sociology

Also from Answers.com... Cancer Treatments Learn about current and promising cancer treatments.

1. The study of human social behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society.
2. Analysis of a social institution or societal segment as a self-contained entity or in relation to society as a whole.

[French sociologie : socio-, socio- + -logie, study (from Greek -logiā; see –logy).]

The human body has always been central to sociology because sociology is about the organization of collections of human bodies into forms of social life. Sociologists have also always been concerned with the question of the boundary between the biological and the social in the formation of human identity; the so-called nature/nurture controversy. But until the late 1970s the body as the physical expression or embodiment of human identity, personal experience, and action was largely ignored by sociologists, who concentrated on the structuring of groups and societies. Against this background it is generally agreed that the recent specific interest in the sociology of the body has developed for three main reasons.

Modernity and the body

Firstly, there is the series of complex social and cultural changes associated with the rise of modernity. Modernity has a long history, but amongst the most significant social processes identified with rapid socio-economic and technical change since the nineteenth century, is the emergence of consumer culture. The marketing and consumption of mass-produced consumer goods involves an unprecedented exploitation of visual images of the body, ranging from photography and the cinema to computer-mediated forms of communication. Linked with innovations in processes of mass communication, consumer culture encourages the cultivation of individualized lifestyles in which bodily and self-display play a prominent part. An easy test of the extent of this influence on everyday life is to make a rough count of the images of human bodies in various states of dress encountered during the course of an ordinary day and then add to these the number of mirrors and other surfaces reflecting one's own face and physical appearance. This account can then be compared with an estimate of such images one would have been likely to see before the end of the nineteenth century, especially images of one's own face and body.

The proliferation of images of the body is a significant aspect of the growth of individualism — the high value given to the private individual or person — which is regarded by sociologists as a key feature of modernity. Modernity has been equated with the shift from the social to the individual person who spends increasing amounts of time cultivating personal identity through the cultivation of the body. A good example is the growth in regimes for body modification, including gymnasia, leisure and keep fit centres, and health farms; also the expanding selection of magazines, newspaper articles, and TV programmes designed to encourage body-consciousness and self-expression. It is argued that a key reason underlying this change is the transition from traditional to modern forms of human association, where the links between human beings are no longer established by the rules of traditional community life. Rather, they have been replaced with those based upon agreements and contracts made between people who regard themselves as private individuals operating in a free market. In this situation the individuals are dependent upon their own resources, including those of the body; the competent self requires a functioning body which is capable of sustained activity and of responding to the demands of rapid and risky social change. The move from traditional forms of social and economic organization to ‘late modern’ societies is therefore seen as one requiring a flexible embodied self whose identity is much less stable than perhaps was the case in the past. The result is an increasing tendency to regard the nature of the body not as fixed, but as highly flexible and open to social construction/reconstruction through various techniques of body- and therefore self-modification. Another good example is the rising demand for cosmetic surgery, a reflection of the current value placed upon the interdependence of body and self, and of the importance of embodied self-expression in an individualized social world.

Feminism and the body

The second major influence on the emergence of sociological interest in the body is the feminist movement. From the 1970s feminist scholarship has played an important part in bringing the body back into sociology. The traditional concern of feminists with the exclusion of women from the public sphere is expressed in sociology as a major critical attack on their neglect by male sociologists, who have taken ‘man’, and especially ‘public man’, as the model for the whole of ‘humanity’. Feminists argue that the equation ‘man’ = society stems from a neglect of the personal and social lives of women. This arises from assumptions about the nature of biological differences between the bodies of men and women and their influence on the roles they should play in society. At the heart of this issue is the recurring question of biology and society: to what extent are the differences between male and female bodies biologically determined, or socially and culturally constructed? Whilst biological differences in the reproductive functions of men and women are clearly evident the question remains of the social interpretations placed upon this difference and the ways in which perceptions of these differences influence forms of social discrimination between the genders.

One typical area is the matter of gender differences in the ageing process. Because their bodies are biologically programmed for conception and childbirth, women undergo a number of changes called the menopause, with the cessation of the ability to produce children. With the apparent exception of a few unusual cases, this process of biological change is unknown in men. That much is generally agreed but, as feminist scholars argue, the fact of this bodily change is no justification for the elaborate construction of personal and social distinctions between middle-aged men and women which characterize social stereotypes of ‘menopausal women’. In fact menopausal changes are highly variable and there are good reasons to believe that the severity of these physical effects is widely exaggerated. Yet the menopause is also widely stereotyped as a troublesome period for women.

The major contribution of feminists to the sociology of the body has been to challenge the belief that the biology of the body is the bottom line and to show how the meanings given to the body are socially constructed by those who are in a position to create ideas about the body and put them into practice. In this area many sociologists have been influenced by the work of Michel Foucault, who regards the body as the subject of power and discipline, especially the power and disciplined knowledge of the expert. Partly because power and the exercise of power has always been a central concern for sociologists, Foucault's theoretical and historical analyses of body discipline have formed the basis for much contemporary empirical research on the body, including sexuality, health education, doctor- patient relationships, mental illness, the social organization of hospitals, dentistry, geriatric medicine, and crime and punishment. In this work sociologists are principally concerned to show how experts such as medical investigators do not simply discover the biological secrets of the body, which are somehow waiting there to be observed, but also actively construct ways of perceiving the body and giving meaning to it; observations of the body, even using the most advanced technology, are influenced by the ideas and beliefs of the day. According to Foucault, experts in sexology during the nineteenth century were instrumental in creating a whole new range of sexual experiences and behaviour through their prescriptions of what could be defined as ‘normal’ sexual practice. Their ‘discoveries’ of new sexual deviations and ‘perversions’ had the unintended effect of extending the repertoire of sexual behaviour and producing new forms of social problems for experts to resolve. Similarly, geriatric medicine, also an invention of the nineteenth century, can be seen sociologically as an attempt to determine the nature of the ageing body by constructing categories of distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘pathological’ ageing processes. This development is a crucial part of the process whereby members of the medical profession lay claims to certain forms of expertise and therefore the power to discriminate between older people. The point is not that there is no such thing as biological sex or the biologically ageing body but that our perceptions and understanding of them are shaped by the practical social activities of those who wish to set themselves up as experts working within specific professional fields.

The civilizing process and the body

In the sociology of the body all roads ultimately lead to contemporary versions of the old nature/nurture debate — the question of the boundaries between the biological, the social, and the psychological. Another key influence here is the German sociologist Norbert Elias (1897-1990), for whom it is a waste of time and intellectual effort to assess the relative contributions of biology, society, and psychology to the causes of any human behaviour. His argument, based on detailed studies of the history of human violence, bodily functions (sexual activity, eating habits, excretion), and the emotions, is that over a long period of time these three have become indivisible. Although human behaviour is inevitably grounded in biology and we cannot escape the material limitations of our bodies, this basic physical potential is overlaid by the long-term cultural transformations that Elias calls ‘the civilizing process’.

The civilizing process is characterized by the gradual domination of learned over instinctual experience, a process he describes as ‘symbol emancipation’. Through the long history of the species, human beings have gradually become distanced, by the accumulation of a vast cultural heritage, from their basic instinctual drives and biological urges: human beings survive because of their innate capacity for learned behaviour. Whilst therefore human societies are composed of bodies these are collections of the bodies of individuals who have learned from a vast inherited cultural repertoire the importance of exercising control over their bodies and who are subject to the often self-imposed restraints of guilt, shame, and embarrassment. One consequence of this long-term process is the emergence of the disciplined individual, who through self and bodily discipline is able to establish collaborative relationships with other people, many of whom, in the modern world, will be strangers. The civilized individual is slow to anger and emotionally calculating, exercising a high degree of discipline over bodily functions such as eating, excretion, and sexual activity. The civilized individual has a strong sense of the boundaries prescribed by good manners and etiquette between one human body and another and the subtle distinctions between public and private space. The civilized individual is the citizen of the modern world.

Body and self

If at the present moment a generalization about the sociological analysis of the human body can be made, it is that recent work is marked by an increasingly sophisticated and theoretically complex rejection of crude attempts to reduce the body to a biological mechanism. In particular, the dualistic or binary approach — inherited from Descartes, who separated the mind from the body — is regarded at worst as totally unacceptable and at best as an issue for further enquiry and research. The idea of the self (or soul) having a separate existence within the body is seen by many sociologists to be indefensible at a time when science and technology are transforming human beings into part biology and part machine. The emergence of ‘cyborg culture’ raises urgent questions about what it is to be a human body, when increasingly our bodies are invaded by surgical techniques, and deficient organs are replaced or given mechanical substitutes. One hope for those who regard the ageing of the population as a major social problem is in the prospect of advances in ‘young’ laboratory-grown replacement tissues and organs to replace the ‘aged’ in the bodies of older people. Similarly developments in genetic science hold out hope for the discovery of the ageing gene and the abolition of old age.

Technology as culture frees the body from biology, because it enables humans to modify their bodies, both in their external appearance and in their inner structures and functions. A concern with modern identities has resulted in much closer enquiry into the emergence of individuality and self-consciousness in late modern forms of social organization, where technology and consumer culture have produced a significant change in the relationship between the social, the cultural, and the biological. Yet at the same time, as many sociologists indicate, the spectre of the death of the body continues to haunt the modern world. The ageing of the population on a global scale is, therefore, a final reason for the increasing interest in the sociology of the body. In modern societies old age takes us to the limits of the increasingly blurring boundary between the biological and the social: old age becomes in a very real sense the final problem. For another twentieth-century German sociologist, Zigmunt Bauman, modern societies conceal death because death conflicts with the continual process of making and re-making the self, which is central to modernity. Selfhood is grounded in consciousness of one's own bodily processes and the belief in science, yet the desire of human beings for complete control over their lives and destinies exists uneasily alongside an increasing awareness of the limitations of scientific knowledge and of the risks it entails.

If the self and the body form a culturally integrated whole and the self is essentially embodied — has no existence outside the body — then problems arise when the body begins to decline or is disabled. For some sociologists the future lies in the disembodied world of ‘cyberspace’, where the electronic media liberate individuals from the encumbrance of the body, a development which is seen as potentially beneficial for those excluded from normal social interaction through bodily impairment and disability. But the reference point of individual identity, even in cyberspace, is still the human body, and in the last analysis images have to be related to embodiment as it is experienced, if they are to influence practical human relationships and shape the quality of the experience of everyday life.

— Mike Hepworth

Bibliography

• Shilling, C. (1993). The body and social theory. Sage, London.
• Turner, B. S. (1996). The body and society, (2nd edn). London

See also ageing; feminism; leisure; philosophy and the body; work and the body.

The study of group behavior within a society.

Sociology as a discipline developed from theoretical writings of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. The predominant theories stem from the work of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton, and James Coleman. The influence of this rich theoretical foundation has manifested itself in major debates over the role of sociology as a science. European and American perspectives on sociology as a science differ, with the American perspective favoring sociology as a scientific discipline and emphasizing a more quantitative methodological approach than the European approach.

Key Concepts in Sociology

Several key concepts in sociology relate to its role in public health. Foremost is the emphasis on society rather than the individual. The individual is viewed as an actor within larger social processes. This distinguishes the field from psychology. The emphasis is on units of analysis at the collective level, such as the family, the group, the neighborhood, the city, the organization, the state, and the world. Of key importance is how the social fabric, or social structure, is maintained, and how social processes, such as conflict and resolution, relate to the maintenance and change of social structures. A sociologist studies processes that create, maintain, and sustain a social system, such as a health care system in a particular country. The scientific component of this study would be the concern with the processes regulating and shaping the health care system. Sociology assumes that social structure and social processes are very complex. Therefore its methodology is appropriately complex and often, particularly in American sociology, dominated by multivariate statistical methods of analysis. The advent of the computer in the second half of the twentieth century presented the field with the opportunity to work with very large bodies of data and complex variables.

Medical Sociology

Earlier social theorists, such as those noted above, did write on subjects of concern to medicine, health, and illness, but medical sociology, as a subdiscipline of sociology, developed in the post-World War II period. Early debates in medical sociology were concerned with the role of sociology as it relates to medicine: Should the field be critical and analytical, concerning itself with the sociology of medicine (i.e., examining how medicine works); or should it be largely applied, focusing on sociology as a handmaiden for medicine? Like many such formative debates, there could be no conclusive answer. However, the field has developed into two groups: those (largely within academic settings) which focus on the sociology of medicine; and those (primarily in schools of public health and governmental institutions) which focus on the application of sociology to medicine. Later debates related to whether the focus should be on health sociology or medical sociology. This debate has moved the field to a broader, more ecological, view of medicine and health.

Sociology in Public Health

Public health has been and remains a very applied field. It is also characterized by a population-based approach to health, and statistical methods are deemed the appropriate underlying method for the field. It is viewed as a science that seeks to intervene, control, and prevent large-scale processes that negatively affect the public's health. By these criteria, there is a strong logical fit of sociological principles and practices within public health. Nonetheless, sociology has not been the key social science discipline in public health. That position has gone to psychology, where the emphasis on individual behavior resonates more with a biomedical model. Despite this, many of the primary concerns of present-day public health, with large-scale variables such as social capital, social inequality, social status, and health care organization and financing, remain topics best suited to the sociological perspective and methodology. The emphasis in public health is thus shifting toward a sociological perspective.

Sociological Concepts in Public Health

Sociology in public health is reflected in the myriad of sociological concepts that pervade the practice of public health. More than any other social science, sociology has the discussion of socioeconomic status at its very core. Social-class variation within society is the key explanatory variable in sociology—for everything from variation in social structure to differential life experiences of health and illness. Indeed, there appears to be overwhelming evidence that Western industrialized societies that have little variation in social class experience have far better health outcomes than societies characterized by wide social-class dispersion. In short, inequalities in health are directly related to social and economic inequalities. Much of later-twentieth-century public health is devoted to the reduction of these inequalities.

Sociological Methods in Public Health

Methodological concerns are critical to sociological research. The great debate in sociology has been on the relative merits and role of quantitative versus qualitative approaches. Both approaches are widely used and play a critical role for public health. Sociology has long recognized that the social world comprises both an objective and a subjective reality. For example, the objective reality of having cancer is accompanied by the subjective reality of the experience of cancer by the patient, and the patient's family and friends. Both realities are relevant to the sociological approach. The subjective, qualitative approach is generally discussed in the theory and methods concerned with illness behavior, but qualitative approaches are equally applicable to the understanding of social policy, world systems, and areas of sociology where statistical measurement is difficult or less relevant.

Within public health, surveillance is seen as a key approach to describing the distribution and dynamics of disease. In sociological approaches to public health, the role of social and behavioral factors in health and illness is central. Survey methodology has occupied a central place in sociological research since the middle of the twentieth century. The concern has been with the collection, management, analysis, interpretation, and use of large quantities of data obtained by direct interview with respondents. Social surveys are characterized by large random samples, complicated questionnaires, and the use of multivariate statistics for analysis. By their very nature, most sociological variables are complex to measure and to analyze. For example, the assessment of socioeconomic status of an individual requires the accurate measurement of several variables that sit within a larger social context. Socioeconomic status (SES) is regarded as a product of several components, including income, residence, education, and occupation. Determining the relative weight of each of these components is a major analytical problem. Thus, when considering the role of socioeconomic status on health care outcomes, there is no easy answer to what mechanism actually works to determine the observed relationship between SES and health.

Sociology and Evaluation in Public Health

Because many sociological variables are at the socalled macro level, there is limited opportunity to intervene rapidly, directly, or simply. For example, the SES of a group is affected by complex components, such as education and occupation, that are part of the total life course of individuals within the group. Thus, to change the SES of a group would require significant redistribution of resources of the larger social structure. A significant period of time and concerted effort is needed to change such macro variables. This is, however, not dissimilar to many other challenges in public health, such as the long-term and time-consuming effort to change lifestyles and reduce behavioral risk factors related to chronic diseases.

The chief role of sociology in public health remains its evaluation of those macro components of society that affect public health at the population level. Such evaluations provide an understanding of why inequalities in health exist, and they help elaborate upon the mechanisms and processes that sustain these inequalities. This relates to the long-standing theoretical concern with social structure among sociologists. Further, sociology reveals the mechanisms for long-term changes that may lead to a reduction in health inequalities. The product of sociological thinking in public health is not immediate nor easily understood by those who seek quick and easy solutions to the suffering of humanity. Nonetheless, the long-term role of sociology in public health is to change and improve the public health.

(SEE ALSO: Community Health; Medical Sociology; Psychology, Health; Social Determinants; Social Health)

Bibliography

Cockerham, W. C. (2000). Medical Sociology, 8th edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press.

Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. New York: Vintage Books.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

— DAVID V. MCQUEEN

The study of societies; both the description of social phenomena and the evolution of a conceptual scheme for these phenomena. Different strands may be recognized: curiosity about how a society hangs together, theories of social evolution, and the interpretation of these theories.

For more information on sociology, visit Britannica.com.

The study of every aspect and type of society in a scientific way. It encompasses elements of the other social sciences, but views society in a holistic way. That is, sociology does not separate a study of society into areas such as history, economics, or politics, but sees how all these aspects relate to one another.

While the discipline of sociology had its roots in nineteenth-century Europe, it enjoyed its greatest success in the United States during the academic golden age of the mid-twentieth century. Making a science of society was a distinctly modern exercise. Not only did it depend on a modern concept of empirical, experimental science, but it also presupposed "society" as a new object of study. How was one to name, classify, and analyze the forms of human experience in the aggregate—that is, if one sought to discern an aggregate form beyond relations of kin and distinguished from the apparatus of formal government? A kind of age-old ethnography had long enabled observers to comment on the traits of different peoples, usually by remarking on the exotic look and habits of aliens. Also, the idea of large cultural units or civilizations, usually wedded to imperial domains or great religions, such as Christendom, had a long history. Far less developed was the concept of an order to human relations apart from family, state, ethnicity, or belief that might become the basis for a comparative anatomy of differing communities. Modern notions of "economy" and "society" emerged to name such an order, as European colonial expansion, political revolution, and industrialization stirred consciousness of great change and variation in the form human relations could take. From the Scottish Enlightenment of the late eighteenth century to the universities of Wilhelmine Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century, the terms of economy and society were conjoined and contrasted in various ways. In large part, sociology matured as the second term became clearly differentiated from the first. Surprisingly, it was in the United States, where individualism and the pursuit of wealth seemed to reign supreme, that sociology as a study of the collective, noneconomic forms of human life found its most secure home.

The First Sociologists

Although historians cite the beginning of modern social sciences in the work of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), the focus in his masterwork Leviathan (1651) on the formation and authority of the state denies him the title of the "first sociologist," which has been bestowed instead on the Scottish writer Adam Ferguson (1723–1816). Ferguson's Essay on the History of Civil Society (1767) countered Hobbes in asserting that social sentiments—that is, desires to associate with others due to a dislike of solitude, sympathy with one's fellows and a desire for their esteem, or simple habit—were indeed as "natural" to individuals as their self-regarding appetites. Yet it was the French polymath Auguste Comte (1798–1857) who first used the term "sociology," in 1839 as part of his Course of Positive Philosophy and elaborated on its meaning in his System of Positive Polity (1851–1854).

Americans generally thought of "society" as the eighteenth-century Scottish writers had, recognizing social sentiments but still putting liberal ideas of individualism, progress, and market relations in the forefront. Comte's sociology was first adopted in the United States in 1854 by two writers venturing a principled defense of southern slavery, George Fitzhugh (1806–1881) in Sociology for the South and Henry Hughes (1829–1862) in Treatise on Sociology. Both of these authors contrasted slave society with "free society," for them virtually an oxymoron. Principles of individualism and equality, they wrote, eroded social organization as such. From Comte they borrowed the notion that "society" constituted a realm in itself, unified by sentiments concerned with the wellbeing of the whole and founded, like a family, on hierarchical norms in which superiors governed and cared for dependents incapable of self-rule. Just as Comte fell into obscurity for several decades after his death in 1857, the work of Fitzhugh and Hughes turned out to be a dead-end once the Civil War and the end of slavery made liberal principles all but universal in American society and culture.

American sociology was reborn in the 1880s under different circumstances and with different premises. When William Graham Sumner (1840–1910) began teaching the subject of sociology at Yale University, he relied on its individualistic British exponent Herbert Spencer (1820– 1903). In this view human evolution naturally led toward a modern world in which individuals were habituated to peaceful practices of exchange while the power of the state and coercive rule steadily declined. Hence, free will was rendered compatible with social order. This utopia of social order modeled on the ideal of a free market carried a decided moral meaning for Sumner, who insisted that self-sufficiency was the greatest obligation the individual bore toward society and that the plight of the pauper was the rightful consequence of dissipation. Sumner was challenged by a career civil servant, Lester Frank Ward (1841–1913), who brought Comtean principles back to the American scene by advocating an active state that nurtured the common welfare. According to Ward's 1883 book Dynamic Sociology, social evolution was to be guided by human intelligence rather than understood in naturalistic terms as a phenomenon impervious to will.

Beginnings of Academic Sociology

These early skirmishes over laissez-faire principles and social reform marked the prologue of institutionalized sociology in the United States. By the beginning of the twentieth century a new generation of intellectuals, coming of age amidst economic instability, industrial strife, and dramatic inequalities of wealth, was ready to combine a reforming spirit with the new repute of science in the emerging research universities. The American Social Science Association (ASSA), founded in 1865, represented an early effort to bring organized intelligence to bear on charitable activities concerned with social problems such as pauperism and crime. In 1885 a group of young American scholars, trained abroad in German universities and eager to see the state bring "social" values to bear on economic affairs, split off from the ASSA to establish the American Economic Association (AEA), the prototype for other specialized professional societies such as the American Political Science Association, founded in 1903. Sociology lagged behind. In 1893 the University of Chicago established the first American chair in sociology, awarded to the social gospel minister Albion Woodbury Small (1854–1926), and under Small's editorship the first issue of the American Journal of Sociology appeared in 1895. Ten years later, at the economists' professional meeting, Small and others founded their own organization, the American Sociological Society, later renamed the American Sociological Association (ASA).

Although these academic circles were composed almost entirely of men, women activists in settlement houses helped pioneer the disciplined study of urban and industrial affairs. The social surveys of immigrant neighborhoods conducted by Jane Addams (1860–1935) and her colleagues at Hull-House provided an early model of community research for the University of Chicago sociologists nearby. A few women devoted to studying social problems managed to forge a place in university life, such as Grace Abbott (1878–1939) and Sophonisba Breckin-ridge (1866–1948), also at the University of Chicago, though they were soon segregated from the male sociologists in a separate school of social work. Elsewhere, W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963) made a distinctive contribution to the new styles of social research when his book The Philadelphia Negro (1899) demonstrated that "social" conditions, such as poverty and discrimination rather than inbred "racial" traits, accounted for regrettable features of crime and broken families among black slum dwellers.

The reformist mood of early academic social science was, however, quite modest and restrained. The middle-class reformers who entered the new academic social sciences typically recoiled from class struggle and wished instead to foster social peace by ameliorating conditions of deprivation, conflict, and misunderstanding. In any case conservative university administrators and trustees imposed strict limits on advocacy of social change. The prolabor activism of Ward's follower Edward A. Ross (1866–1951) led to Ross's forced resignation from Stanford University in 1900. Other early leaders in the field looked askance at social reform. Franklin Giddings (1855–1931), who assumed a chair in sociology at Columbia University two years after Small's appointment at Chicago, sought instead to frame truly "scientific" means of observation, data collection, and statistical measures for social facts. Nonetheless, Small regarded his Christian ideal of a harmonious society as thoroughly compatible with his aspirations for social science, and he persisted in seeing the discipline as an intimate partner to reformers in the field of social welfare. For years, many colleges in the United States used the term "sociology" for courses dealing with charities and corrections, thus carrying on the tradition of the ASSA.

Sociology Professionalized

A clearer differentiation of sociology from social welfare began in the 1910s and continued into the 1920s. The landmark study by W. I. Thomas (1863–1947) and Florian Znaniecki (1882–1958), The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920), helped establish the characteristic disposition of Chicago's increasingly professionalized department: the study of change in the life of social groups, understood as a process of "social disorganization" (the loss of traditional norms) and "reorganization" (adaptation to modern life) experienced by recent immigrants from rural villages to the industrial city; a focus, informed by the philosophy of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) and the "social psychology" of Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929), on the individual's subjective interpretation of social situations as it emerged in his or her interactions with others; and consequently a style of urban research founded on participant observation, designed both to achieve empathy with the viewpoints of social actors and to map the terrain on which they encountered others, that is, social structure understood as an ecology of social groups. This approach was codified by the new leaders of Chicago sociology in the 1920s, Robert E. Park (1864–1944) and Ernest Burgess (1886– 1966), commencing a vibrant body of research on city neighborhoods, ethnicity and racial groups, and youth gangs and other phenomena, such as the lives of con men and prostitutes, on the margins of polite society.

As the "Chicago school" matured, another touchstone of American sociology was in the works. The community study Middletown (1929) by Robert S. Lynd (1892–1970) and Helen Merrell Lynd (1896–1982) examined work, family, religion, leisure, and civic life in Muncie, Indiana, under the stress of industrial development, class divisions, and modern transportation and communications. Robert Lynd went on to head the new Social Science Research Council (SSRC), begun with Rockefeller backing in 1923 to fund empirical research and promote scientific development through professional seminars on methodology. Before long, an early sign of government interest in sociology appeared in the publication of Recent Social Trends (1932), the work of a committee impaneled by President Herbert Hoover in the fall of 1929 but funded largely by the Rockefeller Foundation and the SSRC. Tellingly, the President's Research Committee on Social Trends was cochaired by an economist, Wesley C. Mitchell (1874–1948), and a political scientist, Charles E. Merriam (1874–1953), representing the more established social science disciplines. But its research was conducted under the leadership of bona fide sociologists, William F. Ogburn (1886–1959), who earned a Ph.D. at Columbia University and then went to Chicago, and Howard W. Odum (1884–1954), another Columbia graduate, who brought academic sociology to the University of North Carolina. Despite its testimony to public interest in sociological research, however, the committee's report was criticized sharply by other sociologists, who considered its dry record of numerical trends in divorce, urbanization, and rates of technological invention unilluminating and uninspired.

By 1928, ninety-nine American colleges and universities had departments of sociology, five times as many as in 1910, and forty-eight others had departments defined as "economics and sociology." In the next decade, sociology achieved a stronger professional footing despite limited prospects for growth during the Great Depression. The membership of the ASA fell drastically, but those who remained were more strictly academic in orientation. As these scholars chafed under the domination of Chicago's inbred sociology department, they demanded that the organization better represent the profession as a whole. Yet the field lacked the kind of unity and coherence customarily claimed by self-conscious professions, and widespread disagreements flourished on what it meant to build a science of society, as the dispute over Recent Social Trends suggested. A vigorous cohort of Columbia-bred sociologists spread throughout the country and pursued the ideal of an "objective" science of society in terms bequeathed to them by Giddings. Their ideal was based not on Chicago's intimate observation of groups, their interactions and their sentiments, but rather on statistical generalizations about the attributes and preferences of individuals, a project that flourished in time with the help of new techniques drawn from opinion polling and market research. Other competitors for disciplinary leadership included the pugnacious Luther L. Bernard (1881–1951), the advocate of an updated Comtean social realism.

The real problem of sociology, compared to fields like economics and political science, lay in uncertainty over the definition of its essential subject matter. Since the 1890s, sociology had been defined alternatively as a kind of master discipline offering a comprehensive vision of society and incorporating all other specialties or as a "residual" field covering issues and problems not addressed elsewhere, such as crime and family. In hopes of escaping this quandary, some figures in the 1930s renewed the attempt to build sociological theory out of traditions of social philosophy. Giddings's successor at the helm of Columbia's department, Robert MacIver (1882–1979), moved in this direction. So did the young Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) at Harvard University. The fact that neither of these figures had any prior training in established sociology departments showed how much the discipline was still, during the 1930s, a work in progress.

Harvard had taught sociology in association with economic history and philanthropic "social ethics," moving to found its own department only in 1931 under the leadership of Pitirim Sorokin (1889–1968), a Russian émigré and author of the compendium Contemporary Sociological Theories (1928). In contrast to Sorokin's urge to classify the many variants of theory that composed the field, Parsons believed that a scientific discipline rightly had only one theory, a founding charter established by the synthesis of tendencies formerly at odds with each other. Parsons had been introduced to the social sciences by disciples of the dissenting economist Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929) and knew little of Chicago's or Columbia's sociological traditions. In his early masterwork, The Structure of Social Action (1937), Parsons portrayed a dawning convergence among exponents of English, French, German, and Italian social thought that overcame the customary divide between "positivist" or empiricist approaches to discovering objective social laws and "idealist" traditions that stressed the unpredictable force of human consciousness and will. But Parsons's synthesis also attempted to get beyond the social "realism" of a Comtean like Bernard and the "nominalist" position of the Giddings school, for whom society was merely a convenient term for an aggregate of individuals. Parsons sought to define "society" as something quite real, even if not a concrete entity in its own right. It was to be understood as an aspect of human experience that, strictly speaking, could be isolated only for the convenience of analysis, namely that element of human action that assured social order primarily by virtue of an integrated set of values held in common by a body of actors.

The Heyday of American Sociology

Parsons was important to the development of American sociology for a number of reasons. Having built his theoretical convergence largely on the work of Emile Durkheim (1858–1918), Max Weber (1864–1920), and Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), Parsons played a crucial role in drawing grand traditions of European social thought into the American milieu. Parsons's synthetic disposition also led him to promote the realignment of sociology with cultural anthropology and social psychology, a tripartite arrangement realized in a new, interdisciplinary department of social relations begun at Harvard in 1946. The result was a clearer definition of sociology's subject matter, the social realm, than the discipline had ever had before. In Parsons's hands, sociology moved away from close associations with the older, dominant fields of economics and political science. Its special concern was those institutions, such as families, schools, churches, neighborhoods, small groups, organizations, and occupations. In these milieus of association and interaction, scholars could see the formation of personalities, roles, values, orientations, perceptions of reality, sentiments of solidarity, and the like. In this way was everyday behavior shaped and social unity fostered. And in these terms sociology defined the essential "structure" of a society, the patterns of behavior that gave it a unique order and disposition distinct from that of other societies, thus permitting a comparative anatomy of societies.

The immediate post–World War II decades marked the heyday of American sociology. Young scholars entering the academy in the 1940s and 1950s, often of immigrant, wartime émigré, and left-wing backgrounds, helped fuel the field's growth. At the same time, funding increased dramatically from private philanthropies. While Rockefeller funds had dominated in the 1920s and 1930s, now the Ford and Carnegie foundations made large contributions. By the 1960s, government sources offered support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Defense Department, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The field's infrastructure developed as large-scale survey-research centers at Columbia, Chicago, and Michigan, supported by grants and contracts, provided both jobs and masses of data.

Meanwhile, works such as Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma (1944), David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd (1950), and William Whyte's The Organization Man (1956) garnered popular attention for sociology. Ideas cultivated by sociology along with cultural anthropology and social psychology regarding the "culture of poverty," "deviance" and opportunity structures, as well as schooling and race became part and parcel of public debate, policy formation, and presidential speeches in the era of desegregation and the war on poverty. Sociology became an ever more popular field for students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, attracting many of the young dissenters who populated campuses in the 1960s and 1970s. As American universities boomed in size, the ASA continued to grow. By 1972 its peak of 15,000 members represented a tenfold gain over its interwar membership. With this kind of growth, American sociology overshadowed developments in the European countries that were sources of the classics in modern social theory, and European thinkers concluded they had to come to terms with American standards in sociological theory as well as empirical methods.

Despite the common impression that Parsons's "structural-functional" theory of the 1950s represented the prevailing paradigm of postwar sociology, the discipline in fact was never so unified that it rested on a single coherent theoretical foundation. The landmark works in empirical sociology during the postwar period, many of them by the Austrian émigré Paul Lazarsfeld (1901–1976) of Columbia's Bureau of Applied Social Research and the students he trained there, rested on refinements of survey and statistical techniques, assisted by computerized data processing, with no special relation to the kind of abstract theory cultivated by Parsons. Also competing with Parsons's theory was the more modest, "middle-range" view of functional analysis promoted by his student Robert K. Merton (b. 1910), a method intended to discover how different parts of society, its institutions and organizations, worked together and influenced each other without presuming that they all meshed neatly in a harmonious whole. Furthermore, reputable theorists such as Lewis Coser (b. 1913) and Reinhard Bendix (1916–1991) challenged the priority Parsons gave to the problem of social order and his insistence that order required normative consensus.

Outside of functionalism per se, Herbert Blumer (1900–1987) codified the social psychology of the old Chicago school in the theoretical current called "symbolic interactionism," and practitioners of Chicago-style investigations of urban communities continued to produce some lively literature, such as Tally's Corner (1967) by Elliot Liebow (1925–1994). Other derivatives of interactionism flourished, such as the "dramaturgical" view of roles and rituals in everyday life developed by Erving Goffman (1922–1982) and the iconoclastic "labeling" theory of deviance by Howard S. Becker (b. 1928). More ambitious forays to mount full-bore challenges to Parsonsian and Mertonian functionalism, emerging from 1959 to 1966, included the critical sociology of C. Wright Mills (1916–1962), the historical sociology of Barrington Moore (b. 1913), and the individualistic "social exchange" theory of George Homans (1910–1989). Mills in particular criticized the division of sociology between what he regarded as vacuous "grand theory" (like Parsons's) and "abstracted empiricism" (like Lazarsfeld's work), insisting instead that sociologists must draw on a large canvas the social trends that mark "the salient characteristics of their time—and the problem of how history is being made within it" (Mills, p. 165). Similarly, though without Mills's radical intent, Daniel Bell (b. 1919) defined his own work as "sociography," an attempt to delineate the general form and dynamics of contemporary social life. His influential portrait of the present and the near future is The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (1973).

The Mainstream Assailed

Despite the robust appearance of American sociology, it soon encountered a social, political, and intellectual crisis spawned by protest movements in the 1960s and the accompanying revival of radicalism in academic life. Like all the social science and humanist disciplines, established sociology was criticized, mainly by young graduate students, for having provided an essentially conservative ideological rationale for the status quo. In particular, they charged, the functionalist focus on mechanisms of social order obscured the significance of conflict in social life; applauded conformity with social expectations instead of dissent, deviance, and disruption; suggested that the plight of the poor stemmed from their failure to adequately adapt to normative roles rather than from the exploitative and coercive structure of inequitable social relations; and masked the privilege and bias of sociologists themselves under a false ideal of "value-free" science. The most telling criticism aimed at postwar sociology was that the very disposition that gave sociology its own distinctive "social" province, apart from economics and political science, had denied it the ability to recognize the extent to which American society was governed by punitive inequalities in the distribution and uses of wealth and power.

The charge of entrenched conservatism, vigorously advanced by Alvin Gouldner (1920–1981) in The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (1970), misfired in some respects. Parsons, for one, was a liberal Democrat, and his work had emerged just when the rise of welfare states in western Europe (and more modestly in the United States in the New Deal and the Fair Deal) justified a theory that defined distinctly social needs apart from the imperatives of market economics. Indeed, American functionalism, in one form or another, found welcome abroad in Social-Democratic Sweden. Yet it was precisely the modern liberal (welfare-state) assumptions in postwar sociology combined with the anticommunist biases that governed all academic life during the Cold War era that gave social science its deep confidence in the progressive virtues of contemporary American life, including the view, characteristic of "modernization theory," that American society represented the future for all other, less-developed societies. Hence, it refrained from confronting the forms of inequality and injustice that had long shaped the development of the United States.

Consequently, the 1970s witnessed a flurry of studies dealing with the fault lines of American life. In work by William Julius Wilson (b. 1935) and other new black sociologists, racial cleavages were studied more in terms of political economy than in terms of cultural attitudes. In a revival of Marxism, the meaning of class was studied empirically by writers like Michael Burawoy (b. 1947) and theoretically by Erik Olin Wright (b. 1947), among others. Such concerns with race and class were wedded to issues of gender raised by the revival offeminism, yielding sensitive and highly partisan ethnographies, like the study of black women on welfare by Carol B. Stack (b. 1940), All Our Kin (1974), which rejected all "blame the victim" scenarios of poverty and family dysfunction.

The number of works on women's status from a feminist standpoint grew through the 1970s and 1980s and included studies of how gender distinctions between men and women are socially maintained, such as the widely read psychoanalytic account by Nancy Chodorow (b. 1944), The Reproduction of Mothering (1978). Although several women had earlier achieved distinction, such as Jessie Bernard (1903–1996), Mirra Komarovsky (1906–1999), Rose Laub Coser (1916–1994), Alice Rossi (b. 1922), and Renée Fox (b. 1928), men dominated sociology in its heyday. Beginning in the 1970s, the number of women practitioners increased dramatically, though sociology proved more reluctant than other social science disciplines, particularly anthropology, to revise its general theoretical concepts in the face of feminist criticism, some observers claimed. Paradoxically, the fact that sociology had long recognized a place for studies of women, namely in family dynamics, "ghettoized" such concerns and thus inhibited the understanding that gender inequities were bound up with all aspects of social life. The initiation of the journal Gender and Society in 1987 marked an attempt to enforce that broader view of the problem.

Sociology in Distress

At the same time, the fall of functionalism from its pedestal made it seem that sociology, lacking paradigmatic unity, was cast adrift in search of new moorings. Various signs pointed to disciplinary distress. Having enjoyed spectacular growth in the late 1960s, sociology suffered a substantial decline, starting shortly after 1970, in ASA membership and the number of degrees granted. Continued specialization also led many practitioners in the 1980s to lament the fragmentation of their field. The ASA recognized thirty-nine "sections" or research specialties, which included topical concerns as well as distinctive methodologies, ranging from traditional subfields, such as criminology and family, to newer matters, such as comparative and historical sociology, mathematical sociology, Asia and Asian America, aging and the life course, and more.

Highlighting the absence of theoretical consensus, several dynamic intellectual currents during the 1980s and 1990s moved in sharply divergent directions and implied a flight from the discipline's traditional concerns and assumptions. Sociobiology attacked the longstanding assumption that social environment shaped personality, behavior, and social relations more decisively than innate, hereditary traits did. The Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson made sociobiology's first coherent statement in 1975, and the study blossomed by the 1990s along with new studies aiming to isolate genetic sources of behavioral dispositions, such as aggression, sexual promiscuity, and the like. The rise of "rational choice" perspectives in sociology, adopting from economics the principles of methodological individualism, utility optimization, and game theory, reached a new height with the founding of the journal Rationality and Society in 1989 and the 1990 publication of Foundations of Social Theory by James S. Coleman (1926– 1995). Urging an understanding of most social processes as the consequences of actions by individuals seeking to maximize some interests of their own, rational choice renewed the old "nominalist" hostility to notions of society as a reality sui generis.

Meanwhile, another group of sociologists more critical of their society, their discipline, and the discipline's claims to scientific status embraced the disposition known as postmodernism. They emphasized the "social construction" (the historicized, subjective, and social character) of all categories used to grasp reality; regarded modern life as the staging ground for varied techniques of controlling and regimenting unruly people and behaviors; denied that the shape of social life could be understood as "centered" on any essential principles or fully integrated in an overarching whole; and insisted that social action and social change be understood as highly localized, incompletely organized or bounded, strained by contradictory impulses, and largely unpredictable. Such a skeptical view, though antagonistic to rational choice and sociobiology, seemed to share with them a common suspicion of "society" as an entity or structure in its own right. Indeed, "general social theory," which aims to understand societies as wholes and to integrate different dimensions of social life, such as economics, social institutions, politics, and culture, in one view, steadily lost appeal within the discipline.

Other signs also suggested that sociology had entered an era of danger if not disintegration. With the turn to the right in American politics around 1980 and the consequent decline in funding for sociological research geared to public policy and social services, sociologists felt under siege. Sociology departments were eliminated at a few universities. Even the department at Yale University, the home of Sumner and his disciples, was almost closed. Public reception of sociology by this point, strikingly different from the 1950s and 1960s, often appeared hostile. Newspapers were more likely to mock arcane jargon or to assail left-wing biases in ASA proceedings than to seek expert sociological comment on social problems.

Prospects At the End of the Twentieth Century

Nevertheless, graduate student enrollment in the field rebounded in the 1990s, and by the end of the decade, the number of graduate students studying sociology nearly equaled those studying economics. At the same time, while the perennial problems of sociological theory remained unresolved—how to understand the relation between individual and community, how to assess the significance in social action of objective "interests" and subjective "meanings," or whether the field ought to define itself as a scientific or moral discourse—American sociologists continued to generate and develop new techniques, methods, and theories, including sophisticated approaches to understanding social networks, processes of interaction, and dynamic change. Many of these were highly mathematized, others were more historical and ethnographic. However specialized and sophisticated the field had become, a number of sociologists still addressed a broadly educated audience in books concerning "social problems," such as work, immigration, racism, gender inequality, poverty, and homelessness.

By the end of the century, some elder statesmen, such as Neil J. Smelser (b. 1930), director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, greeted late developments of the field with equanimity. Laments over the fragmentation of sociology as a discipline, Smelser suggested, tended to exaggerate the field's unity and coherence at earlier points in its history. In any case, internal specialization, marking off distinct subfields of expertise, inevitably accompanies the growth of a discipline. Smelser pointed out how changes in human organization have challenged the traditional identification of "society" as a unit with the nation-state. New sensitivity was required to both "supranational" and "subnational" phenomena, such as "globalization," racial and ethnic identities, migrations, and community formation and dissolution. He recognized that these factors injected a new complexity to social experience and denied the existence of neatly bounded social units, but he also argued that they made the integrative capacity of general social theory more rather than less urgent if sociological understanding were to advance.

Generally, at the end of the twentieth century, sociologists tended to move away from overarching, architectonic notions of social structure, the metaphor of society as a kind of building, with many levels and rooms configured in a fixed pattern, among which people move and dwell. Instead, they favored more flexible models highlighting purposive action by individuals and groups, processes of interaction, the historical formation and ongoing transformation of social relations in a ceaseless flux, which can never be reduced to a simple story of progressive development. Yet, while these new emphases highlight the active, flexible, complex, and unfinished character of human social behavior, structures of inequality in wealth and power indeed seemed to be deeply entrenched features of the contemporary world. The question had become whether or not the new disposition can contribute to understanding these inequalities and can support efforts to change those forms in hopes of creating a better society, another longstanding aspiration of many modern social theorists.

Bibliography

Abbott, Andrew. Department and Discipline: Chicago Sociology at One Hundred. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. Theoretical Logic in Sociology. Volume 4: The Modern Reconstruction of Classical Thought: Talcott Parsons. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

Bannister, Robert C. Sociology and Scientism: The American Quest for Objectivity, 1880–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987.

Blackwell, James E., and Morris Janowitz, eds. Black Sociologists: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.

Camic, Charles. "Introduction: Talcott Parsons Before The Structure of Social Action." In Talcott Parsons, The Early Essays. Edited by Charles Camic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Coleman, James S. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Deegan, Mary Jo. Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1988.

Degler, Carl N. In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Fitzpatrick, Ellen. Endless Crusade: Women Social Scientists and Progressive Reform. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Furner, Mary O. Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science, 1865–1905. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1975.

Haskell, Thomas L. The Emergence of Professional Social Science: The American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Authority. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1977.

Levine, Donald N. Visions of the Sociological Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Lewis, David Levering. W. E. B. Du Bois: Biography of a Race. New York: Henry Holt, 1993.

Matthews, Fred H. Quest for an American Sociology: Robert E. Park and the Chicago School. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1977.

Mills, C. Wright. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Ritzer, George, and Barry Smart, eds. Handbook of Social Theory. London: Sage, 2001.

Ross, Dorothy. The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Seidman, Steven. Contested Knowledge: Social Theory in the Post-modern Era. 2d ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1994.

Smelser, Neil. "Sociology: Spanning Two Centuries." Paper presented at the Frontiers of the Mind in the Twenty-first Century, Library of Congress Symposium, Washington, D.C., 17 June 1999.

Turner, Stephen Park, and Jonathan H. Turner. The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology. New-bury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990.

Wagner, Peter, Björn Wittrock, and Richard Whitley, eds. Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991.

Sociology involves the study of how people relate to each other, as well as how the institutions of society affect behavior and attitudes. For most of the past hundred and fifty years, sociologists have focused mainly on social institutions and structures. It was only around the middle of the twentieth century that they turned their attention to the important roles that technologies (including food production and processing) play in society. Other disciplines (particularly anthropology) have a much longer history of research into food and culture.

Food and food habits have been only implicitly assumed in sociological literature until just recently. Food studies have been an integral part of both rural sociology and medical sociology. For rural sociologists, food has been central in studies of agricultural and technological change. Food has also been a main focus in the studies of farms, community living, social change, and consumer issues. In fact, rural sociologists began to study food production in the 1930s through research on the adoption and diffusion of innovations (new technologies).

For medical sociologists, food and nutrition are now recognized as an important factor in the study of health and wellness. Sociologists examine how our nutritional habits are based on cultural identity, gender, race and ethnicity, and social class. Although food is a fundamental concern for human life, sociologists are now just establishing a sociology of food by identifying how lifestyles, social class, gender, and ethnicity influence food selection and consumption. In fact, much of the market research that food companies conduct is in fact a form of sociological research (e.g., focus groups, surveys, and interviews).

The sociological study of food is important in understanding social change, the state, and consumer society. For example, positive social change has come about as a result of epidemiological and sociological studies of the importance of sanitation. Sociological studies based on food exportation, importation, and food agricultures have examined how states develop. In addition, research into the inequality of distribution and access to food comprises another way that sociologists can expose to explain class, race, and gender differences, as well as forms of political domination. Food is also important in explaining consumerism, cultural assimilation, modernization, and how beliefs and rituals change.

Sociologists have always been interested in social inequality and stratification (i.e., through analysis of gender, ethnic, and class differences.) For example, some foods are associated with women and some with men. Women eat less food overall, and they are usually light foods or foods that can be nibbled, such as salad or fish. Men tend to eat more food, and prefer foods associated with strength, such as red meat. Food habits also vary significantly with age. For example, soft or strained foods are appropriate for very young children who have no teeth, as well as for the elderly (for the same reason). As people age, they also become more concerned about the role of diet in their overall health.

Food also represents distinctive cultures; for example, pasta is associated with Italian culture, or curry with Indian culture. Cultures evolve to suit the local environment. For instance, spicy foods are more popular in the warmer climates. Class distinctions in foods abound. In the early 1900s in Great Britain, people in the upper classes ate more meat than those of the middle or lower classes. However, by the middle of the century, all people ate about the same amount of meat, as advances in food technology put meat in the range of everyone. Economically disadvantaged groups are sometimes forced to eat what is cheap, and these foods may not be as nutritious as higher-priced foods. Disadvantaged groups then are more vulnerable to health problems, such as heart disease or obesity.

It has been said that "We are what we eat." Food becomes part of our self-identity. From a very young age, an individual is socialized into his or her adult eating habits. A person eats what his family eats when he is young—these habits do not tend to change that much with age. In Western cultures, young children are taught that the insects they find are not to be eaten. In other cultures, however, young children are taught that certain insects are edible and they become part of the diet. Foods are part of the rituals we use to accept new members into our group, to celebrate milestones, and to express religious or political beliefs. For example, a new neighbor might be presented with a basket of food or a homemade pie as a welcome gift.

Celebrations, such as birthdays and anniversaries, usually involve some kind of cake or other sweet food. National holidays usually include foods associated with the country. For example, Americans celebrate Independence Day with backyard barbecues (including hamburgers and hot dogs, potato chips and watermelon). Thanksgiving is closely associated with turkey. Religious holidays also use symbolic foods, such as ham at Christmas for Christians. Some religions have specific taboos on food. For instance, Jewish people do not eat pork, while Hindus do not eat beef, and Seventh-Day Adventists do not eat meat at all. Many religions also endorse fasting as part of their rituals.

Sociologists have shown how the level of development within a country influences food habits and preferences. Industrialized countries consume and waste more food than developing countries. Americans may waste up to 25 percent of their food. Waste results from poor storage and processing, as well as from unused leftovers and spoiled foodstuffs that are never used. There is less consumer waste in developing countries. However, this practice is increasing as more countries adopt Western ideas and values concerning food.

Almost every culture has some form of food taboo. In fact, there is only one taboo that is universal, and that is the restriction on eating human flesh. This was not always the case, however. Early people, such as the South American Indians, would grind up the bones of their ancestors into a communal pot, to share their strength and wisdom with all tribal members. Some taboos restrict certain kinds of foods to certain meals. For example, Americans eat cereal for breakfast, but not for dinner. Food taboos may be based on cleanliness standards, but taboos may also be used to change entire food systems. Sometimes it is easier to restrict foods on religious beliefs, than to convince people rationally to change their eating habits. Emotions also play a major role in decisions about what people eat and why. Sociological research and theory are therefore important for understanding how to increase human health through better diet and nutrition.

Bibliography

Beardsworth, Alan, and Terresa Keil. Sociology On The Menu. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Gabaccia, Donna. We Are What We Eat. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.

McIntosh, Alex, Sociologies of Food and Nutrition. New York: Plenum Press, 1996.

—Thomas Jefferson Hoban IV

The systematic study of human society, especially present-day societies. Sociologists study the organization, institutions, and development of societies, with a particular interest in identifying causes of the changing relationships among individuals and groups. (See social science.)

Quotes:

"To understand the true quality of people, you must look into their minds, and examine their pursuits and aversions." - Marcus Aurelius

"Social movements are at once the symptoms and the instruments of progress. Ignore them and statesmanship is irrelevant; fail to use them and it is weak." - Walter Lippmann

"He was a sociologist; he had got into an intellectual muddle early on in life and never managed to get out." - Iris Murdoch

"No sociologist should think himself too good, even in his old age, to make tens of thousands of quite trivial computations in his head and perhaps for months at a time. One cannot with impunity try to transfer this task entirely to mechanical assistants if one wishes to figure something, even though the final result is often small indeed." - Max Weber

Sociology

Portal · History

General aspects

Public sociology · Social research Social theory · Sociological theory Sociological practice

Related fields and subfields

Comparative sociology · Criminology Demography · Social movements Social psychology · Medical sociology Sociolinguistics · Social networks Sociology of: culture · deviance economics · education · gender industry · knowledge · law military · politics · religion science · stratification

Categories and lists

Journals · Publications Outline · Index

v • d • e

Sociology is a branch of the social sciences that uses systematic methods of empirical investigation^[1][2] and critical analysis^[3] to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social structure and activity, sometimes with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of social welfare. Its subject matter ranges from the micro level of face-to-face interaction to the macro level of societies at large.

Sociology is a broad discipline in terms of both methodology and subject matter. Its traditional focuses have included social relations, social stratification, social interaction, culture and deviance, and its approaches have included both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. As much of what humans do fits under the category of social structure or social activity, sociology has gradually expanded its focus to such far-flung subjects as the study of economic activity, health disparities, and even the role of social activity in the creation of scientific knowledge. The range of social scientific methods has also been broadly expanded. The "cultural turn" of the 1970s and 1980s brought more humanistic interpretive approaches to the study of culture in sociology. Conversely, the same decades saw the rise of new mathematically rigorous approaches, such as social network analysis.

Contents 1 History 1.1 Key figures 1.2 Institutionalizing sociology as an academic discipline 1.3 Positivism and anti-positivism 1.4 Twentieth-century developments 1.5 Debates 2 Scope and topics of sociology 2.1 The Internet 3 Practical applications 4 Research methods 5 Sociology and other social sciences 6 See also 6.1 Related theories, methods and fields of inquiry 6.2 Lists 7 Footnotes 8 Bibliography 9 Further reading 10 External links 10.1 Professional associations 10.2 Other resources

History

Main article: History of sociology

Sociological reasoning is much older than the term “sociology.” Sociology, including economic, political, and cultural systems, has proto-sociological origins in the common stock of human knowledge and philosophy. Social analysis has been carried out by scholars and philosophers from at least as early as the time of Plato.

Auguste Comte

The term "sociology" was first used in 1780 by the French essayist Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès (1748-1836) in an unpublished manuscript.^[4]

The word was later used in 1838 by the French thinker Auguste Comte.^[5] Comte had earlier used the term "social physics", but that term had subsequently been appropriated by others, notably Adolphe Quetelet. Comte hoped to unify history, psychology and economics. He believed that society's acquisition of knowledge passed through three basic stages: theological, metaphysical, and positive. Comte argued that if society could grasp the structure of this progress, it could prescribe suitable remedies for social ills.^[6] Comte has come to be viewed as the "Father of Sociology".^[6]

Sociology later evolved, as a scientific discipline, as an academic response to the challenges of modernity and modernization, such as industrialization and urbanization, that emerged in the early 19th century.

Key figures

"Classical" theorists of sociology from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include Alexis de Tocqueville, Vilfredo Pareto, Karl Marx, Ludwig Gumplowicz, Ferdinand Tönnies, Émile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer, Georg Simmel, Max Weber, and George Herbert Mead. Like Comte, these figures did not consider themselves only "sociologists". Their works addressed religion, education, economics, law, psychology, ethics, philosophy and theology. Their theories have been applied in a variety of academic disciplines and beyond. Each key figure is typically associated with a particular theoretical perspective and orientation used to interpret and understand human behaviour.

Other significant figures include Zygmunt Bauman, Ulrich Beck, Howard Becker, Daniel Bell, Peter Berger, Peter Blau, Herbert Blumer, Pierre Bourdieu, Dieter Claessens, Randall Collins, Charles Horton Cooley, Lewis A. Coser, Ralf Dahrendorf, W. E. B. Du Bois, Norbert Elias, Gilberto Freyre, Michel Foucault, Herbert Gans, Harold Garfinkel, Anthony Giddens, Erving Goffman, Stuart Hall, George Homans, Bruno Latour, Thomas Luckmann, Karl Mannheim, Marcel Mauss, Robert K. Merton, Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills, Talcott Parsons, Anselm Strauss, Gabriel Tarde, W. I. Thomas, John Urry, Thorstein Veblen, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Jeffrey Weeks.

Institutionalizing sociology as an academic discipline

The discipline was taught under its own name for the first time in 1890, at the University of Kansas, Lawrence. The course, whose title was Elements of Sociology, was first taught by Frank Blackmar. It is the oldest continuing sociology course in the United States. The Department of History and Sociology at the University of Kansas, the first fully fledged independent university in the United States, was established in 1891.^[7][8] The department of sociology at the University of Chicago was established in 1892 by Albion W. Small, who, in 1895, founded the American Journal of Sociology.^[9]

Émile Durkheim

The first European department of sociology was founded in 1895, at the University of Bordeaux by Émile Durkheim, founder of L'Année Sociologique (1896). The first sociology department to be established in the United Kingdom was at the London School of Economics and Political Science (home of the British Journal of Sociology) in 1904.^[10] In 1919, a sociology department was established in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich by Max Weber, and in 1920 in Poland by Florian Znaniecki.

International co-operation in sociology began in 1893, when René Worms founded the Institut International de Sociologie, which was later eclipsed by the much larger International Sociological Association (ISA), founded in 1949.^[11] In 1905, the American Sociological Association, the world's largest association of professional sociologists, was founded, and in 1909 the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (German Society for Sociology) was founded by Ferdinand Tönnies and Max Weber, among others.

Positivism and anti-positivism

Main articles: Positivism, Sociological positivism, and Antipositivism

Max Weber

The methodological approach towards sociology by early theorists, led by Comte, was to treat it in much the same manner as natural science, applying much the same methods as those used in the natural sciences. The emphasis on empiricism and the scientific method sought to provide an incontestable foundation for any sociological claims or findings, and to distinguish sociology from less empirical fields such as philosophy. This methodological approach, called positivism, is based on the assumption that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can come only from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific and quantitative methods.

Reactions against positivism began when German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel voiced opposition to both empiricism, which he rejected as uncritical, and determinism, which he viewed as overly mechanistic.^[12] Although Karl Marx's dialectical materialism—as Marx's colleague Friedrich Engels referred to his and Marx's methodology—contrasted sharply with Hegel's idealism, his methodology was Hegelian insofar as it rejected positivism in favour of critical analysis, which seeks to supplement the empirical acquisition of "facts" with the elimination of illusions.^[13] As critical theorists David Ashley and David Michael Orenstein observe, "Marx often pointed out that rational inquiry would be superfluous if the essence of things coincided directly with appearances";^[14] Marx thus understood that appearances need to be critiqued, not simply documented.

Other philosophers, including Heinrich Rickert and even the empiricist Wilhelm Dilthey, questioned positivist and naturalist approaches to studying social life. Rickert and Dilthey argued that the natural world differs from the social world because of unique aspects of human society, such as meanings, symbols, rules^{[disambiguation needed]}, norms, and values, all of which inform human cultures. This view was further developed by Max Weber, who introduced the term antipositivism. According to this view, which is closely related to antinaturalism, sociological research should concentrate on human cultural values, symbols, and social processes viewed from a subjective perspective.

Weber was more interested in interpreting subjective meaning than in charting objective action. Yet he also felt that sociology should be a "science", able to identify causal relationships—especially among ideal types, or hypothetical simplifications of complex social phenomena.^[15] As a nonpositivist, however, Weber recognized that the selection and construction of ideal types was itself a subjective process, and realized that, unlike the causal relationships sought in positivistic science, those found between ideal types are not "ahistorical, invariant, or generalizable."^[16] For example, Ashley and Orenstein point out that Weber, in his seminal work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, did not intend to suggest that the spirit of capitalism could not flourish outside the Protestant ethic (it has) or that factors outside the Protestant ethic did not contribute to the spirit of capitalism in the West (they did). What mattered to Weber was that the relationship between the two factors helped to distinguish the character of Western Europe—and the meaning derived by the subjects in it—from the rest of the world.^[17]

Émile Durkheim was a major proponent of empirical sociological research,^[18] both qualitative and quantitative. For example, he used ethnographic data to theorize about the social origins of religion, and compiled statistical information in order to understand the social roots of suicide. Yet his empirical bent may be overstated, perhaps as a result of the co-opting of his theories by the American positivist Talcott Parsons.^[19] Durkheim gathered data, not for data's sake, but in order to understand and promote social evolution and reform.^[19] Additionally, therefore, the original spirit of Durkheim's work may have become distorted by a growing disjuncture between institutionalized academia on the one hand, and the agitation and dynamics of reform and progress on the other.^[19]

Twentieth-century developments

An example of a social network diagram

In the early 20th century, sociology expanded in the United States of America, including developments in both macrosociology, concerned with the evolution of societies, and microsociology, concerned with everyday human social interactions. Based on the pragmatic social psychology of George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer and, later, the Chicago school), sociologists developed symbolic interactionism.^[20]

In Europe, in the Interwar period, sociology generally was both attacked by increasingly totalitarian governments and rejected by conservative universities. At the same time, originally in Austria and later in the U.S., Alfred Schütz developed social phenomenology, which would later inform social constructionism. Also, members of the Frankfurt school, most of whom moved to the U.S. to escape Nazi persecution, developed critical theory, integrating critical, idealistic and historical materialistic elements of the dialectical philosophies of Hegel and Marx with the insights of Freud, Max Weber—in theory, if not always in name—and others. In the 1930s in the U.S., Talcott Parsons developed action theory which integrated the study of social order and the voluntaristic aspects of macro and micro structural factors, while placing this discussion within a higher epistemological and explanatory context of system theory and cybernetics.

Since World War II, sociology has been revived in Europe, although during the Stalin and Mao eras it was suppressed in the communist countries. In the mid-20th century, there was a general—but not universal—trend for U.S.-American sociology to be more scientific in nature, due partly to the prominence at that time of action theory and other system-theoretical approaches. Sociologists developed new types of quantitative and qualitative research methods. In the second half of the 20th century, sociological research has been increasingly employed as a tool by governments and businesses. Parallel with the rise of various social movements in the 1960s, theories emphasizing social struggle, including conflict theory, which sought to counter so-called "functionalist approaches." Neomarxist theories had a brief renaissance and thereafter declined.

The positivist tradition continues to be highly influential in sociology, especially in the United States, where a large number of the world's sociologists reside and practice.^[21] The discipline's two leading American journals, American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review, primarily publish research in the positivist tradition, with ASR exhibiting greater diversity (the British Journal of Sociology, on the other hand, publishes primarily non-positivist articles).^[21] The twentieth century saw significant improvements to the quantitative methodologies employed in sociology. The development of longitudinal studies that follow the same population over the course of years or decades enabled researchers to study long-term phenomena and increased their ability to infer causality. The vast increase in the size of data sets produced by the new survey methodologies was followed by the invention of new statistical techniques for analyzing this data. The analysis of this data is usually done with statistical software packages such as SAS, Stata, or SPSS.

Social network analysis is an example of a new paradigm in the positivist tradition. The influence of social network analysis is pervasive in many sociological sub fields such as economic sociology (see the work of J. Clyde Mitchell, Harrison White, or Mark Granovetter, for example), organizational behavior, historical sociology, political sociology, or the sociology of education. There is also a minor revival of a more independent, empirical sociology in the spirit of C. Wright Mills, and his studies of the Power Elite in the United States of America, according to Stanley Aronowitz.^[22]

Debates

Throughout the development of sociology, controversies have raged about how to emphasize or integrate concerns with subjectivity, objectivity, intersubjectivity and practicality in theory and research. The extent to which sociology may be characterized as a "science" has remained an area of considerable debate, which has addressed basic ontological and epistemological philosophical questions. One outcome of such disputes has been the ongoing formation of multidimensional theories of society, such as the continuing development of various types of critical theory. Another outcome has been the formation of public sociology, which emphasizes the usefulness of sociological analysis to various social groups.

Scope and topics of sociology

This section requires expansion.

Social interactions and their consequences are studied in sociology

Sociology as a discipline never had well-defined boundaries. Although throughout the early 19th century it was primarily concerned with the social organization of complex industrial societies, it has now expanded into the traditional areas of anthropology, economics, and political science with the study of non-Western societies, culture, economic activity and politics (just as, in many cases, those disciplines extended into the traditional areas of sociology).

The Internet

Main article: Sociology of the Internet

The Internet is of interest to sociologists in various ways. The Internet can be used as a tool for research (for example, conducting online questionnaires), a discussion platform, and as a research topic. Sociology of the Internet in the broad sense includes analysis of online communities (e.g. newsgroups, social networking sites) and virtual worlds. Organizational change is catalyzed through new media like the Internet, thereby influencing social change at-large. This creates the framework for a transformation from an industrial to an informational society (see Manuel Castells). Online communities can be studied statistically through network analysis and at the same time interpreted qualitatively through virtual ethnography. Social change can be studied through statistical demographics, or through the interpretation of changing messages and symbols in online media studies.

Practical applications

This section requires expansion.

Social research informs^{[verification needed]} educators, planners, lawmakers, administrators, developers, business magnates, and people interested in resolving social issues and formulating public policy.

Public sociology is an approach to sociology that seeks to engage wider audiences and become, in the words of Michael Burawoy, the "mirror and conscience of society".

Research methods

Main article: Social research

Methods of sociological inquiry vary. The type of methodology used researching sociology is predicated upon the theoretical orientation of the researcher(s). The basic goal of sociological research is to understand the social world in its many forms. Quantitative methods and qualitative methods are two main types of sociological research. Sociologists often use the quantitative methods, such as social statistics or network analysis to investigate the structure of a social process or describe patterns in social relationships. Sociologists also often use the qualitative methods such as focused interviews, group discussions and ethnographic methods to investigate social processes. Sociologists also use applied research methods such as evaluation research and assessment.

The following list of research methods is neither exclusive nor exhaustive. Researchers may adopt one or more than one type of research methodology for a research project. Types of research methods include the following:

• Archival research: sometimes referred to as "Historical Method". This research uses information from a variety of historical records such as biographies, memoirs and news releases.
• Content analysis: The contents of interviews and questionnaires are analyzed using systematic approaches. An example of this type of research methodology is known as "grounded theory." Books and mass media are also analyzed to study how people communicate and the messages people talk or write about.
• Experimental research: The researcher isolates a single social process or social phenomena and uses the data to either confirm or construct social theory. Participants (also referred to as "subjects") are randomly assigned to various conditions or "treatments", and then analyzes are made between groups. Randomization allows the researcher to be sure that the treatment is having the effect on group differences and not any extraneous factors.
• Survey research: The researcher obtains data from interviews, questionnaires, or similar feedback from a set of people chosen (including random selection) to represent a particular population of interest. Survey items from an interview or questionnaire may be open-ended or closed-ended.
• Life history: This is the study of the personal life trajectories. Through a series of interviews, the researcher can probe into the decisive moments or various influences in their life.
• Longitudinal study: This is an extensive examination of a specific person or group over a long period of time.
• Observation: Using data from the senses, one records information about social phenomenon or behavior. Observation techniques can be either participant observation or non-participant observation. In participant observation, the researcher goes into the field (such as a community or a place of work), and participates in the activities of the field for a prolonged period of time in order acquire a deep understanding of it. Data acquired through these techniques may be analyzed either quantitatively or qualitatively.

The choice of a method in part often depends on the researcher's epistemological approach to research as well as the researchers theoretical perspective. For example, researchers who are concerned with a statistical generalization to assign to a population will most likely administer structured interviews with a survey questionnaire to a carefully selected sample population. By contrast, sociologists, especially ethnographers, who are more interested in having a full contextual understanding of group members' lives will choose participant observation, observation, and open-ended interviews. Many studies combine several of these methodologies. Adopting three (3) methodologies is referred to as "triangulation".

As is the case in most disciplines, sociologists are often divided into distinctive camps of support for particular research methodologies. This is based upon the researcher's theoretical orientation. In practice, some sociologists combine different research methods and approaches, since different methods produce different types of findings that correspond to different aspects of societies. For example, quantitative methods may help describe social patterns, while qualitative approaches could help to understand how individuals understand those patterns. This, however, does not mean that a qualitative approach can not identify or define patterns of behavior. Nonetheless, the method of analysis of the data obtained from a research methodology may be qualitative, quantitative or both.

Sociology and other social sciences

Sociology shares deep ties with a wide array of other disciplines that also deal with the study of society. The fields of anthropology, economics, political science and psychology have influenced and have been influenced by sociology and these fields share a great amount of history and common research interests. Social psychology within sociology is often referred to as "sociological social psychology". Two of the founders of social psychology as we understand it today are Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Wood Sherif^{[citation needed]}, known for their work on the Robbers Cave Experiment.^[23] The Sherifs also wrote several editions of "An Outline of Social Psychology".^[24][25]

Today, sociology and other social sciences are better contrasted according to methodology rather than by objects of study. Additionally, unlike sociology, psychology and anthropology have forensic components that deal with anatomy and other types of laboratory research.

Sociobiology, is the study of how social behavior and organization has been influenced by evolution and other biological process. The field blends sociology with a number of other sciences, such as anthropology, biology, zoology, and others. Although the field once rapidly gained acceptance, it has remained highly controversial within the sociological academy. Sociologists often criticize the study for depending too greatly on the effects of genes in defining behavior. Sociologists often respond by citing a complex relationship between nature and nurture.

Sociology is also widely used in management science, especially in the field of organizational behavior as well as in fields such as social work.

See also

Sociology portal

Wikipedia:Books has a book on: Sociology

• List of basic sociology topics
• Sociological paradigms
• Social philosophy
• Social psychology
• Social simulation
• Social theory

Related theories, methods and fields of inquiry

• Anthropology
• Criminology
• Political science
• Psychology
• Etoecology
• Social anthropology
• Social psychology
• Social sciences
• Socio-economics
• Sociological imagination
• Sociophysiology
• Statistical survey

Lists

Main lists: List of basic sociology topics and List of sociology topics

• Subfields of sociology
• Timeline of sociology
• List of sociologists
• List of scientific journals in sociology
• List of important publications in sociology

Footnotes

1. ^ Giddens, Anthony, Duneier, Mitchell, Applebaum, Richard. 2007. Introduction to Sociology. Sixth Edition. New York: W.W. Norton and Company
2. ^ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 3-5, 32-36. 
3. ^ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 3-5, 38-40. 
4. ^ Des Manuscrits de Sieyès. 1773-1799, Volumes I and II, published by Christine Fauré, Jacques Guilhaumou, Jacques Vallier et Françoise Weil, Paris, Champion, 1999 and 2007. See also Christine Fauré and Jacques Guilhaumou, Sieyès et le non-dit de la sociologie: du mot à la chose, in Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines, Numéro 15, novembre 2006: Naissances de la science sociale. See also the article 'sociologie' in the French-language Wikipedia.
5. ^ A Dictionary of Sociology, Article: Comte, Auguste
6. ^ ^{a b} Dictionary of the Social Sciences, Article: Comte, Auguste
7. ^ "University of Kansas Sociology Department Webpage". Ku.edu. http://www.ku.edu/%7Esocdept/about/. Retrieved on 2009-04-20. 
8. ^ "University of Kansas News Story". News.ku.edu. 2005-06-15. http://www.news.ku.edu/2005/June/June15/sociology.shtml. Retrieved on 2009-04-20. 
9. ^ "American Journal of Sociology Website". Journals.uchicago.edu. 1970-01-01. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJS/home.html. Retrieved on 2009-04-20. 
10. ^ "British Journal of Sociology Website". Lse.ac.uk. 2009-04-02. http://www.lse.ac.uk/serials/Bjs/. Retrieved on 2009-04-20. 
11. ^ http://www.isa-sociology.org/ International Sociological Association Website
12. ^ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. p. 169. 
13. ^ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 202-203. 
14. ^ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. p. 203. 
15. ^ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 239-240. 
16. ^ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. p. 241. 
17. ^ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 241-242. 
18. ^ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. p. 94. 
19. ^ ^{a b c} Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 94-98, 100-104. 
20. ^ The Mead Project
21. ^ ^{a b} Positivism in sociological research: USA and UK (1966--1990). By: Gartrell, C. David, Gartrell, John W., British Journal of Sociology, 00071315, Dec2002, Vol. 53, Issue 4
22. ^ "Stanley Aronowitz". Logosjournal.com. http://www.logosjournal.com/aronowitz.htm. Retrieved on 2009-04-20. 
23. ^ "Classics in the History of Psychology - Sherif et al. (1954/1961) Chapter 1". Psychclassics.yorku.ca. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/chap1.htm. Retrieved on 2009-04-20. 
24. ^ Sherif, M., and CW Sherif. An Outline of Social Psychology (rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956
25. ^ M. Sherif: Outline of Social Psychology. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948.

Bibliography

• Aby, Stephen H. Sociology: A Guide to Reference and Information Sources, 3rd edn. Littleton, CO, Libraries Unlimited Inc., 2005, ISBN 1-56308-947-5 . OCLC 57475961. 
• Calhoun, Craig (ed) Dictionary of the Social Sciences, Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 978-0195123715. OCLC 45505995. 
• Macionis, John J. 2004. Sociology (10th Edition). Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-184918-2. OCLC 52846261. 
• Nash, Kate. 2000. Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics, and Power. Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 0631206604 . OCLC 41445647. 
• Scott, John & Marshall, Gordon (eds) A Dictionary of Sociology (3rd Ed). Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0198609868, . OCLC 60370982. 

Further reading

• Wikibooks: Introduction to sociology
• Babbie, Earl R.. 2003. The Practice of Social Research, 10th edition. Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., ISBN 0-534-62029-9 . OCLC 51917727. 
• Collins, Randall. 1994. Four Sociological Traditions. Oxford, Oxford University Press ISBN 0195082087 . OCLC 28411490. 
• Coser, Lewis A., Masters of Sociological Thought : Ideas in Historical and Social Context, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. ISBN 0155551280.
• Giddens, Anthony. 2006. Sociology (5th edition), Polity, Cambridge. ISBN 0745633781 . OCLC 63186308. 
• Merton, Robert K.. 1959. Social Theory and Social Structure. Toward the codification of theory and research, Glencoe: Ill. (Revised and enlarged edition) . OCLC 4536864. 
• Mills, C. Wright, The Sociological Imagination,1959. OCLC 165883. 
• C. Wright Mills,Intellectual Craftsmanship Advices how to Work fore young Sociologist
• Mitchell, Geoffrey Duncan (2007, originally published in 1968). A Hundred Years of Sociology: A Concise History of the Major Figures, Ideas, and Schools of Sociological Thought. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9780202361680. OCLC 145146341. 
• Nisbet, Robert A. 1967. The Sociological Tradition, London, Heinemann Educational Books. ISBN 1-56000-667-6 . OCLC 26934810. 
• Ritzer, George and Douglas J. Goodman. 2004. Sociological Theory, Sixth Edition. McGraw Hill. ISBN 0072817186 . OCLC 52240022. 
• Wallace, Ruth A. & Alison Wolf. 1995. Contemporary Sociological Theory: Continuing the Classical Tradition, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-13-036245-X . OCLC 31604842. 
• White, Harrison C.. 2008. Identity and Control. How Social Formations Emerge. (2nd ed., Completely rev. ed.) Princeton, Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691137148 . OCLC 174138884. 
• Willis, Evan. 1996. The Sociological Quest: An introduction to the study of social life, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-2367-2 . OCLC 34633406. 

External links

At Wikiversity you can learn more and teach others about Sociology at:

The School of Sociology

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of Introduction to Sociology

• - Social and Spatial Inequalities

Professional associations

• African Sociological Association (AfSA)
• American Sociological Association (ASA)
• Australian Sociological Association (TASA)
• British Sociological Association (BSA)
• Brazilian Sociological Society (SBS) - Sociedade Brasileira de Sociologia
• Canadian Sociological Association (CSA)
• European Sociological Association (ESA)
• German Sociological Association (DGS)
• International Sociological Association (ISA)
• Indian Sociological Society (Insoso)
• Portuguese Sociological Association (APS) - Associação Portuguesa de Sociologia
• Sociological Association of Ireland (SAI)
• South African Sociological Association (SASA)

Other resources

• Internet Sociologist, a free online tutorial teaching Internet research skills for sociology students
• SocioLog, a directory of sociology resources
• SocioSite, a directory of sociology resources
• Sociology Today, an e-forum on professionals and students of Sociology
• Social Sciences and Humanities
• Sociology at the Open Directory Project
• Sociologically.net, an international sociological community

v • d • e Fields within the social sciences Anthropology · Communications · Economics · Education · Gerontology · History · Human geography · Information science · Law · Linguistics · Management · Political science · Psychology · Sociology

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Dansk (Danish)
n. - sociologi

Nederlands (Dutch)
sociologie

Français (French)
n. - sociologie

Deutsch (German)
n. - Soziologie

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - κοινωνιολογία

Italiano (Italian)
sociologia

Português (Portuguese)
n. - sociologia (f)

Русский (Russian)
социология

Español (Spanish)
n. - sociología

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - sociologi, samhällsvetenskap

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
社会学

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 社會學

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 사회학, 군집생태학

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 社会学

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) علم ألأجتماع‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮מדע החברה (חקר החברות האנושיות), סוציולוגיה‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.

To select your translation preferences click here.