Assess the Functionalist and Marxist view of society

Functionalism has given a useful understanding of society, despite its limitations. Functionalists describe society using an organic analogy; they say society is like a biological organism. Parsons found three similarities between society and an organism. System organisms such as the human body and society are both self regulating and inter-related, independent parts fit together in fixed ways. In the body these are organs; in society they are institutions, such as family and education. Both organisms have system needs for example an organism needs nutrition without which it would die. Social systems have basic needs for example members of society need to be socialised. Both society and organisms function to contribute to meeting the systems needs and thus ensure survival. For example the circulatory systems delivers oxygen to cells, similarly the economy in society helps meet the needs for food and shelter.

Parsons argues the central question sociology tries to answer is how is social order possible? Parsons argues social order is achieved through the existence of a shared value system. A culture is a set of norms, values, beliefs and goals shared by members of society. It provides a framework enabling individuals to cooperate by laying down rules about how to behave and what others expect of them, defining goals they should pursue and so on. Social order is only possible so long as members of society agree on these norms and values. This agreement is called value consensus. Value consensus is the glue that holds society together.

Thus the basic function of value consensus is to make social order possible. It does this by integrating individuals into the social system thus directing them too meet the systems needs. Parsons argues the system has two mechanisms to ensure individuals conform to shared norms and meet the systems needs. One of the mechanisms is socialisation; the social system can ensure its needs are met by teaching individuals to want to do what it requires them to. Through the socialisation process individuals internalise the systems norms and values so that society becomes part of their personality structure. Different agencies of socialisation such as them family, education ect all contribute to this process. Another mechanism is social control where positive sanctions reward conformity while negative ones punish deviance. As individuals are integrated through socialisation and social control into a shared value system, their behaviour is orientated towards pursuing societies shared goals and meeting its needs. The behaviour of each individual will be predictable and stable and allows cooperation. This integration into the shared normative order makes orderly social life possible.

Parsons uses a building block approach to describe the social system. At the bottom are individual actions, each action we perform is governed by norms or rules. These norms are called status roles, for example a teacher. Statuses are positions that exist in the social system. Roles are a set of norms that tell us how the occupant of the status must carry out their duties. Status roles come in clusters, known as institutions, such as the family. Related institutions are grouped together in sub systems such as the economy. These sub systems together make the social system as a whole.

Parsons identifies four basic needs of society. Each need is met by a separate sub system of institutions. One is adaption; the social system meets its members material needs. These needs are met by the economic sub system. Another is goal attainment; society needs to set goals and allocate resources to achieve them. This is the function of the political sub system, through institutions such as parliament. Another is integration; the different part of the system need to be integrated together in order to pursue shared goals. This is performed by sub systems of religion, education and the media. The fourth one is latency; this refers to the process that maintains society over time. The kin-ship sub system provides pattern maintenance and tension management. Parsons describes adaption and goal attainment as instrumental needs, to the means to an end, such as producing food to sustain the population. He describes integration and latency as expressive needs as they involve channelling emotions. By carrying out their respective functions the four sub systems ensure that society’s needs are met and social stability maintained.

Parsons identified two types of society, traditional and modern. Each type has its own typical pattern of norms. Within each type the variables fit together, for example in modern society students are expected to pursue their own self interests, achieved status through efforts in education, attained through deferred gratification. They are all judged by the universal standard of exams. Contrastingly in traditional society an individual’s status is ascribed at birth and they’re expected to put their kinships interest before their own, called collective orientation.

Parsons argues change is a gradual, evolutionary process of increasing complexity and structural differentiation. The organic analogy is relevant here. Organisms have evolved from simple structures to complex organisms with different parts performing its own specialised function. Similarly societies move from simple to complex structures. For example in traditional society a single institution, the kinship system, performs many functions. It organises production and consumption, provides political leadership, socialises members and performs religious functions. However as societies develop the kinship system looses these functions. Parsons calls this structural differentiation, a gradual process in which separate, functionally specialised institutions develop, each meeting a different need. Along with structural differentiation, Parsons sees gradual change occurring through what he calls moving equilibrium. As a change occurs in one part of the system it produces compensatory changes in other parts. For example the rise of industry brings about change in the family from extended to nuclear. In this way society gradually changes from one type to another.

Robert Merton (1968) has provided an internal critique of functionalism. Merton criticises three assumptions of parsons. The first criticism is indispensability. Parsons assumes everything in society is functionally indispensible in its existing form. Merton argues this is an untested assumption and he points to the alternative of functional alternatives. For example parsons assume primary socialisation is best performed by the nuclear family, but it may be that single parent families do just as well. Another criticism is functional unity. Parsons assumes all parts of society are tightly integrated into a unity and each part is functional for all the rest. He assumes change in one part will have a knock on effect in all other parts. However neither of these assumptions is necessarily true. Complex modern societies have many parts, some only distantly related to one another. Instead of functional unity some parts may have functional autonomy from others. It’s hard to see connections for example between banking and netball. A third assumption is universal functionalism. Parsons assumes that everything in society performs a positive function for society as a whole. Yet something’s may be functional for some groups and dysfunctional for others. The idea of dysfunction introduces a neglected note into functionalism by suggesting there may be conflict of interest and some groups may have the power to keep arrangements in place that benefit at the expense of others. Merton’s central criticism is that we cannot assume, as Parsons does, that society is always and necessarily a smooth running well integrated system.

Merton distinguishes between manifest and latent functions. He cites the example of Hopi Indians who in times of drought perform a rain dance with the aim of magically producing rain. This is its manifest or intended functions. From a scientific viewpoint this is unlikely to achieve its goals. However the ritual may have unintended or latent functions such as promoting sense of solidarity during times of hardship when individuals might be inclined to look after themselves at the expense of others. Merton’s distinction is thus useful in helping reveal hidden connections between social phenomena which the actors may not be aware of.

There have also been external critiques of functionalism. One type is logical criticism. Teleology is the idea that things exist because of their function. For example functionalist’s claim the family exists because children need to be socialised is teleological; it explains the existence of the family in terms of its effect. However critics argue that a real explanation of something is one that identifies its cause, and logically a cause must come before its effect. Contrastingly functionalism explains the existence of one thing in terms of something else that can only be its effect, since socialisation can only come after we have families. Functionalism is also criticised for being unscientific. For many a theory is only scientific if in principle it’s falsifiable by testing. Yet this is not true for functionalism. For example functionalists see deviance as dysfunctional and functional. If deviance is both functional and dysfunctional then the theory cannot be disproved and is unscientific.

Conflict theorists such as Marxists criticise functionalism for its inability to explain conflict and change. This inability arises partly out of the organic analogy; organisms are relatively stable and harmonious systems in which all the parts work together for common good. Marxists argue society is not a harmonious whole; it’s based on exploitation and divided into classes with conflicting interests and unequal power. Stability is the result of the dominant class being able to prevent change by using coercion or ideological manipulation. Shared values are merely a cloak concealing the interests of the dominant class. Conflict theorists see functionalism as a conservative ideology legitimating the status quo. Its focus on harmony and stability rather than conflict and change, along with the assumptions of universal functionalism and indispensability, all help to justify the exiting social order as inevitable and desirable. Critics argue this approach legitimates the privileged position of powerful groups who would have the most to lose from any fundamental changes in society.

From an action perspective, Dennis Wrong (1961) criticises functionalisms deterministic view of the individual. He describes the functionalist view as follows; the social system uses socialisation to shape people’s behaviour so that they will meet the systems needs by performing their prescribed roles. Individuals have no free will or choice; they’re merely puppets whose strings are pulled by the social system. From an action perspective this is fundamentally mistaken. While functionalism sees human beings as shaped by society the action approach takes the opposite view, that individuals create society by their interactions. A related criticism is that functionalism reifies society; it treats it as a distinct thing over and above individuals with its own needs. Contrastingly action perspectives argue society is not a thing out there with its own independent existence. The only social reality is one that individuals construct by giving meaning to their worlds.

Postmodernists argue that functionalism assumes that society is stable and orderly. As such it cannot account for the diversity and instability that exist in today’s post modern society. In the postmodernist view functionalism is an example of a meta-narrative that attempts to create a model of the workings of society as a whole. However postmodernists argue such an overall theory is no longer possible because today’s society is increasingly fragmented.

Functionalism seeks to answer the fundamental question of how social order is possible even if its answers neglect conflict and are too deterministic. It can also be said that Merton’s move away from Parsons grand theory, his notions of dysfunctions and his distinction between manifest and latent functions all provide useful starting points for research. Also many functionalisms critics end up borrowing its basic notion that society is a system of interdependent parts. As Ian Craib (1992) notes parsons theory has its faults, but at least it is a theory of society as a whole.

Marxism is also a useful perspective in understanding society. Like Durkheim Marx (1818) saw the harm caused by modern industrial society and the promise of progress to a better world that it held. Like Durkheim, Marx thought it was possible to understand society scientifically and this knowledge would point to a better society. He described his theory as a scientific socialism. Marxism is a continuation of the enlightenment project. However unlike functionalists Marx didn’t see progress as gradual evolution. He saw historical change as a contradictory process in which capitalism would increase human misery before giving way to communist society. Marx was a revolutionary socialist. The classless society would need to be brought about by the conscious actions of human beings.

Materialism is the view that humans are beings with material needs, such as food and shelter, and must thus work to meet them. To do so they use the forces of production. In early human history these were unaided human labour, but as tools developed they assisted production. In working to meet needs humans cooperated with each other, they entered into social relations of production; ways of organising production. Overtime as the forces of production developed the social relation of production changed. The division of labour developed giving rise to two classes; a class that owned the means of production and a class of labourers. From then production is directed to the class of owners to meet their own needs. Marx refers to the forces and relations of production together as the mode of production. For example we live in a society with a capitalist mode of production. The mode of production forms the economic base of society; this economic base shapes all other features of society – the superstructure of institutions, beliefs ect arise from this base.

In the earliest stages of humanity there were no classes, no private ownership and no exploitation; everyone worked, everything was shared. Marx called this society primitive communism. But as the forces of production grow different types of class society arrive. In class society one class owns the meaning of production. It enables them to exploit the labour of others for their own benefit. They can control society’s surplus product; the difference between what labourers produce and what is needed to keep them alive. Marx identifies three different class societies each with its own exploitation. In ancient society it was based on exploitation of slaves legally tied to their owners. In feudal society it was based on exploitation of serfs legally tied to the land and finally capitalist society which is based on the exploitation of free wage labourers.

Like previous class societies capitalism is based on a division between a class of owners and class of labourers. However capitalism has three unique features. Firstly unlike slaves and serfs the workers are legally free and separated from means of production. As they don’t own any means of production they have to sell their labour to the capitalists to get a wage to survive. However this is not an equal exchange. The workers don’t see the value of goods their labour produces but only the cost of subsistence. The difference between the two is the surplus value, the profit the capitalists make by selling commodities the workers have produced. Secondly through competition between capitalists, ownership of the means of production becomes concentrated into fewer hands. This competition drives small independent producers into the workers until the vast majority become workers. Competition forces the capitalists to pay the smallest wages possible causing immiseration of the workers. Thirdly capitalism continually expands forces of production in pursuit of profit. Production becomes concentrated into larger units while technological advances deskill the workers. Concentration of ownership and deskilling of workers produces class polarisation. Society divides into a minority capitalist class and a majority working class that oppose each other.

Marx argues capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction, for example polarisation bringing workers together in larger numbers creating conditions for workers to develop class consciousness. Thus the workers move from being a class in itself to become a class for itself whose members are class conscious.

Marx argues the class who owns the means of production also owns and controls means of mental production; the production of ideas. The dominant ideas in society are thus the ideas of the dominant class. The institutions that produce and spread ideas such as the media all serve the dominant class by producing ideologies that justify the existing social order. Ideology fosters a false consciousness in the subordinate classes and helps sustain class inequality. However as capitalism impoverishes the workers they develop class consciousness. They see through capitalist ideology and become conscious of their position as wage slaves.

Marx believes our true nature is based on our capacity to make things to meet our needs. Alienation is the result of our loss of control over our labour and our products and thus our separation from our true nature. Alienation exists in all class societies as the owners control the production process for their own needs. However under capitalism alienation peaks for two reasons. Workers are completely separated from and have no control over the forces of production. The division of labour is most intense and detailed; the worker is reduced to an unskilled labourer mindlessly repeating the same meaningless task. Marx also sees religion as originating in the alienation of human labour.

Marx defines the state as armed bodies of men, the police, army, courts ect. The state exists to protect the interests of the class of owners who control it. Thus they form the ruling class. They use the state as a weapon in the class struggle to protect property, suppress opposition and prevent revolution. Any class wishing to lead a revolution and become the economically dominant class must overthrow the existing ruling class. Previous revolutions have always been a minority class overthrowing another though Marx argues the proletarian revolution that overthrows capitalism will be the first revolution of the majority against the minority. It will abolish the state and create a classless communist society, abolish exploitation, replace private ownership with social ownership, and replace production for profit with production to satisfy human need. It will end alienation as humans regain control of their labour and its products. Marx predicted the ultimate victory of the proletarian revolution and establishment of communist society on a world scale. He expects the revolution to occur first in the most advanced capitalist societies, however he wrote little about how this revolution would occur, leading a debate among Marxists since.

However Marx’s theory of society has been criticised. Marx has a simplistic one sided view of inequality; he sees class as the only important division. Weber argues status and power differences can also be important sources of inequality, independent of class. For example a power elite can rule without controlling means of production. Feminists argue gender inequality is a more fundamental source of inequality then class. Marx’s two class model is also simplistic. Weber divides the classes into skilled and unskilled classes and includes white collar middle classes and petty bourgeoisie. Class polarisation hasn’t occurred; instead of the middle class swallowed up by the expanding proletariat it has grown. While the industrial class has shrunk in western society it’s grown in third world e.g. India due to globalisation.

Marx’s base superstructure model is criticised for economic determinism; the view that economic factors are the sole cause of everything in society, including social change. Critics argue it fails to recognise humans have free will and can bring change through conscious actions. The base superstructure ignores the role of ideas. For example Weber argues it was the set of new ideas from Calvinism that brought modern capitalism into being. Another criticism is that Marx’s prediction of revolution has not come through. Marx predicted the revolution would happen first in the most advanced capitalist countries however only economically backward countries such as Russia have had revolutions. However in defence of Marx while there are examples of economic determinism in his work there are instances where he argues men make their own history and the working class can only free themselves through their own conscious efforts indicating he gave role to human action as well as economic forces.

In conclusion both functionalists and Marxists provide useful analysis of society, however while both arguments have strengths they also both contain limitations.

“Sociology cannot and should not be a science”. To what extent do sociological arguments and evidence support this view?

Sociologists such as Auguste Comte (1798) are impressed by science in explaining the natural world. These sociologists are called positivists. Positivists believe it’s possible to apply methods of natural sciences in study of society and by doing so we gain true and objective knowledge of the same type found in natural sciences. This provides a basis for progress and solving social problems. Positivists argue reality exists outside and independently of the human mind. They argue nature is made up of objective, observable, physical facts that are external to our minds. Similarly society is an objective reality – a real thing made up of social facts out there and independent to individuals.

Positivists argue reality is not random but patterned and can be observed empirically. It’s the job of the sociologist to observe, identify, measure and record patterns and then to explain them. Durkheim argues laws are discoverable and will explain patterns. Sociologists can discover laws that determine how society works; this is called induction or inductive reasoning. This involves accumulating data about the world through observation and measurement. As knowledge grows we begin to see patterns.

From this we can develop a theory that explains observations. After more observations verify the theory we can claim to have discovered the truth in the form of a general law. This approach is called verificationism. Positivists argue the patterns we observe, in nature and society can be explained in the same way by finding facts that caused them. Positivist sociologists thus seek to discover causes of patterns they observe. Like natural scientists they aim to produce general statements or scientific laws about how society works which can be used to predict the future and advise social policy. Positivists favour structural explanations such as functionalism and Marxism as they see society and its structures as social facts existing outside us and shape our behaviour patterns.

Positivists believe sociology should take the experimental method used in natural sociology for the model of research as it allows the investigator to test the hypothesis in a controlled way. Positivists use quantitative data to uncover measure patterns of behaviour allowing them to produce mathematically precise statements about relationships between facts their investigating. By analysing quantitative data positivists seek to discover laws of cause and effect that determine our behaviour. Positivist’s researchers should be detached and objective and now let subjective feeling influence the way they conduct experiments. In natural sciences its claimed scientist’s values make no difference to outcome of research. However in sociology there’s a danger of the researcher of contaminating the experiment. Positivists thus employ methods to allow maximum objectivity and thus use quantitative methods. These methods also produce reliable data that can be checked by other researchers repeating the experiment.

To show that sociology was a science with its own distinctive subject matter Durkheim chose to study suicide. He believed if he could show this highly individual act had social causes it would establish sociology’s status as a scientific discipline. Using quantitative data from official statistics Durkheim observed patterns in suicide rates. Rates for Protestants were higher then Catholics, thus he concluded patterns could not be the products of motives of individuals, but were social facts. Thus they must be caused by other social facts – forces acting on members of society to determine their behaviour. Durkheim argues the social facts responsible for determining suicide rates were levels of integration and regulation. As Catholics were more successful of integrating individuals they were less likely to commit suicide. Thus Durkheim claims to have discovered a real law, that different levels of integration produce different suicide rates. He claimed to have demonstrated that sociology had its own unique subject matter, social facts, and they can be explained scientifically. Thus positivists disagree with the statement that sociology cannot and should not be a science.

Interpretivist sociologists however do not believe sociology should model itself on the natural sciences. Interpretivist criticise positivists scientific approach as inadequate for the study of human beings.

Interpreitvists argue the subject matter of sociology is meaningful social action, and we can only understand it by interpreting meanings and motives of actors involved. They argue sociology is about internal meanings and not external causes. Sociology isn’t a science because science only deals with laws of cause and effect and not human meanings. Thus they reject the use of natural science methods and explanations as a model for sociology. They argue there’s a fundamental difference between subject matter of the sciences and sociology. Natural science studies matter which has no consciousness. Thus behaviour can be explained as a straightforward reaction to external stimuli. Sociology studies people who have consciousness. People construct the world by attaching meanings to it. Actions can only be understood by these meanings and meanings are internal to people’s consciousness, they are ideas or constructs, not things. Unlike matter people have free will and have choice. Mead argues responding automatically to external stimuli humans interpret the meaning of stimulus and then choose how to respond to it. For example at a red light the driver interprets it as stop, though they don’t have to stop, and external forces don’t determine their behaviour.  Thus Interpretivist argues individuals are not puppets manipulated by social facts but they are autonomous and construct their social world by meanings they give to it. The job of the sociologist is to uncover those meanings.

Interpretivists reject the methods of natural science. They argue to discover meanings people give to their actions we need to see the world from their viewpoint. This involves abandoning objectivity of positivists. We must put ourselves in the place of the actor using what Weber calls verstehen. Thus they favour the use of qualitative methods and data such as participant observation. These methods produce in depth and valid data and give the sociologist a subjective understanding of the actor’s meanings.

All interpretivists seek to understand actors meanings, however divided whether or not we can combine this understanding with positivist style casual explanation of human behaviour. Interactionists argue we can have casual explanations. However they reject the positivist view that we should have a definite hypothesis before we start our research. Glaser and Strauss (1968) argue it risks imposing our own view of what is important rather than the actors, so we end up distorting the reality we’re trying to capture.  Glaser and Strauss favour a bottom up approach, or grounded theory. Rather than entering research with a fixed hypothesis at the start, our ideas should emerge from observations during the course of the research. These ideas can later be used to produce a testable hypothesis. Phenomenologist’s and ethno methodologists such as Garfinkel reject causal explanations of human behaviour. They take an anti structuralism view arguing society isn’t a real thing out there governing our actions. Social reality is simply the shard meanings or knowledge of members, thus society is not an external force but exists only in people’s consciousness thus the subject matter of sociology can only consist of interpretive procedures by which people make sense of the world. As peoples actions are not governed by external causes there’s no possibility of cause and effect explanation of the kind sought by positivists.

Interactionist Jack Douglas (1967) rejects the positivist idea of external social facts determining our behaviour. Individuals have free will and choose to act on basis of meanings. Thus to uncover suicide we must uncover meanings for those involved instead of imposing our own meanings. Douglas rejects Durkheim’s use of quantitative data from official statistics. They’re not objective facts but social constructions resulting from the way coroners label certain deaths as suicide Douglas argues we should use qualitative data from case studies of suicides since they can reveal actors meanings and give us a better idea of the real rate of suicide than the official statistics. Maxwell Atkinson (1978) rejects the idea that external social facts determine behaviour and agrees statistics are socially constructed. However unlike Douglas, Atkinson argues we can never know the real rate of suicide by even using qualitative methods since we can never know for sure what meanings the deceased held. Atkinson argues the only thing we can study is the ways the living make sense of deaths – the interpretive procedures coroners use to classify deaths. Ethno methodologists argue members of society have a stock of taken for granted assumptions with which they make sense of situations, including deaths. The sociologist’s role is to uncover what this knowledge is and how coroners use it to arrive at a verdict.

Postmodernists argue against the idea of a scientific sociology. They regard natural science as a meta-narrative. Despite the claim to have special action to the truth, science is another big story; its account of the world is no more valid than any other. Thus there’s no particular reason why we should adopt science as a model for sociology. Given the postmodernist view that there are as many different truths as there are points of view, a scientific approach is dangerous as it can claim a monopoly of truth and exclude other points of view. Thus scientific sociology not only makes false claims about the truth it’s also a form of domination. Feminists, such as post structural feminists share this view of scientific sociology. They argue the quest for a single scientific feminist theory is a form of domination as it excludes groups of women. Other feminists argue the quantitative scientific methods favoured by positivists are oppressive and cannot capture the reality of women’s experiences. Some writers argue that science is an undesirable model for sociology to follow as in practice science has not led to the progress that positivists believe it would. For example the emergence of risk society, with scientifically created dangers such as nuclear weapons and global warming, has undermined the idea that science inevitably brings benefits to human kind. If science produces such negative consequences it’s argued it would be inappropriate for sociology to adopt it as a model.

Although the interpretivists reject the positivist view that sociology is a science they tend to agree with positivists that natural sciences are actually as the positivists describe them. Positivists see natural science as inductive reasoning or verificationism applied to the study of observable patterns. However not everyone accepts the positivists portrayal of the natural sciences.  A number of sociologists, philosophers and historians put forward a different picture of science.

Sir Karl Popper (1994) argues many systems of thought claim to have true knowledge about the world such as religion, political and scientific ideology Popper asks what distinguishes scientific knowledge and why has science grown so quickly in the last few centuries.

Popper differs from positivists in that he rejects their view that the distinctive feature of science lies in inductive reasoning and verificationism. The main reason why we should reject verificationism is because of the “fallacy of induction”. Induction is the process of moving from the observation of particular instances of something to arrive at a general statement. Popper uses swans to demonstrate this. By observing a large number of white swans, he generalised that all swans are white. It’s easy to make further observations to verify this. However despite how many swans we observe we cannot prove all swans are white as a single observation of a black swan will destroy the theory. Thus we can never prove a theory true simply by producing more observations that verify this.

Popper argues what makes science unique form of knowledge is the opposite of verificationism, a principle called falsificationism. A scientific statement is one that in principle is capable of being falsified by the evidence. We must be able to say what evidence would count as falsifying the statement when we come to put it to the test. Popper argues a good theory has two features. It’s in principle falsifiable but when tested it stands up to attempts to disprove it. It is also bold; it claims to explain a great deal. It makes generalisations that predict a large number of cases, thus is at greater risk of being falsified then a more timid theory that explains a small number of events.

For a theory to be falsifiable it must be open to criticism from other scientists. Popper argues science is a public activity. Everything is open to criticism thus flaws in a theory can be readily exposed and better theories developed. Popper explains this is why science has grown so rapidly. Popper argues science thrives in open or liberal societies, societies where ideas are open and open to challenge. Contrastingly closed societies are dominated by an official belief system that claims to have absolute truth. Such belief systems stifle growth of science as they conflict with the nature of science.

Popper argues much of sociology is unscientific because it consists of theories that can’t be put to the test with the possibility they can’t be falsified. For example Marxists predict there will be a revolution leading to a classless society however it hasn’t happened because of false consciousness. Thus the theory can’t be falsified as in all cases, Marx is always right. However popper believes sociology can be scientific as it can produce theories that in principle can be falsified. Julienne Ford (1969) hypothesised the comprehensive schooling would produce social mixing of pupils from different social classes. She was able to test and falsify this hypothesis through her empirical research. Although popper rejects Marxism as unscientific because it’s untestable, he doesn’t believe untestable ideas are worthless. Such ideas are valued as they become testable at a later date and we can still examine them for logistical consistency. For example debates between different sociological perspectives can clarify woolly thinking and help formulate a testable hypothesis. While sociology may have a larger quantity of untestable ideas then the natural sciences, this may be because it’s not been in existence as long as natural science has.

Thomas Kuhn (1970) idea is the paradigm. A paradigm is shared by members of a given scientific community and defines what their science is. It provides a basic framework of assumptions, principles, methods and techniques within which members of that community work. It is a world view that tells scientists what nature is like, which aspects are worth studying, what methods should be used, what kind of questions they should ask and even the sorts of answers they should find. The paradigm is thus a set of norms as it tells the scientist how they ought to think. Scientists come to accept the paradigm uncritically as a result of their socialisation. Kuhn argues a science cannot exist without a shared paradigm. Until there’s consensus on a single paradigm, there will only be rival schools of thought, not a science as such.

For the most of the time the paradigm goes unquestioned and scientists do what Kuhn calls normal science which is like puzzle solving. The paradigm defines the questions and the answers. Scientists are left to fill in detail or work out the neatest solution. Kuhn argues the advantage of the paradigm is that it allows scientists to agree on the basics of their field and helps production. This contrasts with poppers view of science. John Watkins (1970) argues while popper sees falsification as a unique feature of science, Kuhn argues its puzzle solving within a paradigm that makes science so special.

However not all puzzle solving is successful. Sometimes scientists obtain findings contrary to those the paradigm led them to expect. As these anomalies mount up confidence in the paradigm begins to decline and this leads to the argument about basic assumptions and to efforts to reformulate the paradigm so as to account for the anomalies. The science has now entered a period of crisis. Previously taken for granted foundations are questioned. Scientists begin to formulate rival paradigms and this marks the start of the scientific revolution. Kuhn argues rival paradigms are incommensurable; two competing paradigms cannot be judged or measured by the same set of standards to decide which ones best. What supporters of one paradigm regard as a decisive refutation of the other, supporters of the rival paradigm will not recognise as a valid test, as each paradigm is a different way of seeing the world. To move from one to the other requires a massive shift of mindset. Eventually one paradigm wins and becomes accepted by the scientific community, allowing normal science to resume, however with a new set of basic assumptions. However the process is not rational. Kuhn compares it with religious conversion. Generally the new paradigm gets support from younger scientists as they have less to lose then older superiors. Kuhn’s view of scientific community contrasts with popper. Popper argues the scientific community is open and rational, constantly seeking to falsify exiting theories by producing evidence against them. Progress occurs by challenging accepted ideas. Kuhn argues by contrast the scientific community is not normally characterised by openness. Most of the time during normal science scientists is conformists. Only during scientific revolution does this change. Even then scientists have no rational means of choosing one paradigm rather than another.

Currently sociology is pre paradigmatic and thus pre scientific, divided into competing perspectives. There’s now shared paradigm. On Kuhn’s definition sociology could only become a science if basic disagreements were resolved. Whether this is possible is a doubt. Postmodernists argue a paradigm may not be desirable in sociology. It sounds like a meta-narrative. Post modernists argue it silences minority views and it falsely claims to have the truth.

A third view from science comes from the realist approach. Russell Keat and John Urry (1982) stress similarities between sociology and natural science such as degree of control for the researcher. They distinguish between open and closed systems. Closed systems are where the researcher can control and measure all the relevant variables and can make precise predictions. The typical research method is a laboratory. Open systems are those where the researcher can’t control and measure relevant variables and thus cannot make precise predictions. Realists argue that sociologists study open systems where the processes are too complex to make exact predictions. For example we cannot predict the crime rate precisely as there are too many variables involved, most of which cannot be controlled, measured or identified.

Realists reject the positivist view that science is only concerned with observable phenomena. Keat and Urry argue science often assumes the existence of unobservable structures. Realists argue this also means interpretivists are wrong in assuming sociology can’t be scientific. Interpretivists believe because of actors meanings are in their minds and not directly observable they cannot be studied scientifically. However if realists are correct and science can study observable phenomena then it’s no barrier to study meaning scientifically. For realists both natural and social science attempt to explain the causes of events in terms of underlying structures and processes. Although these structures are often unobservable we can work out they exist by observing their effects. For example we cannot directly see social class but we can observe effects. Thus much sociology is scientific. Thus unlike interpretivists realists see little difference between natural sciences and sociology, except natural scientists can study in closed laboratories.

In conclusion, sociologists are divided about whether sociology is a science. While positivists favour adopting natural sciences as a model interpretivists reject the view that sociology can be scientific. This division is based in the disagreement of the nature of sociology and subject matter. Positivists see sociology as the study of causes. Social facts cause individuals to behave as they do. Positivists see this as the same as the natural sciences approach, to discover the causes of patterns they observe. Interpretivists see sociology the study of meaningful social action. Internal meanings are why actors behave the way they do. Human actions are not governed by external causes thus cannot be studied the same way as natural sciences. However while positivists and interpretivists disagree about whether sociology can be a science they both accept the positivist view of natural sciences of verificationism. Different pictures of science have emerged, having implications for sociology. Popper rejects verificationism in favour of falsificationism, thus much sociology is unscientific but has the potential to b e so. Kuhn argues sociology can only become a science if it develops its own paradigm. Realists argue science doesn’t only deal with observable phenomena as positivists argue but underlying unobservable structures. Thus Marxism and interpteivism can be seen as scientific.