Understanding of 'Thinking Sociologically' Meaning

An attempt to understand what it actually means to be looking at a social issue or evaluating the same from a sociological perspective has been carried out by various thinkers. These perspectives guide sociological thinking on different social problems -as they look at the same social problem but in different ways. Certain things which have come to be known as facts or principles to individuals now are questioned, where each element of the same fact is set for evaluation against what it comes down to- thinking sociologically.

On studying about what does it means to think sociologically, we come to realise and reevaluate a few things in life which otherwise would not have come off as unusual or in some cases contradicting. The prevailing ideas about the social organization of society are often what is highlighted by the majority and makes people believe that it is in fact the truth, this strong influence has come to be known as dominant discourse. Thus, it shapes what we are able to think and know at any given point of time. In this sense, sociology establishes discourse as a productive force as it shapes our thoughts, ideas, beliefs, values and identities and communication with others, as well as our behavior. Prevalence of a dominant discourse is widely recognized in various social practices, norms however what is essential is to look at things from a more unbiased vantage point i.e., from a perspective where one can better understand the situation without getting his own prejudices getting in the way.

An understanding that is detrimental to thinking sociologically is the sensitivity to culture. Sociology understands culture by exploring individual and group communications, their customs, ideologies, social narratives as well as their degree of integration. In his writing, Allan Johnson, author of The Forest, the Trees, and the One Thing explains to us the importance of looking at society through an outsider perspective, as often your individual view is the reflection of the bigger part i.e., society you are a part of. In fact, the systems we are associated with not only defines who we are as individuals but also the society we are part of. One of the ways to understand the society is to look at it from a holistic approach. Sociologist look at it from an individualistic point of view which is beyond the common-sense understanding, it is when you go beyond common sense understanding that you see the different perspectives. Individualism is looking at the world in relation to oneself and therefore understanding the society in its relation. It is a way of thinking that encourages us to explain the world in terms of what goes on inside individuals and nothing else. “It’s the forest and the trees and how they’re related to one another” (Johnson,2005). In here, he uses the metaphor ‘forest and the trees’ as to understand how an individual perceives themselves and in the world around them. Relationship among people and group is characterized by the spaces between trees. It takes an account of how sociological practice finds its way into almost all aspects of life. An individualistic perspective tells us how if an individual changes, then those changes can be brought into the system however a sociological perspective given by Johnson goes onto say how people participate in systems without being a part of it themselves and how social life isn’t a product of individual and their characteristics. Often individuals in order to meet the standards and to avoid potential criticism are seen to take the path of least resistance, in a sense certain criterion are created by the society that the individual feels the need to follow in order to feel a sense of belonging. For example, norms are cultural values have been seen to turn into rules that the members of various societies have to follow. Withing an institution like school there might exist a sense of belonging, such that it may compel the students to believe that they have to wear their school represented colors in order to feel like a part of the institution.

Sociology as a natural science uses scientific approach to critically analyses society, using both qualitatively and quantitatively method in order to find patterns and connections which in turn provide explanations as to how a society works and affects the individuals. Sociology makes us look at things from a point of individuals which is beyond the common-sense understanding. Our opinions and perception of the world are often constrained by the position we occupy in the society. Very often we are seen to take inequality for granted which stems from difference, be it social or physical. These differences are seen in all fields, racial patterns and are also seen reflected in the social structure. Common sense understanding is perceived to be what ‘everybody knows’ about the social world around us or the individuals that comprise of it. Much of what people believe in is influenced by the majority because of which is why often things are very unclear and generalised. Instead of taking common sense and accepting it, sociology looks at a set of data that appears to be common sensical to test the accuracy of common-sense beliefs and ideas of the society. For example, the most common-sense beliefs have affected our gender norms and stereotypes. The idea that women are essentially the care-givers and are more expressive while men are emotionally stoic and strong has now been comprehended differently because of sociology as we have come to realise that sex and gender are two distinct things, gender is something that is socially defined whereas sex is biological. Sociology has helped us understand how these ‘common-sense’ understanding impact our society. In order to distinguish sociology from common-sense it is first important to understand that when we study our own society there is sub-mergence of various other phenomenon that take place within our society. More so as individuals we are more inclined to lean towards common-sense as we have come to have what is called a well-informed or developed common-sense. In the works of Andre Beteille, ‘Sociology and Common Sense’ he mentions certain distinct difference between sociological perspective and that of a common-sense. Common-sense understanding is not always ‘common’ or ‘sensible’ as it takes the most general, uncontroversial understanding to be the reality however sociological understanding is the one which looks at all aspects of a situation in order to get an informed idea of what the situation is about. Common sense tends to dwell on social norms and traditions therefore reinforce status quo and leads to no social change, on the other hand Sociology tends to focus on being progressive in nature. Sociology uses comparative measure and has been tested in some way therefore has greater validity than common-sense. However, it is important to realise that neither of them is superior to the other, sociology continues to draw from the commonsensical knowledge to sort out which popular belief is true and which is untrue. Sociology as a discipline makes use of systematic use of comparison which makes it anti-utopian in its claim and anti-fatalistic in its orientation, and further distinguishes this generalised knowledge from localized commonsensical knowledge.

Amongst the sociologists who have made a distinct separation between the illusions of understanding created by common sense is Max Weber, who said that ‘consequences of human actions are rarely the same as the intensions of the actors, and that sometimes the two are diametrically opposite.’ Here the intended meaning of said social action is often taken to refer to that which an individual understands. Weber’s works emphasises the influence of religious belief in the affairs of state and society. He believes that the role of religion is hugely misinterpreted, he asserts that the rise and prosperity of the capitalist economic system in Europe is attributed to certain concepts in the then prevailing dominant religious ideology, Christianity. In other words, looking at it from this perspective helps us understand how religion planted the seeds for eventual rise of capitalism in Europe because of the resistance or reluctance of the then emerging protestants who were also questioning a lot of the practices. Here, Max Weber went beyond the common-sense perspective as he had to study centuries upon centuries of facts and patters in order to arrive at this sociological understanding. A similar observation as been made by Karl Marx, who looks at the factors leading to capitalism and industrial revolution. Marx believed that social change starts from a primitive to a more developed stage. He talks about change in society from a historical perspective. Rise in capitalism is because of conflict in society which leads to change in society, it changes the means and modes and therefore the social relationships between people.

Through the apparent use of sociological perspective by Emile Durkheim for understanding the reason behind Suicide. Durkheim found out what makes people commit suicide and what factors contribute to them taking such a drastic life choice. Durkheim believed that economic difficulties, religion, marriage etc. were the major reason behind an individual’s motive to end their life. He based these social factors behind suicide by analysing larger amount of statistical data which was collected over a vast cross-section of the society. He believed that if suicide was an individual’s action then why aren’t there cases of societies with various different suicide rates which are not stagnant over time. He focused more on the social factors rather than individual facts which support the increase in suicide rate which in turn gives it a sociological perspective instead of a generalised common-sense understanding of the situation.

Andre Beteille in his own work looks at caste system and how inequality and conflict are mixed up with the politics in such villages of India. In talking about understanding the caste system, M.N Srinivas has made major contributions in studying the caste system of India by differentiating the ‘book-view’ from the ‘field-view’ as he mentions how he found horizontal stratification which he emphasized as jatis, which act as the functional unit of caste system in order to understand the aspect of social mobility between the different levels. It attacks the previously existing theory of caste system being rigid and inflexible and how it had divided the Indian society into four major Varnas. Beteille further mentions other sociologist such as A.M Shah who contradicted the usual perception that joint families never exist in the form we understand it to be, he talks about how joint families were never a unit larger than that of nuclear family household and that average size of such household in Indian context has remained the same in the last hundred years. In stating the works of these thinkers, Beteille has pointed out how various societies are understood from a sociological perspective instead of a common-sensical perspective. However, it is to be noted that there is benefit in both as it takes time to study ones own society in comparison to other societies because of the bias that is attached with it.

A reoccurring idea so far has been to understand beyond the common-sense understanding of things and in doing so we come across the hidden curriculum of many such lessons which are taught at various levels of one’s education without actually being taught directly. For example, in the works of the author James Garner (Politically Correct Bedtime Stories: Modern Tales for Our Life and Times, 1994) he manages to change our view on the various fairytales which he now calls bedtime stories as he believes it is then likely to become true. His use of satire has somewhat facilitated the acceptance of such political correctness which previously nobody thought about questioning. These stories are meant to be enjoyed for their ideas and not be confused with the words that Garner replaces in order to bring out the correct and acceptable stance of situations in accordance with present, modern times. It is to be understood that a greater part of thinking sociologically has to do with the ability to look at things and to be able to see and understand beyond the stated reason of such a cause.

References

1. Johnson Allan G 2008, The Forrest and The Trees: Sociology as Life Practice and Promise, Philadelphia: Temple university Press and Chapter 1, ‘The Forrest, the Trees and One Thing.’ Pg. 1-36
2. Beteille, Andre, 2009, Sociology: Essay in Approach and Method, Delhi: Oxford University Press, Chapter 1,’Scoiology and Common Sense.’ Pg. 13-27
3. Garner, James Finn, 1994, Politically Correct Bedtime Stories: Modern Tales for Our Life and Times, New Jersey: John Wiley& Sons Inc.