Assess the different sociological approaches to suicide

Durkheim argues our behaviour is caused by social facts; social forces found in the structure of society. Steven Lukes (1992) argues social facts have three features; they’re external to individuals, they constrain individuals shaping their behaviour and they’re greater than individuals, they exist on a different level from the individual. Durkheim argues the suicide rate is a social fact. Using quantitative data from official statistics Durkheim analysed the suicide rate from various European countries. He noted four regular patterns. The suicide rate for any given society remained more or less constant over time. When the rates did change they coincided with other changes. For example rates fell during wartime, but rose during economic depression or prosperity. Different societies had different rates. Within a society the rates varies considerably between social groups. For example Catholics had lower rates than Protestants. For Durkheim these patterns were evidence that suicide rates couldn’t simply be the result of the motives of individuals. For example the population of the army constantly changes but the suicide rate remains the same. Instead of giving a psychological explanation Durkheim explains the suicide rate as the effect of social facts acting on the individual. In different societies these forces act with different degrees of intensity resulting in different suicide rates.

Durkheim identifies two social facts that determine the rate of suicide. Social integration refers to the extent an individual feels a sense of belonging to a group and obligation to its members. In highly integrated groups and societies individuals feel a strong bond with and sense of duty towards others. Moral regulation refers to the extent to which individual’s actions and desires are kept in check by norms and values. Durkheim argues without regulation by socially defined goals and rules individuals desires become infinite and incapable of satisfaction.

Durkheim argues suicide results from either too much or too little social integration. He creates a typology of suicide. Egoistic suicide is caused by too little social integration. Durkheim argues this is the most common type of suicide in modern society, caused by excessive individualism and lack of social ties and obligations to others. This explains the lower rate among Catholics than among Protestants. Both religions condemn suicide but Protestants have more individual freedom in what to believe and how to express their faith whereas Catholics are more tightly integrated by shared beliefs and collective rituals. Egoistic suicide is less common in times of war or political upheaval, since these create a stronger sense of belonging and common purpose.

Altruistic suicide is the opposite of egoistic suicide and is caused by too much social integration. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness or egoism and involves putting others before one’s self. Altruistic suicide occurs where the individual has little value and where the group’s interests override those of the individual. Suicide here is obligatory self sacrifice for the good of the group rather then something freely chosen since the individual feels it their duty to die. For example Hindu widows were expected to throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre so as not to burden their family.

Anomic suicide is caused by too little moral regulation. Anomie means normlessness and anomic suicide occurs where society’s values are made obsolete with rapid social change, creating uncertainty in individuals as to what society expects of them. For example the depression of the 1930s produced anomic suicides as well as times of economic boom. Durkheim attributes this to the fact that booms lead to expectations and desires rising more quickly than the means of fulfilling them.

Fatalistic suicide is the opposite of anomic suicide and is caused by too much moral regulation. Fatalism means a belief on the part of the individual that they can do nothing to affect their situation. Fatalistic suicide occurs where society regulates the individual completely. Slaves and prisoners most commonly commit fatalistic suicide.

Durkheim argues modern and traditional society differs in levels of integration and regulation, and this means that we tend to find different types of suicide in each type of society. Modern industrial societies have lower levels of integration. Individual’s rights and freedoms become more important than obligations to the group. This weakens social bonds and gives rise to egoistic suicides. Similarly modern societies are less effective in regulating individuals because they undergo rapid social change which undermines accepted norms and produces anomic suicides. Traditional preindustrial societies have higher levels of integration. The group is more important than the individual and this gives rise to altruistic suicides. Similarly these societies strictly regulate their member’s lives and impose rigidly ascribed statuses that limit individual’s opportunities and this produces fatalistic suicides.

Other positivists since Durkheim have built on his work. Maurice Halbwachs (1930) accepted his positivist approach but added to his theory. Halbwachs argued differences between urban and rural residence were the main reasons for variations in suicide rates. Higher rates among protestants, people living alone ect were more a function of their urban location; these groups were more likely to be found in towns where people live more isolated lives. Sainsbury (1955) found suicide in London boroughs were highest where the levels of social disorganisation were highest.

Jack Gibbs and Walter Martin (1964) wish to make law like cause and effect generalisations and predictions like Durkheim. However they argue Durkheim doesn’t operationalise his concept of integration; he doesn’t define it in a way that can be measured. Gibbs and Martin go on to define integration as a situation where there are stable and lasting relationships. They argue these tend to occur when and individual has status integration; compatible statuses that don’t conflict with one another, such as when their educational and occupational statuses are similar. They predict in societies where there is little status integration the suicide rate will be higher. Other aspects of Durkheim’s study have also been criticised. For example it’s argued the statistics he used were unreliable and incomplete; in the 19^th century medical knowledge was limited. Similarly many countries lacked the means needed to collect and compile reliable statistics on a national basis. However these criticisms do not challenge the basic aim of Durkheim’s study, to achieve a scientific explanation of suicide.

Jack Douglas (1967) takes a largely Interactionist approach to suicide. He is interested in the meaning suicide has for the deceased and in the way coroners label deaths as suicides. He criticises Durkheim’s study of suicide on two main grounds.

The decision to classify a death as a suicide is taken by a coroner and influenced by other social actors and this may produce bias in the verdicts reached. Douglas argues this may explain the patterns Durkheim found. For example the finding that a high level of integration leads to low suicide rates can be explained by the fact well integrated individuals may have friends or relatives who deny the death was suicide out of their own feelings of guilt, or even cover up the suicide by destroying a suicide note. Contrastingly socially isolated individuals have no one to oppose a suicide verdict on their behalf. Thus although it might seem as if integration prevents suicide, in fact integration merely affects the likelihood of a death being labelled and recorded as a suicide rather than it actually being a suicide. For Douglas suicide verdicts and the statistics based on them are the product of interactions and negotiations between those involved; relatives, doctors, coroners ECT and factors such as integration influencing these negotiations.

Douglas criticises Durkheim for ignoring the meanings of the act for those who kill themselves and for assuming that suicide has a fixed or constant meaning. Douglas notes that the meanings of suicide can vary between cultures. For example a Japanese samurai and western businessmen may attach different meanings to suicide. These motives and meanings must be understood within their own social and cultural context and this means Durkheim’s attempts to compare rates across cultures are faced with problems. Douglas also rejects Durkheim’s aim to categorise suicide in terms of their social causes. Instead we must classify each death according to its actual meaning for the deceased. To do so we must use qualitative methods and sources to produce case studies based on the analysis of suicide notes and diaries and in depth interviews with the victims friends and relatives. From these we can build up a typology of suicide meanings. Although Douglas did not carry out any case studies himself he suggests that in western societies the social meanings of suicide include escape, repentance, search for sympathy ect. However he points out suicides may have different meanings in other cultures, for example religious ones such as getting into heaven. For Douglas using qualitative data overcomes the problems of using official statistics. Analysis of suicide notes would allow us to get behind the labels that coroners attach to cases and discover the real meaning of the death for the person involved. From this we can get a better idea of the real rate of suicide than the socially constructed one that appears in statistics.

Douglas produces a classification of suicide based on the supposed meanings for the actors. However there is no reason to believe sociologists are any better than coroners at interpreting dead person’s meanings. Sainsbury and Barraclough (1968) found that the rank order of suicide for immigrant groups to the USA correlated closely with the suicide rates of their country of origin despite the fact a different set of labellers were involved. This suggests statistics reflect real differences between groups rather than coroners labelling. Douglas is inconsistent, sometimes suggesting that official statistics are merely the product of coroner’s opinions. At other times he claims we can really discover the causes of suicide; yet how can we if we can never know whether a death was a suicide and all we have is the coroner’s opinions.

J. Maxwell Atkinson (1978) takes a different Interpretivist approach from Douglas, that of ethno methodology. Ethno methodology argues that social reality is simply a construct of its members. We create reality using a stock of taken for granted commonsense knowledge. The sociologist’s job is to uncover what this knowledge is and how we use it to make sense of the world. From this perspective Atkinson reviews Douglas’ contribution. Douglas argues official statistics are constructs of coroners and using qualitative data allows us to get behind meanings of suicide for the deceased. Atkinson accepts Douglas’ first point but rejects his second. Atkinson argues we can never know the real rate of suicide since we would have to know for sure what meanings the dead gave to their deaths, which is impossible. Thus it’s pointless trying to discover the real rate. All we can study is how people make sense of their world. With suicide this means studying how the living comes to classify the death as a suicide. The statistics are neither right nor wrong; they’re merely interpretations made by certain officials and so all we can study is how they are constructed. Atkinson thus focuses on how coroners categorise deaths. He uses qualitative methods. From this research he concludes coroners have common sense knowledge about the typical suicide. This includes what kind of person commits suicide, for what reasons, a typical place of death ect. If a particular case fits their common sense theory coroners are more likely to categorise the death as suicide.

Atkinson argues that coroner’s commonsense theories lead them to see the following types of evidence as relevant; a suicide note or suicide threats prior to death. The mode of death for example hanging is seen as a typical suicide, a road death an accident while drowning is less clear. Location and circumstances, death by shooting is more likely to be labelled suicide if it’s in a deserted lay by rather than a hunting party. Life history; a disturbed childhood or bankruptcies are seen as likely cause of suicide. Coroners regard information such as this as clues to whether the deceased intended to take their own life. For example Atkinson (1971) quotes one coroner saying that in the case of drowning he looked to whether clothes where neatly folded on the beach; if they were it usually points to suicide. Atkinson concludes that coroners are engaged in analysing cases using taken for granted assumptions about what constitutes as a typical suicide. A verdict of a suicide is simply an interpretation of a death based on these taken for granted assumptions. If correct this poses serious problems for theories such as Durkheim’s that treats statistics as facts as all they do is spell out coroners theories of suicide. For example if coroners believe that typical suicides are socially isolated people then more of these people will end up in statistics. The sociologist who then takes the statistics at face value and produces a theory such as lack of integration causes suicide is merely echoing the coroners commonsense theory; not discovering the real cause of suicide.

Structuralist Barry Hindess (1973) criticise ethno methodologists’ approach as self defeating. Atkinson’s view that the only thing we can study about suicide is the coroners’ interpretation can be turned back on him. If all we can have is interpretations of the social world, rather than objective truth about it then ethno methodologist’s accounts are themselves no more than interpretations. If so there is no good reason why we should accept them. However most ethno methodologists accept that their accounts are merely interpretations. Unlike positivists who claim to produce objective, scientific accounts they do not claim that their interpretations are superior to those of the people they study.

Steve Taylor (1982) takes a different approach to both positivists and interpretivists. He argues suicide statistics cannot be taken as valid. For example in a study half of people hit by a train were classed as suicide even though there was no conclusive evidence of suicidal intent. Taylor found that coroners saw factors such as a history of mental illness as indications of suicidal intent and this increased the likelihood of a suicide verdict. However like the positivists Taylor still believes we can explain suicide. He believes we can discover real patterns and causes, though unlike positivists he doesn’t base his explanation on suicide statistics. Instead he adopts a realist approach. This aims to reveal underlying structures and causes, which though not directly observable can explain the observable evidence. He uses case studies to discover the underlying of meaning that cause suicide.

Many theories on suicide focus on acts where the individual was intent on dying and that resulted in death. For example Durkheim’s study is about causes of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act by the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result. However Taylor notes that in many cases those who attempt suicide are not certain their actions will kill them. Nor are all who attempt suicide are aiming to die; some are communicating with others. Thus we should look at both successful and unsuccessful attempts and adopt a broader definition of suicide as any deliberate act of self damage or potential self damage where the individual cannot be sure of survival.

Taylor suggests that a situation where the person is most likely to attempt suicide is those where there is complete certainty or uncertainty either about themselves or about others. This gives him four possible types of suicide. The first two types are inner or self directed suicides which Taylor calls ectopic, where the individual is psychologically detached from others. Because of this the suicide attempt is a private, self contained act. There are two types of ectopic suicide. Submissive suicides; where the person is certain about themselves. For example they may know they have no reason to go on, for example a terminal illness. Their suicide attempt is deadly serious, because they know they want to die. Thanatation suicides; where they are uncertain about themselves. For example they may be uncertain about what others think of them. Their suicide attempt involves risk taking, they may or may not survive it, chance will decide for example playing Russian roulette.

The other two types are other directed or symphysic suicides where the individual has an overwhelming attachment to some other person. For example they feel that the other gives them a reason for living. These suicides are not self contained but a way of communicating with others. There are two types. Sacrifice suicides; where they are certain about suicides and know they have to kill themselves. Like submissive suicides their attempt is deadly serious. Usually either they or the person has done something that makes it impossible for the person to go on living, for example betrayal through an affair. This suicide is a form of communication in which they may seek to blame the other for their death, usually so they will suffer guilt. Appeal suicides; where the person is uncertain about others. They have doubts about their importance to the other and attempt suicide to resolve the uncertainty. The attempt is a form of communication that seeks to change the others behaviour. Like Thanatation suicides they involve risk taking and uncertainty about the outcome. They are acts of despair and hope, combining the wish to die and things to change things for the better.

Taylor’s theory is based on his interpretations of the actors’ meanings and there is no way of knowing if these are correct, especially in the case of those who succeeded. Also individual cases may involve a combination of motives and may be difficult to categorise. Taylor’s small sample as case studies while useful in giving insight into motives is unlikely to be representative of suicides in general. Unlike Durkheim, Taylor has not connected the four types to wider social structures. However there are similarities between the two. Taylor’s ideas of certainty and uncertainty parallel Durkheim’s notions of fatalism and anomie respectively. Nevertheless his theory is original and useful in explaining some of the observed patterns of suicide such as why attempts differ in seriousness and why only some leave notes. It also deals with both failed and successful attempts.

“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.