Relevance: Sociology paper-I
The term ‘methodology’, we refer to a system of method or procedures with which the study of a problem is approached
Difference between Methodology and Method
There is an important point to be noted here; ‘methods’ and ‘methodology’ are not one and the same thing. Whilst methods are a part of methodology, methodology is a system which combines or integrates certain methods. Methods are the tools or techniques, which help to implement a methodological approach or perspective Let us take an example, Emile Durkheim understood the problem of suicide. His methodological perspective was the study of social phenomena as social facts and his methods included those of concomitant variations.
Having understood the difference between methodology and method, let us now see why we should study methodology. You might point out that having understood the substantive contributions of the founding fathers, a study of their methodology is not really necessary. This is not the case.
Why Study Methodology?
A study of methodology does more than merely list methods. It gives us an understanding of the overall approach of thinkers to the problems under study. In sociology, the subject matter or problems under study are human beings and human society. Sociologists are not observing atom or molecules under a microscope.
They are studying human life, human behavior, human problems.Sociological methodology includes a conception about social reality. It reflects the manner in which thinkers conceptualize the relationship between individuals and society. It gives us an insight into the aims and objectives with which thinkers study society. Since the subject matter under study is so closely and intimately connected to the sociologist, methodology sharply reflects the sociologist’s overall concerns and orientations regarding human beings and society. Hence, studying methodology is not only very important but also very interesting.
Let us now go on to examine the methodology of Karl Marx. Marx was not a ‘sociologist’ in the sense that he called his work specifically ‘sociological’. He was also an economist, a philosopher and a political activist. Thus, he did not specifically set out to define special methodological rules for sociology as Durkheim and Weber did later. Yet, the mode of enquiry that he introduced has had a profound impact on sociology, both methodologically and substantively.
Marx’s Materialistic Conception of History
The motivating force in history, according to Marx, is the manner in which human beings act upon nature in order to obtain their basic survival needs. The production of material life is the first historical act, in Marx’s view. Even after meeting survival or primary needs, human beings remain dissatisfied. This is because new or secondary needs arise as soon as primary ones are fulfilled.
In the effort to satisfy primary and secondary needs, human beings enter into social relationships with each other. As material life becomes more complex, social. relationship too undergo a change. Division of labour emerges in society and class formation begins. The existence of classes implies that distinct divisions of human beings have emerged, in other words, society is divided into the “haves” and the “have-nots”.
You have studied that Marx places particular stress on the material or economic basis of society. It is the economic “‘infrastructure” that shapes or molds/the rest of society. It is the particular mode of production from which emanate the relations of production on which the whole cultural superstructure rests.
Law, polity, cultural formation and so on cannot be separated from the economic basis in which they are embedded. We can thus say that Marx’s approach to society is holistic. This is a very important methodological contribution. Marx stresses on the study of human societies as wholes or systems in which social groups, institutions, beliefs and doctrines are interrelated. They cannot be studied in isolation, rather they should be studied in their interrelation.
However, in the ultimate analysis, it is the economic system, which proves decisive in shaping the specific features of the superstructure of society. Marx applies his materialistic conception of history by studying the history of human society in terms of distinct stages, each marked by a distinct mode of production. From the mode of production flow the specific kinds of relationships and class antagonisms distinct in every phase of history.
Marx’s theory of “historical materialism” and the stages of history identified by him. Marx can be described as a relativizing historicist. By this we mean that he roots all systems of social relationships and all systems of ideas within a specific historical context. He holds that each stage of history is marked by class struggles, but the nature of the struggle and the participants in the struggle are qualitatively different in every epoch. The slaves in the ancient stage are very different from the feudal serfs or the capitalist industrial workers.
Briefly, Marx assigns to the economic realm the crucial role of shaping the nature of other sub-systems in society. He studies society in a holistic fashion, stressing on the inter-relatedness of its components. He also takes note of the specificities of the various stages of history. Although Marx insists that the history of human society is the history of class struggle, he accounts for the distinctive features of the classes down the ages.
Social Conflict and Social Change
Early sociology, , was profoundly influenced by the idea of evolution.The work of Auguste Comte and more importantly, Herbert Spencer reflected the doctrine of evolutionary change. We can say that the early sociologists stressed on change through peaceful growth. For them, social order and harmony was normal and disorder and conflict was pathological.
It is against this background that you will be able to appreciate better how important Marx’s contributions are. According to Marx, societies are inherently mutable or changeable systems. Changes are produced mainly by internal contradictions and conflicts. Each stage in human history is marked by certain contradictions and tensions. These become intensified over a period of time to such an extent that the existing system has to break down, giving way to a new system. In other words, each historical stage contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The new system emerges from the womb of the old. Thus, Marx understands conflict not as something pathological and harmful, but as a creative force. It is the engine of progress.
His conception of conflict as the major harbinger of change reflects in the unique way in which he deals with both the past and the present, and also in his anticipation of the future. This brings us to one of the problem areas in Marxist social theory, namely, the conflict between objective science and political commitment.
Marx’s Notion of ‘Praxis’
Ever since the birth of sociology right down to the present time, sociologists have argued over the separation between sociological theory and political ideology. Marx’s work represents that stream of social thought where theory and political activism unite. Marx very clearly voices his opinions of capitalist society in his work. He sees it as an inhuman system of exploitation and anticipates its breakdown under the weight of its own contradictions. He awaits the birth of a classless, communist society, which will be free of contradictions. Marx advocates “praxis”, namely, using theory for practical political action. Thus, Marx’s methodology aims not just at understanding society, but also anticipating and assisting in changing it.