Relevant for Civil Services Examination<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>Sociology Paper-1, Unit-1 [Sociology- The Discipline<\/span><\/strong>]<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/span>Sociology and Common Sense Knowledge<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n\n- Sociological knowledge<\/strong>\u00a0is different from theological and philosophical observations.<\/strong>\u00a0Likewise\u00a0sociology<\/strong>\u00a0is different from\u00a0common sense observation.<\/strong><\/span>\n
\n- Many a time we make certain statements which we have not to prove that they are true. They are based either on common sense or on practical observations and experiences on social life, though sometimes they may be based on wisdom too. However, often they are based on ignorance, prejudices and mistaken interpretation.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Common sense knowledge<\/strong>, based on the\u00a0accumulated experiences<\/strong>,\u00a0prejudices and beliefs of the people,<\/strong>\u00a0is often\u00a0contradictory and inconsistent<\/strong>. On the other hand,\u00a0scientific observations are based on verifiable evidence or systematic body of proof that can be cited. For example<\/strong>, some common sense statements may be quoted here: man is more intelligent than women; married people remain happier than single people; highcaste people are more talented than low-caste people.<\/span>
\n\u2026\u2026..Contrary to this<\/strong>, the\u00a0scientific research\u00a0<\/strong>or\u00a0scientific inquiry<\/strong>\u00a0finds that woman is as intelligent as man; there is no association between happiness and remaining married or unmarried by a person; caste does not determine individual\u2019s efficiency.<\/span>
\n ![\"Sociology](\"https:\/\/triumphias.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Sociology-vs-Common-Sense-e1709720317238-139x150.webp\") <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n- Common sense observations<\/strong>\u00a0result in widespread ignorance and rejection of a sociological perspective when people think about human behavior.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Common-sense perspectives\u00a0<\/strong>predominate in people\u2019s minds. They may, for instance, employ a biological perspective in attempting to explain family and marital arrangements; women rear children because they have a maternal instinct (biologically determined) for this task. Similarly, they may use pseudo-psychological perspective in explaining suicide (people commit suicide when they are mentally unbalanced), or a moralistic perspective in explaining crime (Criminals are people who have not developed a conscience regulating their actions). Because ordinary people are more familiar with these kinds of common-sense perspectives in their everyday lives a sociological approach does not come easily to them.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Common sense observation\u00a0<\/strong>is further compounded by a deeply held commitment to the idea that we are all individuals, unique beings with our own special qualities, which sociologists deny.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Sociology, however,\u00a0<\/strong>insists on a willingness to reject what is obvious common-sense, natural and to go beneath the surface for understanding of the world.<\/span><\/li>\n
- As Berger puts it: \u201cThe fascination of Sociology lies in the fact that its perspective makes us see in a new light the very world in which we have lived all our lives. It can be said that the first wisdom of Sociology is that things are not what they seem\u201d.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
- Sociologists emphasise<\/strong>, that\u00a0what is \u2018commonsense\u2019 or \u2018natural\u2019\u00a0<\/strong>may be by no means universal or eternal, but is frequently relative to particular societies or to particular periods in time.<\/span>\n
\n- The common-sense<\/strong>\u00a0view of differences in\u00a0behaviour between men and women\u00a0<\/strong>in the family in our society tends to assume that because there are biological and physiological differences between men and women, certain aspects of their behavior are therefore \u2018natural\u2019. For example, it is often argued that it is common sense and natural that women will engage in child-rearing and domestic tasks and that men will make sexual advances and will work outside the home.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Mead\u2019s study of New Guinea, \u2018Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies\u2019<\/strong>, revealed the partiality of\u00a0such common-sense interpretations of behavior pattern. Among the Apache, she found very few \u2018natural differences\u2019 in men\u2019s and women\u2019s behavior with neither sex exhibiting aggression<\/strong>: Women did the heavy carrying (Men stayed at home with their wives during and after child birth, \u2018sharing\u2019 the pain and strain<\/strong>.\u00a0Among the Munduracco<\/strong>, both sexes were aggressive, children were treated brutally by both parents and lovemaking was rather like a pitched battle.\u00a0Among the Tchambuli,\u00a0<\/strong>yet further variation occurred: men adorned themselves, gossiped, made things for trade, while women selected their partners, made the sexual advances, did all the trade, and were the more aggressive sex.\u00a0Obviously, we cannot explain these very striking variations in behavior via biology<\/strong>, since the people in the various societies were all the same biologically.<\/span><\/li>\n
- To the Hopi Indians of North America\u00a0<\/strong>it is \u2018common-sense\u2019 view that\u00a0rain-clouds are Gods\u00a0<\/strong>and must therefore be made happy through exhibiting Rain dance. This is a view not entirely consistent with that of the Meteorological office. The essential point,\u00a0then, is that one person\u2019s common sense is somebody else\u2019s nonsense\u00a0<\/strong>and there are many examples of sociological and anthropological investigation questioning and exploding many common-sense notions about behavior. Although the use of everyday common-sense beliefs is, usually not only unsystematic and inadequate but also often contradictory.<\/span><\/li>\n
- The common sense explanations are generally based on what may be called \u2018naturalistic\u2019 and\/or individualistic explanation<\/strong>. A naturalistic explanation for behavior rests on the assumption that one can really identify \u2018natural\u2019 reasons for behavior. An individualistic explanation of some event or phenomenon assumes that the event can be readily understood and explained solely through reference to the behavior of the individuals involved in it.\u00a0There is no attempt to understand or explain the phenomenon in terms of wider social forces.<\/strong>\u00a0A naturalistic explanation of behavior rests on the assumptions that one can readily identify \u2018natural\u2019 (or sometimes \u2018God-given\u2019) reasons for behavior.\u00a0For example<\/strong>, it is only natural, that two people should fall in love, get married, live together, and raise a family. Such explanations are rejected as inadequate by the sociologist. The individualistic explanation is rejected because it does not recognize the importance of wider social forces acting on the individual that he or she cannot control. The naturalistic explanation is rejected\u00a0because\u00a0<\/strong>it fails to recognize that behavior patterns are not primarily biologically determined but rather reflect social conventions learned by individuals as members of social groups, or, more generally, society.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Sociology\u00a0<\/strong>thus\u00a0breaks away<\/strong>\u00a0from both\u00a0common sense observations and ideas as well as from philosophical thought<\/strong>. It does not always or even generally lead to spectacular results. But meaningful and unsuspected connections can be reached only by sitting through masses of connections<\/span>\n
\n- Great advances in sociological knowledge have been made, generally incrementally and only rarely by a dramatic breakthrough. Sociology has a\u00a0body of concepts, methods and data, no matter how loosely coordinated.<\/strong>\u00a0This cannot be substituted by common sense.\u00a0Common sense is unreflective\u00a0<\/strong>since it does not question its own origins. Or in other words it does not ask itself: \u201cWhy do I hold this view?\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- The sociologist must be ready to ask of any of our beliefs, about ourselves-no matter how cherished<\/strong>\u2013\u201cis this really so?\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0The systematic and questioning approach of sociology is derived from<\/strong>\u00a0a broader tradition of scientific investigation<\/strong>. This emphasis on scientific procedures can be understood only if we go back in time. And understand the context or social situation with which the sociological perspective merged as sociology was greatly influenced by the great developments in modern science.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
<\/span>![\"\ud835\udc08\ud835\udc00\ud835\udc12\ud835\udc12\ud835\udc24\ud835\udc28\ud835\udc28\ud835\udc25:](\"https:\/\/triumphias.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/WhatsApp-Image-2024-12-26-at-11.06.32-AM-113x150.jpeg\")
\nHow is sociological study different from the common sense?<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n\n- Take any average person, we find that in the process of growing up, he has come to arrive at a \u201ctheory\u201d on almost all aspects of social life. He has a theory of good and bad of marriage and family, city and country life, of making money or of joining politics. Can such a theoretician be called a sociologist? Well, in a way Yes! He is an amateur sociologist of sorts but no more. Unless we\u2019re ready to call a stargazer an astronomer, a peasant an agronomist and tribal living in a forest, a botanist.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Thus a\u00a0common sense-based view of social life is not sociology<\/strong>. This holds true even if sometimes we find that statement based on the folk wisdom come remarkably close to sociological theories.\u00a0For example,<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cgive the dog a bad name and it will get blamed for lot many things\u201d<\/strong>. It is a piece of folk wisdom that does convey the essence of\u00a0Howard backer\u2019s \u201cLabelling Theory of Deviance\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>which says that a person\u2019s behavioural patterns is likely to be\u00a0influenced by the types of labels given to him<\/strong>. Go on calling somebody a vandal and it is quite likely that he might live up to his reputation.<\/span><\/li>\n
- However, we need not be on the\u00a0defensive<\/strong>\u00a0about the\u00a0special status of Sociology as a specialized body of knowledge.\u00a0<\/strong>Simply because even lay man tend to explore the areas, which sociologists also do. What distinguishes Sociology from a common sense is not an exclusive phenomena to explore but a different way to look at the phenomena which others also can look at though not in the same way.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
To repeat,\u00a0sociology is essentially a special way of looking at the elements of social life.<\/strong>\u00a0This special<\/span>
\nway of looking at things is what makes\u00a0sociology a systematic study.<\/strong>\u00a0It is important to identify the<\/span>
\nelements that are special to sociologist\u2019s way of looking at things, which are as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n\n- Sociology approaches social life from the \u201cman \u2013 in \u2013 society\u201d standpoint<\/strong>. It conveys the dualistic and apparently paradoxical conception of social life. It means that inclusive collectivity viz. society and its members exist in a relationship of interdependence in which on one hand man are viewed as shaped by their groups and group heritage on the other hand, individuals are viewed as creators of their common society and culture. Illustrations of both these conceptions of social reality can be seen in our earlier description of the elements of social life. We mentioned that people behave in society as status occupants and by virtue of their behaviour gets constrained by the need to conform to the role expectations. These role expectations are defined by the norms of the society that are essential for collective living. Further, while enacting this definite behaviour, people use symbols that are collectively shared.<\/span><\/li>\n
- The social behaviour is impossible without the knowledge of various aspects of culture, namely values, norms, belief through socialisation. Thereby society gets implanted in man and shapes his behaviour. Now this illustrates the first aspect namely, \u201csociety creates man\u201d. Evidence of second aspect of sociologists conception of social life, that is, \u201cMan Creates Society\u201d can be found in our understanding of social behaviour in terms of meanings ascribed by the individuals which form basis for motives that underlie social action.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Now these meanings and motives of the individual may differ from those commonly shared by the group and therefore may lead to deviant behaviour on the part of individuals that in turn may change the behaviour of the whole group. Christ, Lenin, Gandhi was such individuals who could change their societies. Even the lesser individuals do it to lesser extent.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Sociology has a special and irrelevant attitudes towards social life<\/strong>\u00a0Peter L Berger<\/strong>\u00a0has called<\/span>
\nit a\u00a0\u201cdebunking attitudes towards world taking four granted\u201d.<\/strong>\u00a0In his profession sociologists<\/span>
\nis a sceptic who refuses to accept the self \u2013 evident, common sense-based view of the world<\/span>
\nat its face value, rather he makes a deliberate attempt to go beyond the\u00a0\u201cvisual\u201d a<\/strong>nd the\u00a0\u201capparent\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0to look for the\u00a0hidden patterns, implicit meanings,<\/strong>\u00a0underlying\u00a0causes and unintended consequences.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n- Sociologists work is to\u00a0peep into people\u2019s life\u00a0<\/strong>and he does it with a passion to look behind closed doors. In fact a popular textbook writer has noted that, an adolescent who takes special delight in peeping into places, otherwise prohibited by norms of decency, has the making of a perfect sociologists only he can retain the voyeuristic curiosity throughout his professional career and directe it into all spheres of social life.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Illustrations of this debunking attitude can be found in the works of two great sociologists\u00a0<\/strong>and is nowhere more evident than in the\u00a0study of religion<\/strong>, the most venerated institution in the society. We can look at the\u00a0views of Emily Durkheim and Karl Marx\u00a0<\/strong>who have made pioneering contributions to the growth of sociology. In spite of the differences in their views on the role of religion both were alike in their almost blasphemous views on religion.<\/span><\/li>\n
- While discussing the\u00a0
|
![\"GS](\"https:\/\/triumphias.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Blog-150x150.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n