Positivism and Sociology: Theory and Reality - Essay Example

?Positivism and Sociology: Theory and Reality By: of Introduction “By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the social world was increasingly viewed by Enlightenment thinkers as part of the natural universe; and indeed, many were coming to the conclusion that the natural and social sciences could be used to promote human progress” (Turner, 2009, p.30). This paper aims to examine the contribution of 19th century positivism to social science in the light of two main figures, i.e. Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. In doing so, I will divide this paper into three main parts. First, I will discuss the main features of 19th century positivism with particular reference to Auguste Comte. Next, I will deal with Comte and Herbert Spencer’s views concerning the relationship of natural science to social science. Here, I will also discuss their views about social scientific methods. Finally, I will end this paper by reviewing the main points of this paper in relation to Comte and Spencer’s view on social development and the place of social science. 19th Century Positivism Positivism was largely influenced by the Enlightenment’s goals. Science procured a major role in the potential of society to progress. Human reason was the primary means of attaining truth, guided by scientific knowledge. Hence, scientific principles and methods contributed to the satisfaction of human needs, with human beings as the center of scientific progress and evolution. Herein is the birth of positivism. Positivism was a movement initiated by Auguste Comte. “A distinctive feature of Positivism ... is the proposition of describing the history of human thought in evolution, in three well-defined states” (Marsonet, n.d.). This is better known as the law of three stages, composed of the theological-military, metaphysical-judicial, and scientific-industrial (Turner, 2009, p.31). In short, Comte viewed the evolution of the human mind through three stages: the theological, the metaphysical and the scientific. The theological stage is considered to be the most primitive stage. This can be characterized with reference to the Middle Ages. Here, “the mind found a supernatural explanation for the origins and purpose of things, and society was ruled by priests” (Perry, 1993, p.248). On the other hand, the metaphysical stage is characterized by the age of Enlightenment. Here, “the mind tried to explain things through abstractions . . . that rested on hope and belief rather than on empirical investigation” (Perry, 1993, p.248). Finally, we reach the highest stage of the human mind, i.e. the scientific or positive stage. Here, “the mind breaks with all illusions inherited from the past, formulates laws based on careful observation of the empirical world, and reconstructs society in accordance with these laws” (Perry, 1993, p.248). Through the law of three stages, positivism or positive philosophy, aims to “establish a program for the new science of society with respect to theory, methods, substance and advocacy” (Turner, 2009, p.32). But how was this implemented? What are the main features of 19th century positivism? Positivism was largely influenced by empiricism. “Empiricism is often summarized using the following slogan: the only source of real knowledge about the world is experience” (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p.8). While empiricists challenge the doctrine of innate ideas, positivists deny innate ideas and believe that science can only study that which can be observed. Indeed, positivists argue that authentic knowledge is based solely on actual sense experience. “Such knowledge can only come from the use of strict scientific method, avoiding any form of metaphysical speculation” (Watkins, 2010, p.159). In relation to this, another defining characteristic of positivism is its claim that “knowledge comes through experience, especially sense experience” (Sheldon, 2001, p.237). This emphasizes the nature of positivist knowledge, i.e. objective and unbiased. Furthermore, like science, positivism is concerned with finding the basic components of physical reality and examining their relationships with one another. Thus, it is concerned with finding laws that are objectively true, verifiable and quantifiable. Furthermore the positivist approach focuses on the collection of empirical data, which can then be explained and predicted. Indeed, “positivists put a special emphasis on the symmetrical relationship between explanation and prediction” (Smith, 1998, p.103), for the predictable data enables scientists to measure empirical patterns that occur in nature. For positivism, “empirical regularities have the status of scientific laws” (Smith, 1998, p.101). Given the aforementioned empirical nature of positivism, it follows that its method is primarily inductive. The method of induction is used when inferences are confirmed “from particular observations in support of generalizations” (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p.42). In other words, since positivism builds upon the methods of natural science, its mode of verification and confirmation is always based on the empirical evidence and experimentation. Another characteristic feature of positivism is its closed system of analysis. In a closed system, variables that are being tested are excluded from all the external influences, which may interfere with the experiment. Here, scientists try to organize and record their experiments so that they are verifiable. “At the hear of this perspective is the positivist assumption that objective forces, detected by controlled scientific observation, can exert a direct influence on human activity” (Hassard, 1993, p.31). Thus, in a closed system, scientists will then be able to explain events beyond the experimental situation and formulate Scientific Laws. In turn, these Scientific Laws are applied in other similar situations. This leads us to naturalism in science. Comte, founder of sociology, aimed to unify the sciences by promoting the positivist tradition; he was concerned to use science for the good of human societies and to aid human progress. The idea here was that human beings were a part of the natural world and were subject to the same laws of process, adaptation and change. This method of analysis, as well as natural science as a whole, played a major role in its influence on social sciences due to the new ways of thinking about the natural and social world. But what is the relationship of natural to social science? Natural Science and Social Science In their quest to study natural phenomena, the methods of natural science have been adopted by social science. As a result, they advocate the use of quantitative methods; these quantitative methods in social science fall under positivism. For Comte, in order to constitute positivism, “it was necessary first, to complete the order of the natural sciences by demonstrating that social phenomena are part of the order of nature and that the same uniform manner of reasoning applies to all subjects that the human mind can study” (Lenzer, 2009, p.497). It is clear that Comte viewed natural science as a “means for human progress” (Turner, 2009, p.30). Thus, natural science is connected to social science in such a way that the former needs the latter for a complete understanding of reality. Comte thought that social phenomena, “just like natural phenomena, were subject to general laws that operated independently of individual will and consciousness” (Johnson and Duberley, 2004, p.20), and that could be discovered through social research. Thus, the social world is subject to the same causal laws of the natural world, and that by explaining the latter; we ought to have paved the way for explaining the former. It is in this regard the Comte thought that social science had to discover the laws of social phenomena, just as the natural sciences discovered laws in nature (Hallowell, 2007, p.68). This was, at least for Comte, the influence natural science had on social science. Eventually, social science, which he also called social physics, would be established as sociology. Given this, what were Comte’s views on methods in the social sciences? Comte outlined four methods for sociology, namely, observation, experimentation, comparison and historical analysis. Under the method of observation, Comte “draws upon Montesquieu’s idea of considering social phenomena as ‘things’ or as he phrased the matter, as ‘social facts’” (Turner, 2009, p.33); when observing social facts, “our observations stay away from biased moral judgment and, instead, focus on the statical and dynamical properties of social forces. Sociology was therefore, to be the science of social facts” (Turner, 2009, p.33). Under the method of experimentation, Comte had in mind “naturally occurring situations where a pathological force interrupts the normal flow of events” (Turner, 2009, p.33). Here, Comte makes an analogy, saying, “for just as the physician can learn about normal body functioning by observing disease, so the sociologist could understand the normal functioning of society by observing social pathologies” (Turner, 2009, p.33). Under the method of comparison, “it becomes possible to see what is similar and dissimilar and what is present and absent across various forms: and from these types of comparisons, knowledge about the fundamental properties of the social world of humans would be revealed” (Turner, 2009, p.33). And under the method of historical analysis, Comte’s law of three stages comes into light. For, this law emphasized the movement of thought from its primitive stage to its scientific or positive stage. Next we will examine Herbert Spencer’s positivist views on science. “The view that society should be organized in accordance with the laws of nature . . . was a conviction advanced consistently by Spencer in his subsequent writings. It was his aim to discover, within his evolutionary framework, natural scientific laws in accordance with which individuals could, without interference from the State, run their own affairs” (Holmes, 2002, p.2). A main contribution of Spencer’s work was “his tendency to see society as an organism” (Ritzer, 2008, p.36). Thus, we can already see how spencer viewed the relationship of natural to social science. For in his sociology, “spencer borrowed his perspective and concepts from biology” (Ritzer, 2008, p.36). For Spencer, sociology, like natural science, is an exact science. Social science, like natural science, grows during the greater part of their existence, such as that of a child to an adult, and a local town to that of a city. Also, social science becomes increasingly complex systems. Thus, just like natural science, “progressive differentiation of structure is accompanied by progressive differentiation of function” (Hutcheon, 1996, p.139). This view of social science is largely dependent on Spencer’s evolutionary theory. There are two major evolutionary perspectives in Spencer’s philosophy: “the first relates primarily to the increasing size of society” (Ritzer, 2008, p.37). Here, society evolves as it grows in size, for along with the increase in population comes a larger and more distinguished social structure. Another is “a theory of evolution from militant to industrial societies” (Ritzer, 2008, p.37). “Militant societies are defined by being structured for offensive and defensive warfare” (Ritzer, 2008, p.37), while an “industrial society is based on friendship, altruism, elaborate specialization, recognition for achievements, and voluntary cooperation among highly disciplined individuals” (Ritzer, 2008, p.37). Here, the government’s role is limited. Also, he conceived society as evolving towards an ideal and moral state, where survival of the fittest is applied. It is through social system this that social evolution, just like natural evolution, takes place. What social methods did he adopt in his sociological work? “The analysis of super-organic bodies was to be comparative, examining different types of societies and different species of animals that are organized in terms of a division of labor” (Turner, 2009, p.36). Moreover, Spencer viewed social scientific method as both inductive and deductive. “In Spencer’s sociology, then, deduction and induction are critical; they both can facilitate the formulation of general theoretical laws that on the one side, apply the first principles and, on the other, make them sufficiently concrete so as to explain the operative dynamics of a particular subject matter” (Turner, 2009, p.37). In addition, Spencer claims that social scientist “should not use prediction of events as the criterion of all sciences since in complex natural systems, such efforts become difficult” (Turner, 2009, p.37). Thus, Spencer’s positive philosophy advocates that “the data collected in science should be directly relevant to formulating or testing the laws on the timeless forces that govern the social universe” (Turner, 2009, p.37). Furthermore, Spencer emphasizes that the analysis and gathering of data should not be biased by various ideologies, which hinder the researcher from being objective. He further stressed the point that research ought to be continuous. “It is important to collect data over time in order to see processes unfold rather than to take only a cross-section of data that does not give a sense for process” (Turner, 2009, p.37). It is in this regard that for Spencer, having a genuine social science is possible. “Thus, in contrast to Comte who had only advocated a search for general laws and their application to the dynamics of social organisms, Spencer actually executed the strategy, generating some of sociology’s basic laws about the relations among the fundamental forces of human organization” (Turner, 2009, p.38). Social Development and The Place of Social Science Most of the discussion about social development has been subsumed in the previous section. Here, I will elucidate the main points. Based on the aforementioned discussion of Comte and Spencer’s positive philosophies, we can now understand how social development takes place. Comte thought that, social development had three stages, each with a social base, a characteristic kind of knowledge and a corresponding foundation for each kind of knowledge. He believed that society had finally reached the scientific or positive stage, given that sociology, the queen of all sciences, had been found. Thus, it would now be possible to create a unified system of scientific thinking that could be used to and rebuild society according to rational principles. With his hope of a unified scientific knowledge, social science or sociology could be used to promote a better and more rational society. On the other hand, Spencer rejected Comte’s idea that society passes through three stages of development. However, he accepted Comte’s idea that sociology should look for invariable laws. For, Spencer did not think that the main goal of laws was to help control or predict phenomena, but rather, to understand them. As discussed in the previous section, Spencer understands society to be driven by population growth, for this is what characterizes social development. Social science or sociology then ought to be integrated with all the other sciences into a unified system or body of knowledge. Positivism is a “belief that the world can best be understood through scientific inquiry” (Kendall, 2010, p.11), for both Comte and Spencer, the basis of all scientific inquiry is empirical evidence. Thus, the aim of science was to discover regularities, whether it be invariable laws or simple correlations between social phenomena (Stewart, et al., 2010, p.413). However, as to the place of social science, Comte’s views differed from Spencer’s. For Comte, sociology ought to be at the head of all scientific inquiry. Spencer on the other hand, believed that sociology ought to be based on principles derived from physics. Nevertheless, both maintained that social phenomena were to be the proper object of sociological inquiry. In conclusion, by reference to the historical development of 19th century positivism, we come to understand its contribution to the field of sociology. References Amsel, E., 2011. Lecture 17: empiricism, sensationalism, and positivism. Weber State University. [online]. Available at: [Accessed 4 March 2011] Godfrey-Smith, P., 2003. Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gordon, S., 1991. The history and philosophy of social science. London: Routledge. Hallowell, J. H., 2007. The decline of liberalism as an ideology. Vancouver: Simply Read Books Inc. Hassard, J., 1993. Sociology and organization theory: positivism, paradigms and postmodernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, B., 1994. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, vol. 24, no. ?, pp. 533–54. Hutcheon, P. D., 1996. Leaving the cave: evolutionary naturalism in social scientific thought. Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Johnson, P. and Duberley, J., 2004. Understanding management research: an introduction to epistemology. London: Sage. Kendall, D., 2010. Sociology in our times: the essentials. Belmont: Wadsworth. Lenzer, G., 2009. Auguste Comte and positivism. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Marsonet, M., n.d. Positivism, in G. Tanzella-Nitti, P. Larrey and A. Strumia, eds. Interdisciplinary encyclopedia of religion and science. [online]. Available at: [Accessed 5 Mar. 2011]. Perry, M., 1993. An intellectual history of modern Europe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ritzer, G., 2008. Sociological theory. Boston: McGraw Hill. Sheldon, G. W., 2001. Encyclopedia of political thought. New York: Facts on File, Inc. Smith, M. J., 1998. Social science in question. London: Sage. Stewart, J., Gapenne, O. and Di Paolo, E., 2010. Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press. Turner, J., 2009. The origins of positivism: the contributions of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. In: G. Ritzer and B. Smart, eds. Handbook of social theory. London: Sage, pp.30-42. Watkins, W. H. Response to Ann G. Winfield: the visceral and the intellectual in curriculum past and present. In: Curriculum studies handbook: the next moment. New York: Routledge, pp.158-168. Read More