The Nature Of Sociological Theory

CHAPTER 1The Nature ofSociological TheoryTheories Invite ControversyTheories seek to explain things. And thus, sociological theory attempts toexplain how the social world operates. This social world consists of thebehaviors, interactions, and patterns of social organization among humans,although some would argue that a sociology of nonhuman animals thatorganize is also possible. As we will see, sociological theory tends to focuson interaction and organization more than behavior per se, but interactionsare interpersonal behaviors, and patterns of social organization are ultimately built from interactions among individuals. And so, even thoughinteraction and organization are the subject matter of most theories, thereare almost always implicit theories of human behavior tagging along withthis emphasis on interaction and social organization.Theorizing about the social world is, of course, hardly new. Humans havealways sought to explain the social world around them from their very beginnings, and today, each of us is a kind of “folk sociological theorists” offeringexplanations for why people behave and interact with others in a particularmanner. We all are social critics of society, and in so being, we are also folksociologists of patterns of social organization. Moreover, people generally donot see their folk theorizing as highly speculative; in fact, they typically thinkthat have captured the essential reason for why and how people behave,interact, and organize. And yet, people often consider the theories of others,even scientists, to be speculation or “just a theory,” as when someone arguesthat the modern synthesis that produced the biological theory of evolutionis “just a theory,” or a matter of speculation that has “yet to be proven.” But,theory is more than just speculation; the goal of articulating theories is toassess them against the facts of the empirical world to see if they are plausible.1

2  CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGICAL THEORYAnd so, most theories in science that have been around for some time aremuch more than idle speculation. They are explanations for why and howsocial processes operate the way they do. They are generally backed up byconsiderable evidence and data; and still, they are often doubted, just as themodern theory of biotic evolution is doubted by many in some societies,particularly in the United States but elsewhere as well.Thus, people often chose not to believe a theory, even one that is wellsupported, because it violates their perceptions of how the world reallyworks or their beliefs that are important to them. And people tend to havestrong beliefs about human nature, appropriate behaviors and interpersonal demeanors, and how societies should be organized. These beliefs canbe more powerful than a clearly stated theory in science, even one supported by evidence. And such is most likely to be the case for sociologicaltheories because our theories are about what people often experience intheir daily lives, leading them to assume that they understand the socialworld and, thereby, do not need sociologists to tell them about “their”world. There is, then, always a problem in developing sociological explanations that contradict people’s folk theorizing.Even within the discipline of professional sociologists, there are many whoreject even the possibility that sociology can develop theory like that in thenatural sciences. Sociological theorists must, therefore, confront not only askeptical lay public but also professional colleagues who would argue thatscientific theorizing about human behavior, interaction, and organization isnot possible. People are different, these critics argue, because they have thecapacity for agency that can change the fundamental nature of the social universe, thereby obviating any proposed laws about the fundamental propertiesand processes of the social universe. Other critics take a different stance andargue that scientific theory is too value neutral, dispassionate, and detachedfrom the problems of societies; instead of standing on the sidelines, sociologyshould be moral, exposing social problems and proposing solutions to theseproblems. Sociology must advocate and not sit back as dispassionate and coldscientists. Indeed, science and formal theories are often seen by these moralizing sociologists as “part of the problem” in societies.As will become clear, my bias is toward scientific theorizing in sociology—even if it is necessary to endure the distain of critical sociologists. I not onlybelieve that there can be a natural science of society,1 but that sociology isfar along in explaining the fundamental dynamics of the social universe.The skeptics within and outside sociology are, I would argue, simply wrongin their challenge to theoretical sociology. Still, we cannot ignore the critics,and in the pages to follow, I will outline the principle theories in sociologyof how the social world operates and the critiques of, and challenges to,such theories.1I have taken this phrase from A. R. Radcliffe-Brown’s, A Natural Science of Society (Glencoe,IL: Free Press, 1948).

CHAPTER 1: The Nature of Sociological Theory   3From its very beginnings, when Auguste Comte proclaimed in 1830 thatthere could be a “social physics,” immediate controversy arose over whetheror not there could be scientific sociology built around explanatory theoriesof the social universe.2 This controversy persists to the present day and, nodoubt, will persist well into the future. One way to put the controversy intoa broader perspective is to outline the fundamental beliefs of scientifictheory in a broader context of other belief systems. Science is a belief system, but it is obviously not the only set of beliefs that influence peopleperceptions and judgments. There are different types of knowledge possessed by humans, and science is only one of several types, which means,inevitably, that science as a way of knowing about the world will sometimesclash with knowledge generated by other belief systems.Science as a Belief SystemSocial scientific theories begin with the assumption that the universe,including the social universe created by acting human beings, reveals certainbasic and fundamental properties and processes that explain the ebb andflow of events in specific contexts. Because of this concern with discoveringfundamental properties and processes, scientific theories are always statedabstractly, rising above specific empirical events and highlighting theunderlying forces that drive these events in all times and places. In the contextof sociological inquiry, for example, theoretical explanations are not somuch about the specifics of a particular economy as about the underlyingdynamics of production and distribution as social forces that drive the formation and change of economies. Similarly, scientific theories are not abouta particular form of government but about the nature of power as a basicsocial force. Or, to illustrate further, scientific theories are not about particular b ehaviors and interactions among actual p ersons in a specific settingas about the n ature of human interpersonal behavior in general, and hence,the forces that are always operative when people interact with each other.The goal, then, is always to see if the under lying forces that govern particulars of specific empirical cases can be discovered and used to explain theoperation of these empirical cases. To realize this goal, theories must beabout generic properties and processes transcending the unique characteristics of any one situation or case. Thus, scientific theories always seek totranscend the particular and the time bound. Scientific theories are therefore about the generic, the fundamental, the timeless, and the universal.Another characteristic of scientific theories is that they are stated moreformally than ordinary language. At the extreme, theories are couched in2Auguste Comte, System of Positive Philosophy, vol. 1 (Paris: Bachelier, 1830). Subsequentportions were published between 1831 and 1842. For a more detailed analysis of Comte’sthought, see Jonathan H. Turner, Leonard Beeghley, and Charles Powers, The Emergence ofSociological Theory, 7th ed. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).

4  CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGICAL THEORYanother language, such as mathematics, but more typically in the social sciences and particularly in sociology, theories are phrased in ordinary language. Still, even when using regular language, an effort is made to speak inneutral, objective, and unambiguous terms so that the theory means thesame thing to all who examine it.Terms denoting properties of the world and their dynamics are definedclearly so that their referents are clear, and relationships among conceptsdenoting phenomena are stated in ways such that their inter-connectionsare understood by all who examine the theory. At times, this attention toformalism can make theories seem stiff and dull, especially when these formalisms are couched at higher levels of abstraction. Yet, without attentionto what terms and phrases denote and connote, a theory could mean verydifferent things to diverse audiences.A final characteristic of scientific theories is that they are designed to besystematically tested with replicable methods against the facts of particularempirical settings. Despite being stated abstractly and formally, scientifictheories do not stand aloof from the empirical. Useful theories all suggestways that they can be assessed against empirical events.All scientific fields develop theories. For in the end, science seeks (1) todevelop abstract and formally stated theories and (2) to test these theoriesagainst empirical cases to see if they are plausible. If the theory seems plausible in light of empirical assessment, then it represents for the present timethe best explanation of events. If a theory is contradicted by empirical tests,then it must be discarded or revised. If competing theories emerge toexplain the same phenomena, they too must be empirically assessed, withthe better explanation winning out.Science is thus a rather slow process of developing theories, testing them,and then rejecting, modifying, or retaining them, at least until a bettertheory is proposed. Without attention to stating theories formally andobjectively, while assessing them against the empirical world, theory wouldbecome self-justifying and self-contained, reflecting personal biases, ideological leanings, or religious convictions.Our biases and personal ideologies about what should occur, or our commitments to other belief systems such as those articulated by religion, are,in essence, belief systems; these stand in contrast to science as a belief system. These differences between scientific theory and other types of knowledge are presented in Figure 1.1.The typology asks two basic questions:3 (1) Is the search for knowledgeto be evaluative or neutral? (2) Is the knowledge developed to pertain toactual empirical events and processes, or is it to be about non-empiricalrealities? In other words, should knowledge tell us what should be or whatis? And should it refer to the observable world or to other, less observable,3I am borrowing the general ideal from Talcott Parsons’ The Social System (New York: FreePress, 1951).