editor: Jeff Lasser
Editorial Assistant: Adeline Wilson
Production Editor: Andrew Olson
Copy Editor: Tammy Giesmann
Typesetter: Hurix Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Proofreader: Barbara Coster
Indexer: Amy Murphy
Cover Designer: Janet Kiesel
Marketing Manager: Kara Kindstrom
Printed in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Ritzer, George, author. | Stepnisky, Jeffrey, author.
Title: Sociological theory / George Ritzer, University of Maryland, Jeff Stepnisky, MacEwan University.
Description: Los Angeles : SAGE, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016037995 | ISBN 9781506337715 (hardcover : alk. paper)
6
Subjects: LCSH: Sociology. | Sociologists–Biography.
Classification: LCC HM585 .R57 2018 | DDC 301–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016037995
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
17 18 19 20 21 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
7
Brief Contents
1. Biographical and Autobiographical Sketches
2. Preface
3. Acknowledgments
4. About the Authors
5. PART I • Classical Sociological Theory
1. Chapter 1 • A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Early Years
2. Chapter 2 • Karl Marx
3. Chapter 3 • Emile Durkheim
4. Chapter 4 • Max Weber
5. Chapter 5 • Georg Simmel
6. PART II • Modern Sociological Theory: The Major Schools
1. Chapter 6 • A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Later Years
2. Chapter 7 • Structural Functionalism, Systems Theory, and Conflict Theory
3. Chapter 8 • Varieties of Neo-Marxian Theory
4. Chapter 9 • Symbolic Interactionism
5. Chapter 10 • Ethnomethodology
6. Chapter 11 • Exchange, Network, and Rational Choice Theories
7. Chapter 12 • Contemporary Feminist Theory
8. Chapter 13 • Micro-Macro and Agency-Structure Integration
7. PART III • From Modern to Postmodern Social Theory (and Beyond)
1. Chapter 14 • Contemporary Theories of Modernity
2. Chapter 15 • Theories of Race and Colonialism
3. Chapter 16 • Globalization Theory
4. Chapter 17 • Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and Postmodern Social Theory
5. Chapter 18 • Social Theory in the 21st Century
8. References
9. Name Index
10. Subject Index
8
Detailed Contents
Biographical and Autobiographical Sketches
Preface
Acknowledgments
About the Authors
PART I • Classical Sociological Theory
1. A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Early Years
Introduction
Social Forces in the Development of Sociological Theory
Political Revolutions
The Industrial Revolution and the Rise of Capitalism
Colonialism
The Rise of Socialism
Feminism
Urbanization
Religious Change
The Growth of Science
Intellectual Forces and the Rise of Sociological Theory
The Enlightenment
The Conservative Reaction to the Enlightenment
The Development of French Sociology
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)
Claude Henri Saint-Simon (1760–1825)
Auguste Comte (1798–1857)
Emile Durkheim (1858–1917)
Social Facts
Religion
The Development of German Sociology
The Roots and Nature of the Theories of Karl Marx (1818–1883)
Hegel
Feuerbach
Marx, Hegel, and Feuerbach
Political Economy
Marx and Sociology
Marx’s Theory
The Roots and Nature of the Theories of Max Weber (1864–1920) and Georg
Simmel (1858–1918)
Weber and Marx
9
Other Influences on Weber
Weber’s Theory
The Acceptance of Weber’s Theory
Simmel’s Theory
The Origins of British Sociology
Political Economy, Ameliorism, and Social Evolution
Political Economy
Ameliorism
Social Evolution
Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)
Spencer and Comte
Evolutionary Theory
The Reaction Against Spencer in Britain
The Key Figure in Early Italian Sociology
Turn-of-the-Century Developments in European Marxism
2. Karl Marx
Introduction
The Dialectic
Dialectical Method
Fact and Value
Reciprocal Relations
Past, Present, Future
No Inevitabilities
Actors and Structures
Human Potential
Labor
Alienation
The Structures of Capitalist Society
Commodities
Fetishism of Commodities
Capital, Capitalists, and the Proletariat
Exploitation
Class Conflict
Capitalism as a Good Thing
Materialist Conception of History
Cultural Aspects of Capitalist Society
Ideology
Freedom, Equality, and Ideology
Religion
Marx’s Economics: A Case Study
10
Communism
Criticisms
Contemporary Applications
3. Emile Durkheim
Introduction
Social Facts
Material and Nonmaterial Social Facts
Types of Nonmaterial Social Facts
Morality
Collective Conscience
Collective Representations
Social Currents
The Division of Labor in Society
Mechanical and Organic Solidarity
Dynamic Density
Repressive and Restitutive Law
Normal and Pathological
Justice
Suicide
The Four Types of Suicide
Egoistic Suicide
Altruistic Suicide
Anomic Suicide
Fatalistic Suicide
Suicide Rates and Social Reform
The Elementary Forms of Religious Life
Early and Late Durkheimian Theory
Theory of Religion—The Sacred and the Profane
Beliefs, Rituals, and Church
Why Primitive?
Collective Effervescence
Totemism
Sociology of Knowledge
Categories of Understanding
Moral Education and Social Reform
Morality
Moral Education
Occupational Associations
Criticisms
Contemporary Applications
11
4. Max Weber
Methodology
History and Sociology
Verstehen
Causality
Ideal Types
Values
Values and Teaching
Values and Research
Substantive Sociology
What Is Sociology?
Social Action
Class, Status, and Party
Structures of Authority
Rational-Legal Authority
Traditional Authority
Charismatic Authority
Types of Authority and the “Real World”
Rationalization
Types of Rationality
An Overarching Theory?
Formal and Substantive Rationality
Rationalization in Various Social Settings
Religion and the Rise of Capitalism
Paths to Salvation
Religion and Capitalism in China
Religion and Capitalism in India
Criticisms
Contemporary Applications
5. Georg Simmel
Primary Concerns
Levels and Areas of Concern
Dialectical Thinking
Fashion
Life
More-Life and More-Than-Life
Individual Consciousness and Individuality
Social Interaction (“Association”)
Interaction: Forms and Types
Social Geometry
12
Social Types
Social Forms
Social Structures and Worlds
Objective Culture
The Philosophy of Money
Money and Value
Money, Reification, and Rationalization
Negative Effects
The Tragedy of Culture
Secrecy: A Case Study in Simmel’s Sociology
Secrecy and Social Relationships
Other Thoughts on Secrecy
Criticisms
Contemporary Applications
PART II • Modern Sociological Theory: The Major Schools
6. A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Later Years
Early American Sociological Theory
Politics
Social Change and Intellectual Currents
Herbert Spencer’s Influence on Sociology
Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929)
Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950)
The Chicago School
Early Chicago Sociology
The Waning of Chicago Sociology
Women in Early American Sociology
The Du Bois–Atlanta School
Sociological Theory to Midcentury
The Rise of Harvard, the Ivy League, and Structural Functionalism
Talcott Parsons (1902–1979)
George Homans (1910–1989)
Developments in Marxian Theory
Karl Mannheim and the Sociology of Knowledge
Sociological Theory From Midcentury
Structural Functionalism: Peak and Decline
Radical Sociology in America: C. Wright Mills
The Development of Conflict Theory
The Birth of Exchange Theory
Dramaturgical Analysis: The Work of Erving Goffman
The Development of Sociologies of Everyday Life
13
Phenomenological Sociology and the Work of Alfred Schutz (1899–1959)
Ethnomethodology
The Rise and Fall (?) of Marxian Sociology
The Challenge of Feminist Theory
Theories of Race and Colonialism
Structuralism and Poststructuralism
Late-20th-Century Developments in Sociological Theory
Micro-Macro Integration
Agency-Structure Integration
Theoretical Syntheses
Theories of Modernity and Postmodernity
The Defenders of Modernity
The Proponents of Postmodernity
Social Theory in the 21st Century
Theories of Consumption
Theories of Globalization
Theories of Science, Technology, and Society
7. Structural Functionalism, Systems Theory, and Conflict Theory
Structural Functionalism
The Functional Theory of Stratification and Its Critics
Talcott Parsons’s Structural Functionalism
AGIL
The Action System
Change and Dynamism in Parsonsian Theory
Robert Merton’s Structural Functionalism
A Structural-Functional Model
Social Structure and Anomie
The Major Criticisms
Substantive Criticisms
Methodological and Logical Criticisms
Systems Theory
System and Environment
Autopoiesis
Differentiation
Segmentary Differentiation
Stratificatory Differentiation
Center-Periphery Differentiation
Differentiations of Functional Systems
Conflict Theory
The Work of Ralf Dahrendorf
14
Authority
Groups, Conflict, and Change
The Major Criticisms and Efforts to Deal With Them
A More Integrative Conflict Theory
Social Stratification
Other Social Domains
8. Varieties of Neo-Marxian Theory
Economic Determinism
Hegelian Marxism
Georg Lukács
Reification
Class and False Consciousness
Antonio Gramsci
Critical Theory
The Major Critiques of Social and Intellectual Life
Criticisms of Marxian Theory
Criticisms of Positivism
Criticisms of Sociology
Critique of Modern Society
Critique of Culture
The Major Contributions
Subjectivity
Dialectics
Criticisms of Critical Theory
The Ideas of Jurgen Habermas
Differences With Marx
Rationalization
Communication
Critical Theory Today: The Work of Axel Honneth
The Ideas of Axel Honneth
Later Developments in Cultural Critique
Neo-Marxian Economic Sociology
Capital and Labor
Monopoly Capital
Labor and Monopoly Capital
Other Work on Labor and Capital
Fordism and Post-Fordism
Historically Oriented Marxism
The Modern World-System
Geographical Expansion
15
Worldwide Division of Labor
Development of Core States
Later Developments
World-System Theory Today
Neo-Marxian Spatial Analysis
The Production of Space
Trialectics
Spaces of Hope
Post-Marxist Theory
Analytical Marxism
Postmodern Marxian Theory
Hegemony and Radical Democracy
Continuities and Time-Space Compression
After Marxism
Criticisms of Post-Marxism
9. Symbolic Interactionism
The Major Historical Roots
Pragmatism
Behaviorism
Between Reductionism and Sociologism
The Ideas of George Herbert Mead
The Priority of the Social
The Act
Gestures
Significant Symbols
Mind
Self
Child Development
Generalized Other
“I” and “Me”
Society
Symbolic Interactionism: The Basic Principles
Capacity for Thought
Thinking and Interaction
Learning Meanings and Symbols
Action and Interaction
Making Choices
Groups and Societies
The Self and the Work of Erving Goffman
The Self
16
The Sociology of Emotions
What Is Emotion?
Shame: The Social Emotion
The Invisibility of Shame
Emotion Management and Emotion Work
Feeling Rules
Commercialization of Feeling
Criticisms
The Future of Symbolic Interactionism
10. Ethnomethodology
Defining Ethnomethodology
The Diversification of Ethnomethodology
Studies of Institutional Settings
Conversation Analysis
Some Early Examples
Breaching Experiments
Accomplishing Gender
Conversation Analysis
Telephone Conversations: Identification and Recognition
Initiating Laughter
Generating Applause
Booing
The Interactive Emergence of Sentences and Stories
Integration of Talk and Nonvocal Activities
Doing Shyness (and Self-Confidence)
Studies of Institutions
Job Interviews
Executive Negotiations
Calls to Emergency Centers
Dispute Resolution in Mediation Hearings
Criticisms of Traditional Sociology
Separated From the Social
Confusing Topic and Resource
Stresses and Strains in Ethnomethodology
Synthesis and Integration
Ethnomethodology and the Micro-Macro Order
11. Exchange, Network, and Rational Choice Theories
Exchange Theory
Behaviorism
Rational Choice Theory
17
The Exchange Theory of George Homans
The Success Proposition
The Stimulus Proposition
The Value Proposition
The Deprivation-Satiation Proposition
The Aggression-Approval Propositions
The Rationality Proposition
Peter Blau’s Exchange Theory
Micro to Macro
Norms and Values
The Work of Richard Emerson and His Disciples
Power-Dependence
A More Integrative Exchange Theory
Network Theory
Basic Concerns and Principles
A More Integrative Network Theory
Network Exchange Theory
Structural Power
Strong and Weak Power Structures
Rational Choice Theory
Foundations of Social Theory
Collective Behavior
Norms
The Corporate Actor
Criticisms
12. Contemporary Feminist Theory
Feminism’s Basic Questions
Historical Framing: Feminism, Sociology, and Gender
Varieties of Contemporary Feminist Theory
Gender Difference
Cultural Feminism
Theories of Sexual Difference
Sociological Theories: Institutional and Interactionist
Institutional
Interactionist
Gender Inequality
Liberal Feminism
Gender Oppression
Psychoanalytic Feminism
Radical Feminism
18
Structural Oppression
Socialist Feminism
Intersectionality Theory
Feminism and Postmodernism
Feminist Sociological Theorizing
A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge
The Macro-Social Order
The Micro-Social Order
Subjectivity
13. Micro-Macro and Agency-Structure Integration
Micro-Macro Integration
Micro-Macro Extremism
The Movement Toward Micro-Macro Integration
Examples of Micro-Macro Integration
Integrated Sociological Paradigm
Multidimensional Sociology
The Micro Foundations of Macrosociology
Back to the Future: Norbert Elias’s Figurational Sociology
The History of Manners
Natural Functions
Power and Civility
Agency-Structure Integration
Major Examples of Agency-Structure Integration
Structuration Theory
Habitus and Field
Applying Habitus and Field
Practice Theory
Colonization of the Life-World
Major Differences in the Agency-Structure Literature
Agency-Structure and Micro-Macro Linkages: Fundamental Differences
PART III • From Modern to Postmodern Social Theory (and Beyond)
14. Contemporary Theories of Modernity
Classical Theorists on Modernity
The Juggernaut of Modernity
Modernity and Its Consequences
Modernity and Identity
Modernity and Intimacy
The Risk Society
Creating the Risks
Coping With the Risks
19
The Holocaust and Liquid Modernity
A Product of Modernity
The Role of Bureaucracy
The Holocaust and Rationalization
Liquid Modernity
Modernity’s Unfinished Project
Habermas versus Postmodernists
Self, Society, and Religion
Modernity and the Self
Modernity’s Social Imaginary
Religion in a Secular Age
Informationalism and the Network Society
15. Theories of Race and Colonialism
Fanon and the Colonial Subject
Black Skin, White Masks
Resistance
The Wretched of the Earth
Violence
Fanon and Marx
Postcolonial Theory
Orientalism
Critical Theories of Race and Racism
Racial Formation
Racialization
Racial Projects
Color-Blind Racism
A Systematic Theory of Race
The Structure of the Racial Field
Structure and Agency in the Field
Southern Theory and Indigenous Resurgence
Southern Theory
Indigenous Resurgence
16. Globalization Theory
Major Contemporary Theorists on Globalization
Anthony Giddens on the “Runaway World” of Globalization
Ulrich Beck, the Politics of Globalization, and Cosmopolitanism
Zygmunt Bauman on the Human Consequences of Globalization
Cultural Theory
Cultural Differentialism
Cultural Convergence
20
“McDonaldization”
McDonaldization, Expansionism, and Globalization
The “Globalization of Nothing”
Cultural Hybridization
Appadurai’s “Landscapes”
Economic Theory
Transnational Capitalism
Empire
Political Theory
Neoliberalism
Critiquing Neoliberalism
The Early Thinking of Karl Polanyi
(More) Contemporary Criticisms of Neoliberalism
The Death of Neoliberalism?
Other Theories
17. Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and Postmodern Social Theory
Structuralism
Roots in Linguistics
Anthropological Structuralism: Claude Lévi-Strauss
Structural Marxism
Poststructuralism
The Ideas of Michel Foucault
The Ideas of Giorgio Agamben
Basic Concepts
Auschwitz and the Camp
Biopolitics and the Influence of the Work of Michel Foucault
Agamben’s Grand Narrative and Ultimate Goals
Critiques
Postmodern Social Theory
Moderate Postmodern Social Theory: Fredric Jameson
Extreme Postmodern Social Theory: Jean Baudrillard
Criticisms and Post-Postmodern Social Theory
18. Social Theory in the 21st Century
Queer Theory
The Heterosexual/Homosexual Binary
Performing Sex
Critiques
Actor-Network Theory, Posthumanism, and Postsociality
Affect Theory
Basic Concepts
21
The Affective Field
The Ethics and Politics of Affect
Prosumption Theory
The New Means of Prosumption
Prosumer Capitalism
References
Name Index
Subject Index
22
23
Biographical and Autobiographical Sketches
Abdel Rahman Ibn-Khaldun 6
Alexis de Tocqueville 14
Auguste Comte 18
Sigmund Freud 32
Herbert Spencer 37
Karl Marx 50
Emile Durkheim 79
Max Weber 115
Georg Simmel 158
Thorstein Veblen 197
Robert Park 202
W.E.B. Du Bois 207
C. Wright Mills 215
Talcott Parsons 238
Robert K. Merton 251
Immanuel Wallerstein 301
George Herbert Mead 331
Erving Goffman 348
Harold Garfinkel 371
George Caspar Homans 397
Peter M. Blau 405
Richard Emerson 411
James S. Coleman 424
Dorothy E. Smith 453
Patricia Hill Collins 458
Jeffrey C. Alexander 482
Randall Collins 488
Norbert Elias 492
Pierre Bourdieu 506
Anthony Giddens 532
Jurgen Habermas 547
Frantz Fanon 565
Kimberlé Crenshaw 574
George Ritzer 605
Michel Foucault 633
24
25
Preface
For this edition of Sociological Theory, we are pleased to be with a new publisher, SAGE Publishing. SAGE
brings a new look, new energy, and an exciting future for this book. As with all previous editions, this edition
offers a comprehensive overview of the history of sociological theory from its inception to the latest theoretical
developments. Our goal is to combine a discussion of the major classical theorists (Marx, Weber, Durkheim,
and Simmel) with the most important contemporary theories and theorists. In one convenient volume, this
book offers students a handy overview of much of what they need to know about sociological theory, both past
and present.
In-depth discussions of theories (often enlivened with examples) are accompanied by informative and—we
believe—engaging biographical sketches of many of the most important thinkers in the history of sociology.
Once again, Sociological Theory offers two historical chapters surveying the early history of the field (Chapter
1) and recent developments (Chapter 6). These chapters provide an overview that allows students to put the
work of each theorist in its historical, social, and political context.
26
Changes in the Tenth Edition
As is always the case, we faced difficult decisions about what to add and what to cut. There are some
important additions to this edition. Most broadly, throughout this edition we have updated references and
added new material. As such, the student can be assured that the treatment of all theorists in this book, as well
as reference to contemporary scholarship, is as up-to-date as possible. In order to ensure that the text did not
become too lengthy and cumbersome, we also removed or rewrote some sections. These decisions reflect the
changing face of sociological theory. Among the major changes/additions are the following:
In Chapter 1, we have added a discussion of colonialism to the section on social forces. Colonialism, as
we point out in Chapter 1 and Chapter 15, is an important, though often neglected (at least in
mainstream sociological theory), factor in the development of modern society. We’ve added this material
to underline its importance.
The timelines in both Chapters 1 and 6 have been updated with new material and the timeline in
Chapter 1 has a new, easier to navigate form.
To Part I, the classical section of the book, we have added contemporary application sections at the end of
Chapters 2–5. This addition is motivated by the understanding that students are eager to understand the
relevance of classical theory for the contemporary moment. In each of the contemporary application
sections, we summarize two or three recent research studies that make use of classical theoretical
concepts. While the kinds of applications vary, we have chosen those that deal with cutting-edge
sociological issues: racism, the Internet, consumerism, and the environment, among others.
Chapter 3 includes new material on Durkheim’s debate with Gabriel Tarde, an enhanced section on
collective effervescence, and updates on contemporary commentary on Durkheim.
Chapter 5, on Simmel, has been updated to include material from his recently translated later writings.
This addition is significant because it introduces the concept of “life” and shows how it influenced
Simmel’s overall theory.
In Chapter 6, we have expanded the discussion of the historical significance of the early women
founders and W.E.B. Du Bois, especially Du Bois’s contribution to the development of the Atlanta
School of Sociology.
The most significant addition to this volume is a new chapter, Chapter 15, on theories of race and
colonialism. In addition to historically influential theories of race and colonialism, this chapter includes
a section on contemporary Indigenous theories.
To Chapter 18, we have added a section on prosumption theory, the most recent development in the
study of consumer society. This section shows the ways in which the Internet and prosumer movements
are changing the character of contemporary capitalism.
Thus, the text is much as it always has been but is renewed once again. The wonderful things about theory are
both its continuity and its ever-changing character. We have tried to communicate those and other joys of
sociological theory to readers in the early stages of their exposure to it.
27
Log onto the password-protected Instructor Resources site study.sagepub.com/ritzertheory to access:
A Microsoft® Word test bank, is available containing multiple choice, true/false, and essay questions for each chapter. The
test bank provides you with a diverse range of pre-written options as well as the opportunity for editing any question and/or
inserting your own personalized questions to effectively assess students’ progress and understanding.
Editable, chapter-specific Microsoft® PowerPoint® slides offer you complete flexibility in easily creating a multimedia
presentation for your course. Highlight essential content and features.
28
Acknowledgments
Once again, we want to thank Patricia Lengermann and Gillian Niebrugge for inclusion of their important
chapter on contemporary feminist theory, Chapter 12. Their chapter not only has made this book much
stronger but also has had a strong influence on theorizing independent of the book. We also thank Matthias
Junge for his contribution to the section on Niklas Luhmann (in Chapter 7), Mike Ryan for his contribution
to the section on queer theory (in Chapter 18), and Doug Goodman for his many contributions to this text.
Also, thanks to Michelle Meagher for ongoing help and advice. Finally, we are excited to be with a new
publisher, Sage, for this edition of the book. We are thankful for the support of the editorial and production
staff at Sage, but in particular we are grateful to Jeff Lasser for his help in guiding us through this transition.
Thanks also go to a panel of reviewers whose comments and suggestions helped to make this a better book:
Reginald A. Byron Southwestern University
Crystal Collins-Camargo University of Louisville
Cristián Doña-Reveco Michigan State University
Jason T. Eastman Coastal Carolina State University
Heather Jacobson University of Texas Arlington
Jesse Klein Florida State University
Ying Ma Austin Peay State University
Jean-Pierre Reed Southern Illinois University
George Ritzer and Jeff Stepnisky
29
About the Authors
George Ritzer
is Distinguished University Professor at the University of Maryland. Among his awards: Honorary
Doctorate from La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; Honorary Patron, University Philosophical
Society, Trinity College, Dublin; American Sociological Association’s Distinguished Contribution to
Teaching Award. He has chaired four Sections of the American Sociological Association—Theoretical
Sociology, Organizations and Occupations, History of Sociology, and was the first Chair of Global and
Transnational Sociology. Among his books in theory are Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science
(1975/1980) and Metatheorizing in Sociology (1991). In the application of social theory to the social
world, his books include The McDonaldization of Society (8th ed., 2013), Enchanting a Disenchanted
World (3rd ed., 2010), and The Globalization of Nothing (2nd ed., 2007). He is also the coauthor (with
Paul Dean) of Globalization: A Basic Text, 2nd ed. (Blackwell, 2010). All of his major texts in
sociological theory (Sociological Theory, 10th ed., Modern Sociological Theory, 8th ed., Classical Sociological
Theory, 7th ed., and Classical Sociological Theory and Its Contemporary Roots, 5th ed.) have been, or are
being, revised by Jeffrey Stepnisky and will be published by SAGE Publishing. He edited the WileyBlackwell Companion to Sociology (2012), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization (2008), and coedited
the Wiley-Blackwell Companions to Classical and Contemporary Major Social Theorists (2011) and
Handbook of Social Theory (2001). He was founding editor of the Journal of Consumer Culture. He also
edited the eleven-volume Encyclopedia of Sociology (2007; 2nd ed. forthcoming), the two-volume
Encyclopedia of Social Theory (2005), and the five-volume Encyclopedia of Globalization (2012). He edited
special issues of the American Behavioral Scientist (2012) and Sociological Quarterly (2015) on
prosumption. His books have been translated into over 20 languages, with over a dozen translations of
The McDonaldization of Society alone.
Jeffrey Stepnisky
is Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology at MacEwan University in Alberta, Canada, where he
teaches classical and contemporary sociological theory. He has published in the area of social theory,
especially as it relates to questions of selfhood and intersubjectivity. This work appears in journals such
as The Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior and Social Theory & Health. He coedited the WileyBlackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists (2011) and served as the managing editor for The
Encyclopedia of Social Theory (2005). In addition to this book, he has worked with George Ritzer on the
textbooks Classical Sociological Theory, Modern Sociological Theory, and Contemporary Sociological Theory
and Its Classical Roots.
30
PART I Classical Sociological Theory
31
1 A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Early Years
32
Chapter Outline
Introduction
Social Forces in the Development of Sociological Theory
Intellectual Forces and the Rise of Sociological Theory
The Development of French Sociology
The Development of German Sociology
The Origins of British Sociology
The Key Figure in Early Italian Sociology
Turn-of-the-Century Developments in European Marxism
A useful way to begin a book designed to introduce sociological theory is with several one-line summaries of
various theories:
The modern world is an iron cage of rational systems from which there is no escape.
Capitalism tends to sow the seeds of its own destruction.
The modern world has less moral cohesion than earlier societies had.
The city spawns a particular type of personality.
In their social lives, people tend to put on a variety of theatrical performances.
The social world is defined by principles of reciprocity in give-and-take relationships.
Especially in the past, but still in the present, Western societies are organized around the interests of
men, to the disadvantage of women and minorities.
Modern racism emerged with colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries.
People create the social worlds that ultimately come to enslave them.
People always retain the capacity to change the social worlds that constrain them.
Society is an integrated system of social structures and functions.
Society is a “juggernaut” with the ever-present possibility of running amok.
Although it appears that the Western world has undergone a process of liberalization, in fact it has
grown increasingly oppressive.
The world has entered a new postmodern era increasingly defined by the inauthentic, the fake, by
simulations of reality.
Paradoxically, globalization is associated with the worldwide spread of “nothing.”
Nonhuman objects are increasingly seen as key actors in networks.
This book is devoted to helping the reader better understand these and many other theoretical ideas, as well as
the larger theories from which they are drawn.
33
Introduction
Presenting a history of sociological theory is an important task (S. Turner, 1998), but because we devote only
two chapters (1 and 6) to it, what we offer is a highly selective historical sketch (Giddens, 1995). The idea is
to provide the reader with a scaffolding that should help in putting the later detailed discussions of theorists
and theories in a larger context. As the reader proceeds through the later chapters, it will prove useful to
return to these two overview chapters and place the discussions in their context. (It will be especially useful to
glance back occasionally to Figures 1.1 and 6.1, which are schematic representations of the histories covered in
those chapters.)
The theories treated in the body of this book have a wide range of application, deal with centrally important
social issues, and have stood the test of time. These criteria constitute the definition of sociological theory used in
this book.1 A number of the theorists who are briefly discussed in Chapter 1 (for example, Herbert Spencer
and Auguste Comte) will not receive detailed treatment later because they are of little more than historical
interest. Other theorists (for example, Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim) will be discussed in
Chapter 1 in their historical context, and they will receive detailed treatment later because of their continuing
importance. The focus is on the important theoretical work of sociologists or the work done by individuals in
other fields that has come to be defined as important in sociology. To put it succinctly, this is a book about
the “big ideas” in sociology that have stood the test of time (or promise to)—idea systems that deal with major
social issues and that are far-reaching in scope.
We cannot establish the precise date when sociological theory began. People have been thinking about, and
developing theories of, social life since early in history. But we will not go back to the early historic times of
the Greeks or Romans or even to the Middle Ages. We will not even go back to the 17th century, although
Richard Olson (1993) has traced the sociological tradition to the mid-1600s and the work of James
Harrington on the relationship between the economy and the polity. This is not because people in those
epochs did not have sociologically relevant ideas, but because the return on our investment in time would be
small; we would spend a lot of time getting very few ideas that are relevant to modern sociology. In any case,
none of the thinkers associated with those eras thought of themselves, and few are now thought of, as
sociologists. (For a discussion of one exception, see the biographical sketch of Ibn-Khaldun.) It is only in the
1800s that we begin to find thinkers who can be clearly identified as sociologists. These are the classical
sociological thinkers we shall be interested in (Camic, 1997; for a debate about what makes theory classical,
see R. Collins, 1997b; R. W. Connell, 1997), and we begin by examining the main social and intellectual
forces that shaped their ideas.
34
Social Forces in the Development of Sociological Theory
All intellectual fields are profoundly shaped by their social settings. This is particularly true of sociology,
which not only is derived from that setting but also takes the social setting as its basic subject matter. We will
focus briefly on a few of the most important social conditions of the 19th and early 20th centuries, conditions
that were of the utmost significance in the development of sociology. We also will take the occasion to begin
introducing the major figures in the history of sociological theory.
Figure 1.1 Sociological Theory: The Early Years
35
Abdel Rahman Ibn-Khaldun: A Biographical Sketch
Georgios Kollida / Alamy Stock Photo
There is a tendency to think of sociology as exclusively a comparatively modern, Western phenomenon. In fact, however, scholars
were developing sociological ideas and theories long ago and in other parts of the world. One example is Abdel Rahman IbnKhaldun.
Ibn-Khaldun was born in Tunis, North Africa, on May 27, 1332 (Alatas, 2011, 2014; Faghirzadeh, 1982). Born to an educated
family, Ibn-Khaldun was schooled in the Koran (the Muslim holy book), mathematics, and history. In his lifetime, he served a
variety of sultans in Tunis, Morocco, Spain, and Algeria as ambassador, chamberlain, and member of the scholars’ council. He also
spent two years in prison in Morocco for his belief that state rulers were not divine leaders. After approximately two decades of
political activity, Ibn-Khaldun returned to North Africa, where he undertook an intensive five-year period of study and writing.
Works produced during this period increased his fame and led to a lectureship at the center of Islamic study, Al-Azhar Mosque
University in Cairo. In his well-attended lectures on society and sociology, Ibn-Khaldun stressed the importance of linking
sociological thought and historical observation.
By the time he died in 1406, Ibn-Khaldun had produced a corpus of work that had many ideas in common with contemporary
sociology. As described in his Muqaddimah, Ibn-Khaldun was committed to the scientific study of society, empirical research, and
the search for causes of social phenomena. He devoted considerable attention to various social institutions (for example, politics,
economy) and their interrelationships. He was interested in comparing primitive and modern societies.
One particular topic that Ibn-Khaldun studied was state formation. He argued that “the rise and decline of North African states lay
in the essential differences in social organization between pastoral nomadic and sedentary societies” (Alatas, 2011:15). Relying on
the concept of ‘asabiyyah, Ibn-Khaldun developed a cyclical theory of state formation. ‘Asabiyyah refers to a group’s feeling of
solidarity or social cohesion. It comes from a shared knowledge of common descent. Nomadic groups had a high level of ‘asabiyyah
and, therefore, “could defeat sedentary people in urban areas and establish their own dynasties” (15). However, once nomadic groups
settled, they would lose ‘asabiyyah and become vulnerable to “attack by another group of nomads with superior ‘asabiyyah’” (15).
There are interesting similarities and differences between Ibn-Khaldun’s ideas and later sociological theories. On the one hand, Ibn-
36
Khaldun’s ‘asabiyyah anticipates the concept of social cohesion in the work of theorists like Emile Durkheim, 400 years later. On the
other hand, Ibn-Khaldun’s description of historical cycles strongly contrasts with the focus on linear and progressive social
development assumed by many of the classical theorists.
Ibn-Khaldun did not have a dramatic impact on classical sociology, but as scholars in general, and Islamic scholars in particular,
rediscover his work, he may come to be seen as being of greater historical significance.
Political Revolutions
The long series of political revolutions that were ushered in by the French Revolution in 1789 and carried over
through the 19th century was the most immediate factor in the rise of sociological theorizing. The impact of
these revolutions on many societies was enormous, and many positive changes resulted. However, what
attracted the attention of many early theorists was not the positive consequences but the negative effects of
such changes. These writers were particularly disturbed by the resulting chaos and disorder, especially in
France. They were united in a desire to restore order to society. Some of the more extreme thinkers of this
period literally wanted a return to the peaceful and relatively orderly days of the Middle Ages. The more
sophisticated thinkers recognized that social change had made such a return impossible. Thus, they sought
instead to find new bases of order in societies that had been overturned by the political revolutions of the 18th
and 19th centuries. This interest in the issue of social order was one of the major concerns of classical
sociological theorists, especially Comte, Durkheim, and Parsons.
The Industrial Revolution and the Rise of Capitalism
At least as important as political revolution in shaping sociological theory was the Industrial Revolution,
which swept through many Western societies, mainly in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Industrial
Revolution was not a single event but many interrelated developments that culminated in the transformation
of the Western world from a largely agricultural to an overwhelmingly industrial system. Large numbers of
people left farms and agricultural work for the industrial occupations offered in the burgeoning factories. The
factories themselves were transformed by a long series of technological improvements. Large economic
bureaucracies arose to provide the many services needed by industry and the emerging capitalist economic
system. In this economy, the ideal was a free marketplace where the many products of an industrial system
could be exchanged. Within this system, a few profited greatly while the majority worked long hours for low
wages. A reaction against the industrial system and against capitalism in general followed and led to the labor
movement as well as to various radical movements aimed at overthrowing the capitalist system.
The Industrial Revolution, capitalism, and the reaction against them all involved an enormous upheaval in
Western society, an upheaval that affected sociologists greatly. Four major figures in the early history of
sociological theory—Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Georg Simmel—were preoccupied, as
were many lesser thinkers, with these changes and the problems they created for society as a whole. They
spent their lives studying these problems, and in many cases they endeavored to develop programs that would
help solve them.
Colonialism
37
A key force in the development of modern, capitalist societies was colonialism, which “refers to the direct
political control of a society and its people by a foreign ruling state” (Go, 2007a:602). In some cases,
colonialism led to colonization, which was when foreign nations established permanent settlements in a
colonial possession (2007a:602). An example is the North American colonies, which became the nations of
the United States and Canada. Colonialism emerged in the 15th century when Portugal established trading
colonies in Asia, and Spain violently plundered South America. This was followed by a period of colonial
expansion by the Netherlands in the 17th century, and France and England in the 18th and 19th centuries
(MacQueen, 2007).
In addition to being a political relationship, colonialism also had economic, social, and cultural aspects (Go,
2007a). Colonies were a source of wealth for European nations. In Capital, Karl Marx argued that the
development of capitalism was fueled by the “primitive accumulation” of gold and silver in the colonies
([1867] 1967:351). Moreover, once the Industrial Revolution was further advanced, colonies became stable
sources of raw materials, such as the cotton used in textile manufacture. These materials were farmed on
plantations by African slaves, who had been brought to the Caribbean and North America to support colonial
development. Colonialism also shaped European identity. Modern racism developed as European nations
attempted to legitimize their domination of African and indigenous populations. Scientific theories, such as
Social Darwinism, proposed hierarchies of racial superiority, and Europeans contrasted their civilized societies
to the so-called uncivilized, savage, and barbaric societies of colonized peoples.
While colonialism, and the ideas shaped by colonialism, served as an often unacknowledged backdrop to the
development of sociological theory (see Steinmetz, 2013, and Raewyn Connell, 2007, for thorough
treatments, and R. Collins, 1997b, for a dissenting view), colonialism has not been a major topic for
sociological analysis. There are exceptions. Some classical theorists (Tocqueville, Comte, Spencer, and
Martineau) wrote about colonialism. Both Tocqueville and Martineau traveled widely to America
(Tocqueville, Martineau), Algeria (Tocqueville) and India (Martineau). Each was very critical of the
American treatment of slaves and Indigenous people, though, in contradiction of this, Tocqueville was a
strong advocate for French colonialism in Algeria. Mostly, Spencer was critical of colonialism. Though he saw
colonized people as “inferior races,” he objected to the militarism and violence of colonial conquest (Raewyn
Connell, 2007:17; Francis, 2011). Marx, as noted, described the role that colonies played in the primitive
accumulation of capital. Though he didn’t directly address colonialism, Durkheim regularly compared modern
Western society to the non-Western, “primitive” societies described by anthropologists of the time. Weber
wrote at length about imperialism and supported German imperialism, though, as Steinmetz (2013) points
out, he didn’t comment much on colonialism. As an extension of his critique of American race relations,
W.E.B. Du Bois wrote extensively and critically about the relationship between colonialism, capitalism, and
race.
The Rise of Socialism
One set of changes aimed at coping with the excesses of the industrial system and capitalism can be combined
under the heading socialism (Beilharz, 2005g). Although some sociologists favored socialism as a solution to
38
industrial problems, most were personally and intellectually opposed to it. On one side, Karl Marx was an
active supporter of the overthrow of the capitalist system and its replacement by a socialist system. Although
Marx did not develop a theory of socialism per se, he spent a great deal of time criticizing various aspects of
capitalist society. In addition, he engaged in a variety of political activities that he hoped would help bring
about the rise of socialist societies.
However, Marx was atypical in the early years of sociological theory. Most of the early theorists, such as
Weber and Durkheim, were opposed to socialism (at least, as it was envisioned by Marx). Although they
recognized the problems within capitalist society, they sought social reform within capitalism rather than the
social revolution argued for by Marx. They feared socialism more than they did capitalism. This fear played a
far greater role in shaping sociological theory than did Marx’s support of the socialist alternative to capitalism.
In fact, as we will see, in many cases, sociological theory developed in reaction against Marxian and, more
generally, against socialist theory.
Feminism
In one sense, there has always been a feminist perspective. Wherever women are subordinated—and they have
been subordinated almost always and everywhere—they seem to have recognized and protested that situation
in some form (Lerner, 1993). While precursors can be traced to the 1630s, high points of feminist activity and
writing occurred in the liberationist moments of modern Western history: a first flurry of productivity in the
1780s and 1790s with the debates surrounding the American and French revolutions; a far more organized,
focused effort in the 1850s as part of the mobilization against slavery and for political rights for the middle
class; and the massive mobilization for women’s suffrage and for industrial and civic reform legislation in the
early 20th century, especially the Progressive Era in the United States.
All of this had an impact on the development of sociology, in particular on the work of a number of women in
or associated with the field—Harriet Martineau (Vetter, 2008), Charlotte Perkins Gilman (J. Allen, 2011),
Jane Addams, Florence Kelley, Anna Julia Cooper, Ida Wells-Barnett, Marianne Weber, and Beatrice Potter
Webb, to name a few. But their creations were, over time, pushed to the periphery of the profession, annexed,
discounted, or written out of sociology’s public record by the men who were organizing sociology as a
professional power base. Feminist concerns filtered into sociology only on the margins, in the work of
marginal male theorists or of the increasingly marginalized female theorists. The men who assumed centrality
in the profession—from Spencer, through Weber and Durkheim—made basically conservative responses to
the feminist arguments going on around them, making issues of gender an inconsequential topic to which
they responded conventionally rather than critically in what they identified and publicly promoted as
sociology. They responded in this way even as women were writing a significant body of sociological theory.
The history of this gender politics in the profession, which is also part of the history of male response to
feminist claims, is only now being written (for example, see Deegan, 1988; Fitzpatrick, 1990; Linda Gordon,
1994; Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley, 1998; R. Rosenberg, 1982).
Urbanization
39
Partly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, large numbers of people in the 19th and 20th centuries were
uprooted from their rural homes and moved to urban settings. This massive migration was caused, in large
part, by the jobs created by the industrial system in the urban areas. But it presented many difficulties for
those people who had to adjust to urban life. In addition, the expansion of the cities produced a seemingly
endless list of urban problems—overcrowding, pollution, noise, traffic, and so forth. The nature of urban life
and its problems attracted the attention of many early sociologists, especially Max Weber and Georg Simmel.
In fact, the first major school of American sociology, the Chicago school, was in large part defined by its
concern for the city and its interest in using Chicago as a laboratory in which to study urbanization and its
problems.
Religious Change
Social changes brought on by political revolutions, the Industrial Revolution, and urbanization had a profound
effect on religiosity. Many early sociologists came from religious backgrounds and were actively, and in some
cases professionally, involved in religion (Hinkle and Hinkle, 1954). They brought to sociology the same
objectives they espoused in their religious lives. They wished to improve people’s lives (Vidich and Lyman,
1985). For some (such as Comte), sociology was transformed into a religion (Wernick, 2000, 2005a, 2005b).
For others, their sociological theories bore an unmistakable religious imprint. Durkheim wrote one of his
major works on religion. Morality played a key role not only in Durkheim’s sociology but also in the work of
Talcott Parsons. A large portion of Weber’s work also was devoted to the religions of the world. Marx, too,
had an interest in religiosity, but his orientation was far more critical.
The Growth of Science
As sociological theory was being developed, there was an increasing emphasis on science, not only in colleges
and universities but in society as a whole. The technological products of science were permeating every sector
of life, and science was acquiring enormous prestige. Those associated with the most successful sciences
(physics, biology, and chemistry) were accorded honored places in society. Sociologists (especially Comte,
Durkheim, Spencer, Mead, and Schutz) from the beginning were preoccupied with science, and many wanted
to model sociology after the successful physical and biological sciences. However, a debate soon developed
between those who wholeheartedly accepted the scientific model and those (such as Weber) who thought that
distinctive characteristics of social life made a wholesale adoption of a scientific model difficult and unwise
(Lepenies, 1988). The issue of the relationship between sociology and science is debated to this day, although
even a glance at the major journals in the field, at least in the United States, indicates the predominance of
those who favor sociology as a science.
40
Intellectual Forces and the Rise of Sociological Theory
Although social factors are important, the primary focus of this chapter is the intellectual forces that played a
central role in shaping sociological theory. In the real world, of course, intellectual factors cannot be separated
from social forces. For example, in the discussion of the Enlightenment that follows, we will find that that
movement was intimately related to, and, in many cases, provided the intellectual basis for, the social changes
discussed above.
The many intellectual forces that shaped the development of social theories are discussed within the national
context where their influence was primarily felt (Levine, 1995; Rundell, 2001). We begin with the
Enlightenment and its influences on the development of sociological theory in France.
The Enlightenment
It is the view of many observers that the Enlightenment constitutes a critical development in terms of the later
evolution of sociology (Hawthorn, 1976; Hughes, Martin, and Sharrock, 1995; Nisbet, 1967; Zeitlin, 1996).
The Enlightenment was a period of remarkable intellectual development and change in philosophical
thought.2 A number of long-standing ideas and beliefs—many of which related to social life—were
overthrown and replaced during the Enlightenment. The most prominent thinkers associated with the
Enlightenment were the French philosophers Charles Montesquieu (1689–1755) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1712–1778) (B. Singer, 2005a, 2005b). The influence of the Enlightenment on sociological theory, however,
was more indirect and negative than it was direct and positive. As Irving Zeitlin puts it, “Early sociology
developed as a reaction to the Enlightenment” (1996:10).
The thinkers associated with the Enlightenment were influenced, above all, by two intellectual currents—
17th-century philosophy and science.
Seventeenth-century philosophy was associated with the work of thinkers such as René Descartes, Thomas
Hobbes, and John Locke. The emphasis was on producing grand, general, and very abstract systems of ideas
that made rational sense. The later thinkers associated with the Enlightenment did not reject the idea that
systems of ideas should be general and should make rational sense, but they did make greater efforts to derive
their ideas from the real world and to test them there. In other words, they wanted to combine empirical
research with reason (Seidman, 1983:36–37). The model for this was science, especially Newtonian physics.
At this point, we see the emergence of the application of the scientific method to social issues. Not only did
Enlightenment thinkers want their ideas to be, at least in part, derived from the real world, they also wanted
them to be useful to the social world, especially in the critical analysis of that world.
Overall, the Enlightenment was characterized by the belief that people could comprehend and control the
universe by means of reason and empirical research. The view was that because the physical world was
dominated by natural laws, it was likely that the social world was too. Thus, it was up to the philosopher,
using reason and research, to discover these social laws. Once they understood how the social world worked,
the Enlightenment thinkers had a practical goal—the creation of a “better,” more rational world.
41
With an emphasis on reason, the Enlightenment philosophers were inclined to reject beliefs in traditional
authority. When these thinkers examined traditional values and institutions, they often found them to be
irrational—that is, contrary to human nature and inhibitive of human growth and development. The mission
of the practical and change-oriented philosophers of the Enlightenment was to overcome these irrational
systems. The theorists who were most directly and positively influenced by Enlightenment thinking were
Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx, although the latter formed his early theoretical ideas in Germany.
The Conservative Reaction to the Enlightenment
On the surface, we might think that French classical sociological theory, like Marx’s theory, was directly and
positively influenced by the Enlightenment. French sociology became rational, empirical, scientific, and
change-oriented, but not before it was also shaped by a set of ideas that developed in reaction to the
Enlightenment. In Seidman’s view, “The ideology of the counter-Enlightenment represented a virtual
inversion of Enlightenment liberalism. In place of modernist premises, we can detect in the Enlightenment
critics a strong anti-modernist sentiment” (1983:51). As we will see, sociology in general, and French
sociology in particular, have, from the beginning, been an uncomfortable mix of Enlightenment and counterEnlightenment ideas.
The most extreme form of opposition to Enlightenment ideas was French Catholic counterrevolutionary
philosophy, as represented by the ideas of Louis de Bonald (1754–1840) and Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821)
(Reedy, 1994; Bradley, 2005a, 2005b). These men were reacting against not only the Enlightenment but also
the French Revolution, which they saw partly as a product of the kind of thinking characteristic of the
Enlightenment. Bonald, for example, was disturbed by the revolutionary changes and yearned for a return to
the peace and harmony of the Middle Ages. In this view, God was the source of society; therefore, reason,
which was so important to the Enlightenment philosophers, was seen as inferior to traditional religious
beliefs. Furthermore, it was believed that because God had created society, people should not tamper with it
and should not try to change a holy creation. By extension, Bonald opposed anything that undermined such
traditional institutions as patriarchy, the monogamous family, the monarchy, and the Catholic Church.
Although Bonald represented a rather extreme form of the conservative reaction, his work constitutes a useful
introduction to its general premises. The conservatives turned away from what they considered the “naïve”
rationalism of the Enlightenment. They not only recognized the irrational aspects of social life but also
assigned them positive value. Thus, they regarded such phenomena as tradition, imagination, emotionalism,
and religion as useful and necessary components of social life. In that they disliked upheaval and sought to
retain the existing order, they deplored developments such as the French Revolution and the Industrial
Revolution, which they saw as disruptive forces. The conservatives tended to emphasize social order, an
emphasis that became one of the central themes of the work of several sociological theorists.
Zeitlin (1996) outlined 10 major propositions that he sees as emerging from the conservative reaction and
providing the basis for the development of classical French sociological theory.
1. Whereas Enlightenment thinkers tended to emphasize the individual, the conservative reaction led to a
42
major sociological interest in, and emphasis on, society and other large-scale phenomena. Society was
viewed as something more than simply an aggregate of individuals. Society was seen as having an
existence of its own with its own laws of development and deep roots in the past.
2. Society was the most important unit of analysis; it was seen as more important than the individual. It
was society that produced the individual, primarily through the process of socialization.
3. The individual was not even seen as the most basic element within society. A society consisted of such
component parts as roles, positions, relationships, structures, and institutions. Individuals were seen as
doing little more than filling these units within society.
4. The parts of society were seen as interrelated and interdependent. Indeed, these interrelationships were
a major basis of society. This view led to a conservative political orientation. That is, because the parts
were held to be interrelated, it followed that tampering with one part could well lead to the
undermining of other parts and, ultimately, of the system as a whole. This meant that changes in the
social system should be made with extreme care.
5. Change was seen as a threat not only to society and its components but also to the individuals in society.
The various components of society were seen as satisfying people’s needs. When institutions were
disrupted, people were likely to suffer, and their suffering was likely to lead to social disorder.
6. The general tendency was to see the various large-scale components of society as useful for both society
and the individuals in it. As a result, there was little desire to look for the negative effects of existing
social structures and social institutions.
7. Small units, such as the family, the neighborhood, and religious and occupational groups, also were seen
as essential to individuals and society. They provided the intimate, face-to-face environments that
people needed in order to survive in modern societies.
8. There was a tendency to see various modern social changes, such as industrialization, urbanization, and
bureaucratization, as having disorganizing effects. These changes were viewed with fear and anxiety, and
there was an emphasis on developing ways of dealing with their disruptive effects.
9. While most of these feared changes were leading to a more rational society, the conservative reaction led
to an emphasis on the importance of nonrational factors (ritual, ceremony, and worship, for example) in
social life.
10. Finally, the conservatives supported the existence of a hierarchical system in society. It was seen as
important to society that there be a differential system of status and reward.
These 10 propositions, derived from the conservative reaction to the Enlightenment, should be seen as the
immediate intellectual basis of the development of sociological theory in France. Many of these ideas made
their way into early sociological thought, although some of the Enlightenment ideas (empiricism, for example)
were also influential.3
43
The Development of French Sociology
We turn now to the actual founding of sociology as a distinctive discipline—specifically, to the work of four
French thinkers: Alexis de Tocqueville, Claude Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, and especially Emile
Durkheim.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)
We begin with Alexis de Tocqueville even though he was born after both Saint-Simon and Comte. We do so
because he and his work were such pure products of the Enlightenment (he was strongly and directly
influenced by Montesquieu [B. Singer, 2005b], especially his The Spirit of the Laws [1748]) and because his
work was not part of the clear line of development in French social theory from Saint-Simon and Comte to
the crucially important Durkheim. Tocqueville has long been seen as a political scientist, not a sociologist,
and, furthermore, many have not perceived the existence of a social theory in his work (e.g., Seidman,
1983:306). However, not only is there a social theory in his work, but it is one that deserves a much more
significant place in the history of social theory not only in France but also in the rest of the world.
Tocqueville is best known for the legendary and highly influential Democracy in America ([1835–1840] 1969),
especially the first volume, which deals, in a very laudatory way, with the early American democratic system
and came to be seen as an early contribution to the development of political science. However, in the later
volumes of that work, as well as in later works, Tocqueville clearly develops a broad social theory that deserves
a place in the canon of social theory.
44
Alexis de Tocqueville: A Biographical Sketch
Time Life Pictures / The LIFE Picture Collection / Getty Images
Alexis de Tocqueville was born on July 29, 1805, in Paris. He came from a prominent though not wealthy aristocratic family. The
family had suffered during the French Revolution. Tocqueville’s parents had been arrested but managed to avoid the guillotine.
Tocqueville was well educated, became a lawyer and judge (although he was not very successful at either), and became well and
widely read, especially in the Enlightenment philosophy (Rousseau and Montesquieu) that played such a central role in much
classical social theory.
The turning point in Tocqueville’s life began on April 2, 1831, when he and a friend (Gustave de Beaumont) journeyed to the
United States ostensibly to study the American penitentiary system. He saw America as a laboratory in which he could study, in their
nascent state, such key phenomena to him as democracy, equality, and freedom. He traveled widely throughout much of the thendeveloped (and some undeveloped) parts of the United States (and a bit of Canada), getting as far west as Green Bay (Wisconsin),
Memphis (Tennessee), and New Orleans (Louisiana), traveling through large parts of the Northeastern, Middle Atlantic, and
Southern states, as well as some Midwestern states east of the Mississippi River. He talked to all sorts of people along the way, asked
systematic questions, took copious notes, and allowed his interests to evolve on the basis of what he found along the way.
Tocqueville (and Beaumont) returned to France on February 20, 1832, having spent less than a year studying the vast physical and
social landscape of the United States, as it existed then.
It took Tocqueville some time to get started on the first volume of Democracy in America, but he began in earnest in late 1833 and the
book was published by 1835. It was a great success and made him famous. The irony here is that one of the classic works on
45
democracy in general, and American democracy in particular, was written by a French aristocrat. He launched a political career while
putting the finishing touches on volume two of Democracy, which appeared in 1840. This volume was more sociological (Aron, 1965)
than the first, which was clearly about politics, particularly the American political system and how it compared to other political
systems, especially the French system. (In general, Tocqueville was very favorably disposed to the American system, although he had
reservations about democracy more generally.) Volume two was not well received, perhaps because of this shift in orientation, as well
as the book’s more abstract nature.
Tocqueville continued in politics and, even though he was an aristocrat, was comparatively liberal in many of his views. Of this, he
said:
People ascribe to me alternatively aristocratic and democratic prejudices. If I had been born in another period, or in
another country, I might have had either one or the other. But my birth, as it happened, made it easy for me to guard
against both. I came into the world at the end of a long revolution, which, after destroying ancient institutions, created
none that could last. When I entered life, aristocracy was dead and democracy was yet unborn. My instinct, therefore,
could not lead me blindly either to the one or the other.
(Tocqueville, cited in Nisbet, 1976–1977:61).
It is because of this ambivalence that Nisbet (1976–1977) argues that unlike the development of Marxism flowing from Marx’s
intellectual certainty, “at no time has there been, or is there likely to be, anything called Tocquevilleism” (p. 65).
Tocqueville lived through the Revolution of 1848 and the abdication of the king. However, he opposed the military coup staged by
Louis Napoleon, spent a few days in jail, and saw, as a result, the end of his political career (he had become minister of foreign affairs
but was fired by Louis Napoleon). He never accepted the dictatorship of Napoleon III and grew increasingly critical of the political
direction taken by France. As a way of critiquing the France of his day, Tocqueville decided to write about the French Revolution of
1789 (although he believed it continued through the first half of the 19th century and to his day) in his other well-known book, The
Old Regime and the Revolutions, which was published in 1856. The book focused on French despotism but continued the concerns of
Democracy in America with the relationship between freedom, equality, and democracy. Unlike the second volume of Democracy in
America, Old Regime was well received and quite successful. It made Tocqueville the “grand old man” of the liberal movement of the
day in France.
Tocqueville died at age 53 on April 16, 1859 (Janara, 2011; Mancini, 1994; Zunz and Kahan, 2002). One can gain a great deal of
insight into the man and his thinking though The Recollections of Alexis de Tocqueville (Tocqueville, [1893] 1959), his posthumously
published memoirs of the Revolution of 1848 and his role in it.
Three interrelated issues lie at the heart of Tocqueville’s theory. As a product of the Enlightenment, he is first
and foremost a great supporter of, and advocate for, freedom. However, he is much more critical of equality,
which he sees as tending to produce mediocrity in comparison to the higher-quality outcomes associated with
the aristocrats (he himself was an aristocrat) of a prior, more inegalitarian, era. More important, equality and
mediocrity are also linked to what most concerns him, and that is the growth of centralization, especially in
the government, and the threat centralized government poses to freedom. In his view, it was the inequality of
the prior age, the power of the aristocrats, that acted to keep government centralization in check. However,
with the demise of aristocrats, and the rise of greater equality, there are no groups capable of countering the
ever-present tendency toward centralization. The mass of largely equal people are too “servile” to oppose this
trend. Furthermore, Tocqueville links equality to individualism (an important concept that he claimed to
“invent” and for which he is credited), and the resulting individualists are far less interested in the well-being
of the larger “community” than were the aristocrats who preceded them.
It is for this reason that Tocqueville is critical of democracy and especially socialism. Democracy’s
commitment to freedom was ultimately threatened by its parallel commitment to equality and its tendency
46
toward centralized government. Of course, from Tocqueville’s point of view, the situation would be far worse
in socialism because its far greater commitment to equality, and the much greater likelihood of government
centralization, posed a far greater threat to freedom. The latter view is quite prescient given what transpired in
the Soviet Union and other societies that operated, at least in name, under the banner of socialism.
Thus, the strength of Tocqueville’s theory lies in the interrelated ideas of freedom, equality, and especially
centralization. His “grand narrative” on the increasing control of central governments anticipates other
theories, including Weber’s work on bureaucracy and especially the more contemporary work of Michel
Foucault on “governmentality” and its gradual spread, increasing subtlety, and propensity to invade even the
“soul” of the people controlled by it.
Claude Henri Saint-Simon (1760–1825)
Saint-Simon was older than Auguste Comte (see the following), and, in fact, Comte, in his early years, served
as Saint-Simon’s secretary and disciple. There is a very strong similarity between the ideas of these two
thinkers, yet a bitter debate developed between them that led to their eventual split (Pickering, 1993; K.
Thompson, 1975).
The most interesting aspect of Saint-Simon was his significance to the development of both conservative (like
Comte’s) and radical Marxian theory. On the conservative side, Saint-Simon wanted to preserve society as it
was, but he did not seek a return to life as it had been in the Middle Ages, as did Bonald and Maistre. In
addition, he was a positivist (Durkheim, [1928] 1962:142), which meant that he believed that the study of
social phenomena should employ the same scientific techniques that were used in the natural sciences. On the
radical side, Saint-Simon saw the need for socialist reforms, especially the centralized planning of the
economic system. But Saint-Simon did not go nearly as far as Marx did later. Although he, like Marx, saw the
capitalists superseding the feudal nobility, he felt it inconceivable that the working class would come to replace
the capitalists. Many of Saint-Simon’s ideas are found in Comte’s work, but Comte developed them in a more
systematic fashion (Pickering, 1997).
Auguste Comte (1798–1857)
Comte was the first to use the term sociology (Pickering, 2011; J. Turner, 2001).4 He had an enormous
influence on later sociological theorists (especially Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim). And he believed
that the study of sociology should be scientific, just as many classical theorists did, and most contemporary
sociologists do (Lenzer, 1975).
Comte was greatly disturbed by the anarchy that pervaded French society and was critical of those thinkers
who had spawned both the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. He developed his scientific view,
positivism, or positive philosophy, to combat what he considered to be the negative and destructive philosophy
of the Enlightenment. Comte was in line with, and influenced by, the French counterrevolutionary Catholics
(especially Bonald and Maistre). However, his work can be set apart from theirs on at least two grounds. First,
he did not think it possible to return to the Middle Ages; advances in science and industry made that
47
impossible. Second, he developed a much more sophisticated theoretical system than his predecessors, one
that was adequate to shape a good portion of early sociology.
Comte developed social physics, or what in 1839 he called sociology (Pickering, 2011). The use of the term social
physics made it clear that Comte sought to model sociology after the “hard sciences.” This new science, which
in his view would ultimately become the dominant science, was to be concerned with both social statics
(existing social structures) and social dynamics (social change). Although both involved the search for laws of
social life, he felt that social dynamics was more important than social statics. This focus on change reflected
his interest in social reform, particularly reform of the ills created by the French Revolution and the
Enlightenment. Comte did not urge revolutionary change, because he felt the natural evolution of society
would make things better. Reforms were needed only to assist the process a bit.
This leads us to the cornerstone of Comte’s approach—his evolutionary theory, or the law of the three stages.
The theory proposes that there are three intellectual stages through which the world has gone throughout its
history. According to Comte, not only does the world go through this process, but groups, societies, sciences,
individuals, and even minds go through the same three stages. The theological stage is the first, and it
characterized the world prior to 1300. During this period, the major idea system emphasized the belief that
supernatural powers and religious figures, modeled after humankind, are at the root of everything. In
particular, the social and physical world is seen as produced by God. The second stage is the metaphysical
stage, which occurred roughly between 1300 and 1800. This era was characterized by the belief that abstract
forces like “nature,” rather than personalized gods, explain virtually everything. Finally, in 1800, the world
entered the positivistic stage, characterized by belief in science. People now tended to give up the search for
absolute causes (God or nature) and concentrated instead on observation of the social and physical world in
the search for the laws governing them.
It is clear that in his theory of the world Comte focused on intellectual factors. Indeed, he argued that
intellectual disorder is the cause of social disorder. The disorder stemmed from earlier idea systems
(theological and metaphysical) that continued to exist in the positivistic (scientific) age. Only when positivism
gained total control would social upheavals cease. Because this was an evolutionary process, there was no need
to foment social upheaval and revolution. Positivism would come, although perhaps not as quickly as some
would like. Here Comte’s social reformism and his sociology coincide. Sociology could expedite the arrival of
positivism and hence bring order to the social world. Above all, Comte did not want to seem to be espousing
revolution. There was, in his view, enough disorder in the world. In any case, from Comte’s point of view, it
was intellectual change that was needed, and so there was little reason for social and political revolution.
We have already encountered several of Comte’s positions that were to be of great significance to the
development of classical sociology—his basic conservatism, reformism, and scientism and his evolutionary
view of the world. Several other aspects of his work deserve mention because they also were to play a major
role in the development of sociological theory. For example, his sociology does not focus on the individual but
rather takes as its basic unit of analysis larger entities such as the family. He also urged that we look at both
social structure and social change. Of great importance to later sociological theory, especially the work of
48
Spencer and Parsons, is Comte’s stress on the systematic character of society—the links among and between
the various components of society. He also accorded great importance to the role of consensus in society. He
saw little merit in the idea that society is characterized by inevitable conflict between workers and capitalists.
In addition, Comte emphasized the need to engage in abstract theorizing and to go out and do sociological
research. He urged that sociologists use observation, experimentation, and comparative historical analysis.
Finally, Comte believed that sociology ultimately would become the dominant scientific force in the world
because of its distinctive ability to interpret social laws and to develop reforms aimed at patching up problems
within the system.
49
Auguste Comte: A Biographical Sketch
Hulton Archive / Hulton Archive / Getty Images
Auguste Comte was born in Montpelier, France, on January 19, 1798 (Pickering, 1993:7; Wernick, 2005a; Orenstein, 2007). His
parents were middle class, and his father eventually rose to the position of official local agent for the tax collector. Although a
precocious student, Comte never received a college-level degree. He and his whole class were dismissed from the Ecole
Polytechnique for their rebelliousness and their political ideas. This expulsion had an adverse effect on Comte’s academic career. In
1817, he became secretary (and “adopted son” [Manuel, 1962:251]) to Claude Henri Saint-Simon, a philosopher 40 years Comte’s
senior. They worked closely together for several years, and Comte acknowledged his great debt to Saint-Simon: “I certainly owe a
great deal intellectually to Saint-Simon.… [H]e contributed powerfully to launching me in the philosophic direction that I clearly
created for myself today and which I will follow without hesitation all my life” (Durkheim, [1928] 1962:144). But, in 1824, they had
a falling-out because Comte believed that Saint-Simon wanted to omit Comte’s name from one of his contributions. Comte later
wrote of his relationship with Saint-Simon as “catastrophic” (Pickering, 1993:238) and described him as a “depraved juggler”
(Durkheim, [1928] 1962:144). In 1852, Comte said of Saint-Simon, “I owed nothing to this personage” (Pickering, 1993:240).
Heilbron (1995) describes Comte as short (perhaps 5 feet, 2 inches), a bit cross-eyed, and very insecure in social situations, especially
ones involving women. He was also alienated from society as a whole. These facts may help account for the fact that Comte married
Caroline Massin (the marriage lasted from 1825 to 1842). She was an illegitimate child whom Comte later called a “prostitute,”
although that label has been questioned recently (Pickering, 1997:37). Comte’s personal insecurities stood in contrast to his great
security about his own intellectual capacities, and it appears that his self-esteem was well founded:
Comte’s prodigious memory is famous. Endowed with a photographic memory, he could recite backwards the words of
any page he had read but once. His powers of concentration were such that he could sketch out an entire book without
50
putting pen to paper. His lectures were all delivered without notes. When he sat down to write out his books he wrote
everything from memory.
(Schweber, 1991:134)
In 1826, Comte concocted a scheme by which he would present a series of 72 public lectures (to be held in his apartment) on his
philosophy. The course drew a distinguished audience, but it was halted after three lectures when Comte suffered a nervous
breakdown. He continued to suffer from mental problems, and, once, in 1827, he tried (unsuccessfully) to commit suicide by
throwing himself into the Seine River.
Although he could not get a regular position at the Ecole Polytechnique, Comte did get a minor position as a teaching assistant
there in 1832. In 1837, Comte was given the additional post of admissions examiner, and this, for the first time, gave him an
adequate income (he had often been economically dependent on his family until this time). During this period, Comte worked on
the six-volume work for which he is best known, Cours de Philosophie Positive, which was finally published in its entirety in 1842 (the
first volume had been published in 1830). In that work, Comte outlined his view that sociology was the ultimate science. He also
attacked the Ecole Polytechnique, and the result was that, in 1844, his assistantship there was not renewed. By 1851, he had
completed the four-volume Systeme de Politique Positive, which had a more practical intent, offering a grand plan for the
reorganization of society.
Heilbron argues that a major break took place in Comte’s life in 1838 and it was then that he lost hope that anyone would take his
work on science, in general, and sociology, in particular, seriously. It was also at that point that he embarked on his life of “cerebral
hygiene”; that is, Comte began to avoid reading the work of other people, with the result that he became hopelessly out of touch
with recent intellectual developments. It was after 1838 that he began developing his bizarre ideas about reforming society that
found expression in Systeme de Politique Positive. Comte came to fancy himself as the high priest of a new religion of humanity; he
believed in a world that eventually would be led by sociologist-priests. (Comte had been strongly influenced by his Catholic
background.) Interestingly, in spite of such outrageous ideas, Comte eventually developed a considerable following in France, as well
as in a number of other countries.
Auguste Comte died on September 5, 1857.
Comte was in the forefront of the development of positivistic sociology (C. Bryant, 1985; Halfpenny, 1982).
To Jonathan Turner, Comte’s positivism emphasized that “the social universe is amenable to the development
of abstract laws that can be tested through the careful collection of data,” and “these abstract laws will denote
the basic and generic properties of the social universe and they will specify their ‘natural relations’” (1985:24).
As we will see, a number of classical theorists (especially Spencer and Durkheim) shared Comte’s interest in
the discovery of the laws of social life.
Even though Comte lacked a solid academic base on which to build a school of Comtian sociological theory,
he nevertheless laid a basis for the development of a significant stream of sociological theory. But his longterm significance is dwarfed by that of his successor in French sociology and the inheritor of a number of its
ideas, Emile Durkheim. (For a debate over the canonization of Durkheim, as well as other classical theorists
discussed in this chapter, see D. Parker, 1997; Mouzelis, 1997.)
Emile Durkheim (1858–1917)
Durkheim’s relation to the Enlightenment was much more ambiguous than Comte’s. Durkheim has been
seen as an inheritor of the Enlightenment tradition because of his emphasis on science and social reformism.
However, he also has been seen as the inheritor of the conservative tradition, especially as it was manifested in
Comte’s work. But whereas Comte had remained outside of academia (as had Tocqueville), Durkheim
51
developed an increasingly solid academic base as his career progressed. Durkheim legitimized sociology in
France, and his work ultimately became a dominant force in the development of sociology, in general, and of
sociological theory, in particular (Rawls, 2007; Milbrandt and Pearce, 2011).
Durkheim was politically liberal, but he took a more conservative position intellectually. Like Comte and the
Catholic counterrevolutionaries, Durkheim feared and hated social disorder. His work was informed by the
disorders produced by the general social changes discussed earlier in this chapter, as well as by others (such as
industrial strikes, disruption of the ruling class, church-state discord, the rise of political anti-Semitism) more
specific to the France of Durkheim’s time (Karady, 1983). In fact, most of his work was devoted to the study
of social order. His view was that social disorders are not a necessary part of the modern world and could be
reduced by social reforms. Whereas Marx saw the problems of the modern world as inherent in society,
Durkheim (along with most other classical theorists) did not. As a result, Marx’s ideas on the need for social
revolution stood in sharp contrast to the reformism of Durkheim and the others. As classical sociological
theory developed, it was the Durkheimian interest in order and reform that came to dominate, while the
Marxian position was eclipsed.
Social Facts
Durkheim developed a distinctive conception of the subject matter of sociology and then tested it in an
empirical study. In The Rules of Sociological Method ([1895] 1982), Durkheim argued that it is the special task
of sociology to study what he called social facts (Nielsen, 2005, 2007a). He conceived of social facts as forces
(Takla and Pope, 1985) and structures that are external to, and coercive of, the individual. The study of these
large-scale structures and forces—for example, institutionalized law and shared moral beliefs—and their
impact on people became the concern of many later sociological theorists (Parsons, for example). In Suicide
([1897] 1951), Durkheim reasoned that if he could link such an individual behavior as suicide to social causes
(social facts), he would have made a persuasive case for the importance of the discipline of sociology. His basic
argument was that it was the nature of, and changes in, social facts that led to differences in suicide rates. For
example, a war or an economic depression would create a collective mood of depression that would in turn
lead to increases in suicide rates.
In The Rules of Sociological Method ([1895] 1982), Durkheim differentiated between two types of social facts—
material and nonmaterial. Although he dealt with both in the course of his work, his main focus was on
nonmaterial social facts (for example, culture and social institutions) rather than material social facts (for
example, bureaucracy and law). This concern for nonmaterial social facts was already clear in his earliest major
work, The Division of Labor in Society ([1893] 1964). His focus there was a comparative analysis of what held
society together in the primitive and modern cases. He concluded that earlier societies were held together
primarily by nonmaterial social facts, specifically, a strongly held common morality, or what he called a strong
collective conscience. However, because of the complexities of modern society, there had been a decline in the
strength of the collective conscience. The primary bond in the modern world was an intricate division of
labor, which tied people to others in dependency relationships. However, Durkheim felt that the modern
division of labor brought with it several “pathologies”; it was, in other words, an inadequate method of
52
holding society together. Given his conservative sociology, Durkheim did not feel that revolution was needed
to solve these problems. Rather, he suggested a variety of reforms that could “patch up” the modern system
and keep it functioning. Although he recognized that there was no going back to the age when a powerful
collective conscience predominated, he did feel that the common morality could be strengthened in modern
society and that people thereby could cope better with the pathologies that they were experiencing.
Religion
In his later work, nonmaterial social facts occupied an even more central position. In fact, he came to focus on
perhaps the ultimate form of a nonmaterial social fact—religion—in his last major work, The Elementary
Forms of Religious Life ([1912] 1965). Durkheim examined primitive society in order to find the roots of
religion. He believed that he would be better able to find those roots in the comparative simplicity of primitive
society than in the complexity of the modern world. What he found, he felt, was that the source of religion
was society itself. Society comes to define certain things as religious and others as profane. Specifically, in the
case he studied, the clan was the source of a primitive kind of religion, totemism, in which things like plants
and animals are deified. Totemism, in turn, was seen as a specific type of nonmaterial social fact, a form of the
collective conscience. In the end, Durkheim came to argue that society and religion (or, more generally, the
collective conscience) were one and the same. Religion was the way society expressed itself in the form of a
nonmaterial social fact. In a sens…