The Relationship of Sociology with Other Social Sciences
A summary of The Other Social Sciences in 's Introduction to Sociology. Social sciences concern people's relationships and interactions with one another. With other social sciences like sociology, economics, psychology, history even history of the various fields that were studied in relation to. In other words, a historian writing family or intellectual history takes a cue from 2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HISTORY AND RELATED DISCIPLINE.
Historical sociology now became a new branch of Sociology which depends on history. Similarly Sociological history is another specialized subject which based on both the Sciences.
- The Relationship of Sociology with Other Social Sciences
But in spite of the above close relationship and inter-dependence both the sciences differ from each other from different angles which are described below. But history deals with the past events and studies the past society.
Sociology includes history within its scope. Sociology is mother of all social sciences. Hence it has close relationship with all social sciences and so also with Economics. The relationship of sociology with economics is very close, intimate and personal. There exists close relationship between these two because economic relationships bear a close relation to social activities and relationships.
Likewise social relationships are also affected by economic relationships. Economic activities to a great extent are social activities. Hence both are mutually related.
It is concerned with the association of human beings. But Economics deals with economic activities of man. It is a science of wealth and choice. It also studies the structure and functions of different economic organizations like banks, markets etc.
History and Related Disciplines | Adejoke-Rafiat Adetoro - hidden-facts.info
It is concerned with the material needs of man as well as his material welfare. However, there exists a great deal of inter-relationship between these two sciences. Both are interdependent and inter-related with each other. Their inter-relationships are as follows: Economics takes the help of Sociology. For its own comprehension economics takes the help of sociology and depends on it. Economics is concerned with material welfare of man which is common welfare.
Economic welfare is a part of social welfare. For the solution of different economic problems such as inflation, poverty, unemployment etc.
At the same time society controls the economic activities of man. Economics is greatly benefited by the research conducted by Sociologists like Max-weber, Pareto etc. Some economists also consider economic change as an aspect of social change. Economic draws its generalization basing on the data provided by Sociology. Thus economics cannot go far or develop without the help of Sociology. Similarly Sociology also takes the help from economics. Economics greatly enriches sociological knowledge.
An economic factor greatly influences each and every aspects of social life. Knowledge and research in the field of economics greatly contributes to sociology.
Each and every social problem has an economic cause. For the solution of social problems like dowry, suicide etc. Sociologists take the help from economics.
Marx opines economic relations constitute the foundation of Society. Economic factors play a very important role in every aspect of our social life that is why Sociologists concerned with economic institutions.
For this reason Sociologists like Spencer, Weber, Durkheim and others have taken the help from economics in their analysis of social relationships. Thus both sociology and economics are very closely related with each other. There are some problems which are being studied by both sociologists and economists. Economic changes results in social changes and vice versa.
However, inspite of the above closeness, inter-relationship and inter-dependence both the sciences have certain differences which are described below: Hence it is closely related to other social sciences and so also with psychology. Sociology and Psychology are very closely interlinked interrelated and interdependent. Relationship between the two is so close and intimate that Psychologist like Karl Pearson refuses to accept both as special science.
Both depend on each other for their own comprehension. Their relationship will be clear if we analyze their inter-relationship and mutual dependency. Sociology is a science of social phenomena and social relationship. It is a science of social group and social institutions. It is a science of collective behavior. It studies human behavior in groups. But psychology is a science of mind or mental processes. It is a science of human behavior. It analyses attitudes, emotions, perception, process of learning and values of individuals and process of personality formation in society.
Sociology receives help from Psychology. There are many psychologists like Freud, MacDougal and others who have enrich Sociology in many respects. They opines that the whole social life could be reduced finally to psychological forces. Each and every social problems and social phenomenon must have a psychological basis for the solution of which sociology requires the help from psychology. A new branch of knowledge has developed with the combination of sociology and psychology which is known as social psychology.
Similarly, psychology depends on Sociology to comprehend itself fully. Psychology also requires help from sociology in many cases. As human mind and personality is being influenced by social environment, culture, customs and traditions hence psychology take the help from Sociology to understand this.
PUC History: HISTORY AND OTHER DISCIPLINES:
To understand human nature and behaviour properly psychology depends on sociology. There are many Psychological problems which must have a Social Cause. The positivist appeal of science was to be seen everywhere. The rise of the ideal of science in the 17th century was noted above.
The 19th century saw the virtual institutionalization of this ideal—possibly even canonization. The great aim was that of dealing with moral values, institutions, and all social phenomena through the same fundamental methods that could be seen so luminously in such areas as physics and biology. Prior to the 19th century, no very clear distinction had been made between philosophy and science, and the term philosophy was even preferred by those working directly with physical materials, seeking laws and principles in the fashion of Sir Isaac Newton or William Harvey —that is, by persons whom one would now call scientists.
In the 19th century, in contrast, the distinction between philosophy and science became an overwhelming one. Virtually every area of human thought and behaviour was considered by a rising number of persons to be amenable to scientific investigation in precisely the same degree that physical data were. More than anyone else, it was Comte who heralded the idea of the scientific treatment of social behaviour.
His Cours de philosophie positive published in English as The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comtepublished in six volumes between andsought to demonstrate irrefutably not merely the possibility but the inevitability of a science of humanity, one for which Comte coined the word sociology and that would do for humans as social beings exactly what biology had already done for humans as biological animals.
But Comte was far from alone. There were many in the century to join in his celebration of science for the study of society. Roger-Viollet Humanitarianismthough a very distinguishable current of thought in the century, was closely related to the idea of a science of society. For the ultimate purpose of social science was thought by almost everyone to be the welfare of society, the improvement of its moral and social condition.
Humanitarianism, strictly defined, is the institutionalization of compassion; it is the extension of welfare and succour from the limited areas in which these had historically been found, chiefly family and village, to society at large. One of the most notable and also distinctive aspects of the 19th century was the constantly rising number of persons, almost wholly from the middle class, who worked directly for the betterment of society. In the many projects and proposals for relief of the destituteimprovement of slums, amelioration of the plight of the insane, the indigentand imprisoned, and other afflicted minorities could be seen the spirit of humanitarianism at work.
All kinds of associations were formed, including temperance associations, groups and societies for the abolition of slavery and of poverty and for the improvement of literacy, among other objectives. Humanitarianism and social science were reciprocally related in their purposes.
All that helped the cause of the one could be seen as helpful to the other. The third of the intellectual influences is that of evolution. It affected every one of the social sciences, each of which was as much concerned with the development of things as with their structures. An interest in development was to be found in the 18th century, as noted earlier. But this interest was small and specialized compared with 19th-century theories of social evolution.
But it is very important to recognize that ideas of social evolution had their own origins and contexts. The important point, in any event, is that the idea or the philosophy of evolution was in the air throughout the century, as profoundly contributory to the establishment of sociology as a systematic discipline in the s as to such fields as geologyastronomy, and biology.
Evolution was as permeative an idea as the Trinity had been in medieval Europe. The first was the drive toward unification, toward a single, master social science, whatever it might be called. The second tendency was toward specialization of the individual social sciences. If, clearly, it is the second that has triumphed, with the results to be seen in the disparatesometimes jealous, highly specialized disciplines seen today, the first was not without great importance and must also be examined.
What emerges from the critical rationalism of the 18th century is not, in the first instance, a conception of need for a plurality of social sciences, but rather for a single science of society that would take its place in the hierarchy of the sciences that included the fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology. When, in the s, Comte wrote calling for a new science, one with humans as social animals as its subject, he assuredly had but a single encompassing science of society in mind—not a congeries of disciplines, each concerned with some single aspect of human behaviour in society.
The same was true of Bentham, Marx, and Spencer. All of these thinkers, and there were many others to join them, saw the study of society as a unified enterprise. They would have scoffed, and on occasion did, at any notion of a separate economics, political science, sociology, and so on.
Society is an indivisible thing, they would have argued; so, too, must be the study of society. It was, however, the opposite tendency of specialization or differentiation that won out. No matter how the century began, or what were the dreams of a Comte, Spencer, or Marx, when the 19th century ended, not one but several distinct, competitive social sciences were to be found.
Aiding this process was the development of the colleges and universities. With hindsight it might be said that the cause of universities in the future would have been strengthened, as would the cause of the social sciences, had there come into existence, successfully, a single curriculum, undifferentiated by field, for the study of society. What in fact happened, however, was the opposite.
The growing desire for an elective system, for a substantial number of academic specializations, and for differentiation of academic degrees contributed strongly to the differentiation of the social sciences. This was first and most strongly to be seen in Germanywhere, from about on, all scholarship and science were based in the universities and where competition for status among the several disciplines was keen.
But by the end of the century the same phenomenon of specialization was to be found in the United States where admiration for the German system was very great in academic circles and, in somewhat less degree, in France and England.
Admittedly, the differentiation of the social sciences in the 19th century was but one aspect of a larger process that was to be seen as vividly in the physical sciences and the humanities. No major field escaped the lure of specialization of investigation, and clearly, a great deal of the sheer bulk of learning that passed from the 19th to the 20th century was the direct consequence of this specialization.
Economics It was economics that first attained the status of a single and separate science, in ideal at least, among the social sciences. Hence the emphasis upon what came to be widely called laissez-faire.
If, as it was argued, the processes of wealth operate naturally in terms of their own built-in mechanisms, then not only should these be studied separately but they should, in any wise polity, be left alone by government and society. There were almost from the beginning, however, economists who diverged sharply from this laissez-faire, classical view.Form1 Geography Lesson2 Relationship between geography and other subjects
In Germany especially there were the so-called historical economists. They proceeded less from the discipline of historiography than from the presuppositions of social evolution, referred to above.
Such figures as Wilhelm Roscher and Karl Knies in Germany tended to dismiss the assumptions of timelessness and universality regarding economic behaviour that were almost axiomatic among the followers of Smith, and they strongly insisted upon the developmental character of capitalism, evolving in a long series of stages from other types of economy.
Also prominent throughout the century were those who came to be called the socialists. They too repudiated any notion of timelessness and universality in capitalism and its elements of private property, competitionand profit.
Political science Rivalling economics as a discipline during the century was political science. If the Industrial Revolution seemed to supply all the problems frustrating the existence of a stable and humane society, the political-democratic revolution could be seen as containing many of the answers to these problems.
It was the democratic revolution, especially in France, that created the vision of a political government responsible for all aspects of human society and, most important, possessed the power to wield this responsibility.
This power, known as sovereigntycould be seen as holding the same relation to political science in the 19th century that capital held to economics. To a very large number of political scientists, the aim of the discipline was essentially that of analyzing the varied properties of sovereignty.
There was a strong tendency on the part of such political scientists as BenthamAustinand Mill in England and Francis Lieber and Woodrow Wilson in the United States to see the state and its claimed sovereignty over human lives in much the same terms in which classical economists saw capitalism.
Among political scientists there was the same historical-evolutionary dissent from this view, however, that existed in economics. Hence the strong interest, especially in the late 19th century, in the origins of political institutions in kinship, village, and casteand in the successive stages of development that have characterized these institutions. In political science, as in economics, in short, the classical analytical approach was strongly rivalled by the evolutionary.
Both approaches go back to the 18th century in their fundamental elements, but what is seen in the 19th century is the greater systematization and the much wider range of data employed. Cultural anthropology In the 19th century, anthropology also attained clear identity as a discipline. Strictly defined as the science of humankind, it could be seen as superseding other specialized disciplines such as economics and political science.
In practice and from the beginning, however, anthropology concerned itself overwhelmingly with small-scale preindustrial societies. On the one hand was physical anthropology, concerned chiefly with the evolution of humans as a biological species, with the successive forms and protoforms of the species, and with genetic systems.
On the other hand was social and cultural anthropology: Culture, as a concept, called attention to the nonbiological, nonracial, noninstinctual basis of the greater part of what is called civilization: From cultural anthropology more than from any other single social science has come the emphasis on the cultural foundations of human behaviour and thought in society.
Scarcely less than political science or economics, cultural anthropology shared in the themes of the two revolutions and their impact on the world. If the data that cultural anthropologists actually worked with were generally in the remote areas of the world, it was the effects of the two revolutions that, in a sense, kept opening up these parts of the world to more and more systematic inquiry.
Social scientists do sometimes go the archives, but a large portion of any historical project is invariably based on secondary sources. Again, this is because if you want to explain an event, you prioritize depth of knowledge. To develop a theory, you prioritize breadth of knowledge. Embracing Complexity versus Searching for the Central Tendency: Historians, with their depth of knowledge, know how facile it is to make generalizations about a topic.
Try telling a historian that Democrats in the s were the party of the common man, and they'll tell you "Well this prominent guy was a banker, and this party leader was a manufacturer, and in fact if you look at the Louisiana Party.
To atone for doing violence to the irreducible complexity of social reality, sociologists must pay ritual obeisance to our patron saint, Max Weberwhose concept of the ideal type absolves us of our sins. In closing, let me say that I love historians but that there will always be some amount of mutual incomprehension between them and social scientists.