Submitted By: Maimoona Ishfaq

Course: Sociological Theory (4682)

Q.1: Explain the structure of Sociological theory. Discuss the role of early
thinkers in development of sociological theory.?
Ans. Sociological theory:
Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns, and they develop a theory in an
attempt to explain why things work as they do. A sociological theory seeks to explain social
phenomena. Theories can be used to create a testable proposition, called a hypothesis, about
society (Allan 2006).

Theories vary in scope depending on the scale of the issues that they are meant to explain.
Macro-level theories relate to large-scale issues and large groups of people, while micro-
level theories look at very specific relationships between individuals or small groups. Grand
theories attempt to explain large-scale relationships and answer fundamental questions such
as why societies form and why they change. Sociological theory is constantly evolving and
should never be considered complete. Classic sociological theories are still considered
important and current, but new sociological theories build upon the work of their
predecessors and add to them.

The Development of Sociological Theory:

Auguste Comte (1798–1857):

In 1838 Auguste Comte, a Frenchman, coined the term sociology, from the Latin socius
(companion or associate) and the Greek term logia (study of speech). Comte believed
sociology could unify other sciences and improve society. The French Revolution, which
began in 1789, greatly impacted Comte, as did the Industrial Revolution in Europe (1760-
1840). Questions related to economic class, social status, urbanization, and the dangers of
factory work raised new issues about society and social interaction.

Like other thinkers influenced by the Enlightenment (a philosophical movement of the 17th
and 18th centuries that emphasized reason and individualism), Comte believed society
developed in stages. In The Course in Positive Philosophy (1830–1842) and A General View
of Positivism (1848), Comte described The Law of Three Stages as follows:

1. theological stage where people took religious views of society

2. metaphysical stage where people understood society as natural (not supernatural)
3. the scientific or positivist stage, where society would be governed by reliable
knowledge and would be understood in light of the knowledge produced by science,
primarily sociology.

Comte originally studied to be an engineer, but later became a pupil of social philosopher
Claude Henri de Rouvroy Comte de Saint-Simon (1760–1825). They both thought that social
scientists could study society using the same scientific methods utilized in the natural
sciences.

Comte also believed in the potential of social scientists to improve society. He held that once
scholars identified the laws that governed society, sociologists could address problems such
as poor education and poverty.

Comte named the scientific study of social patterns positivism. He believed that using
scientific methods to reveal the laws by which societies and individuals interact would usher
in a new scientifically oriented “positivist” age of history. In this view, rational claims are
seen as scientifically and systematically verifiable, and are opposed to metaphysical and or
supernatural explanations. Although much of Comte’s Courses, a six-volume treatise, has
been discarded, particularly the highly simplified and under-examined approach to social
development, Comte’s lasting contribution to sociology has been his classification of
sciences. He presented a hierarchy of the sciences, with sociology at the top of a list that
begins with mathematics, and then moves to astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology. He
argued that the sciences increase in complexity and decrease in generality as you move up the
hierarchy, and that they build upon each of the foundational sciences below. Comte declared
sociology the most complex science for its attempt to integrate all of the other sciences in
order to explain natural laws of increasing complexity.

Harriet Martineau (1802–1876)

Harriet Martineau was a writer who addressed a wide range of social science issues. She was
an early observer of social practices, including economics, social class, religion, suicide,
government, and women’s rights. Her writing career began in 1831 with a series of stories
titled Illustrations of Political Economy, in which she tried to educate ordinary people about
the principles of economics.

Martineau was the first to translate Comte’s writing from French to English and thereby
introduced sociology to English-speaking scholars. She is also credited with the first
systematic methodological international comparisons of social institutions in two of her most
famous sociological works: Society in America (1837) and Retrospect of Western Travel
(1838). Martineau found the workings of capitalism at odds with the professed moral
principles of the United States; she identified faults of the free enterprise system in which
workers were exploited and impoverished while business owners became wealthy. She
further noted that the belief in all being created equal was inconsistent with the lack of
women’s rights. Much like Mary Wollstonecraft, Martineau was often discounted in her own
time by the male domination of academic sociology.

Karl Marx (1818–1883)

Karl Marx was a German social philosopher and economist. In 1848 he and Friedrich Engels
(1820–1895) coauthored The Communist Manifesto, which is one of the most influential
political manuscripts in history. It presents Marx’s theory of society, which differed from
what Comte proposed.
Marx rejected Comte’s positivism. He believed that societies grew and changed as a result of
the struggles of different social classes as they sought control over the means of production.
At the time he was developing his theories, the Industrial Revolution and the rise of
capitalism had led to great disparities in wealth between the owners of the factories and
workers.

Capitalism, an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of goods

and the means to produce them, grew in many nations.

Marx predicted that inequalities of capitalism would become so extreme that workers would
eventually revolt. This would lead to the collapse of capitalism, which would be replaced by
communism. Communism is an economic system under which there is no private or
corporate ownership of the means of production. Instead, economic resources are owned
communally and are distributed as needed. Marx believed that communism was a more
equitable system than capitalism.

While his economic predictions may not have come true in the time frame or in the locations
he predicted, Marx’s idea that economic, class-based conflict leads to changes in society is
still one of the major theories used in modern sociology.

Émile Durkheim (1858–1917)

Durkheim helped legitimize and define sociology as a formal academic discipline by

establishing the first European department of sociology at the University of Bordeaux in 1895
and by publishing his Rules of the Sociological Method (1895). In another important work,
Division of Labour in Society (1893), Durkheim articulated his theory of how societies
transform from a primitive state into a capitalist, industrial society. According to Durkheim,
people rise to their proper levels in society based on merit.

Durkheim believed that sociologists could study objective “social facts.” He also believed
that through such studies it would be possible to determine if a society was “healthy” or
“pathological.” He saw healthy societies as stable, while pathological societies experienced a
breakdown in social norms between individuals and society.

In 1897, Durkheim attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of his rules of social research
when he published a work titled Suicide. Durkheim examined suicide statistics in different
police districts to research differences between Catholic and Protestant communities. He
attributed the differences to socioreligious forces rather than to individual or psychological
causes.

Ida B. Wells-Barnett (1862-1931):

Ida B. Wells was born into slavery in Mississippi to parents were freed after the Civil War
and who went on to be politically active during Reconstruction (1865-1877). Wells’ parents
and younger brother died during a yellow fever epidemic in 1878 when she was just 16 years
old. She became a teacher in a Black elementary school (Wells attended some college prior to
her parents’ deaths) so that her five other siblings would not be separated and sent to foster
homes[1]. She relocated from Mississippi to Memphis, Tennessee to earn higher wages, and to
pursue further education.

In 1884, when Wells was just 24 years old, she refused to give up her seat in a first-class
ladies train car and was subsequently dragged from the car by the conductor and two men.
After being criminally charged, Wells fought the case all the way to the Tennessee Supreme
Court, based on the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which banned racial discrimination in public
accommodations. Although Wells lost after the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s
decision, her passion for equality and social justice only became stronger and more
influential. (Her direct action would be echoed by Rosa Parks’ civil disobedience 71 years
later.) In 1891, she was fired from her teaching job for criticizing the quality of Blacks-only
schools in Memphis and thus began a new career in journalism, starting at the Memphis Free
Speech and Headlight newspaper, which she later co-owned.

After the lynching of three of her friends in 1892, Wells became one of the nation’s most
vocal anti-lynching activists. She launched an extensive investigation of lynching and
published her findings in a pamphlet titled “Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in all its Phases,”
in 1892[2]. Wells exposed lynching as a barbaric practice of whites in the South used to
intimidate and oppress African Americans who represented economic and political
competition—and a subsequent threat to entrenched, hierarchical power—for whites. A white
mob eventually destroyed her newspaper office and presses, though this did not stifle her
voice or prevent her investigative reporting from finding a national audience, particularly
through a distribution network of Black-owned newspapers.

Wells was one of the founding members of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) in 1908, but her name was left off the list of founding members.
She also worked to have full inclusion for Black women in the Women’s Suffrage Movement
and participated in the 1913 Suffrage March in front of the White House. Although not
formally trained as an academic sociologist, Wells was the epitome of a public sociologist
because she examined racial and gender inequalities and made them public issues. In
Southern Horrors: Lynch Laws in All Its Phases she stated, “The people must know before
they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press” (1892). This forward-
thinking statement is one of her many legacies in sociology.

Max Weber (1864–1920):

Prominent sociologist Max Weber established a sociology department in Germany at the

Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich in 1919. Weber wrote on many topics, including
political change in Russia and social forces that affect factory workers. He is best known for
his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904). The theory that Weber sets
forth in this book, which describes how religious belief shapes work habits and thus affects
the larger social, political, and economic world, is still controversial. Some believe that
Weber argued that the beliefs of many Protestants, especially Calvinists, led to the creation of
capitalism. Others interpret it as simply claiming that the ideologies (i.e., belief systems) of
capitalism and Protestantism are complementary.
Weber believed that it was difficult, if not impossible, to use standard scientific methods to
accurately predict the behavior of groups. This view stood in opposition to positivism, which
applied systematic, scientific interpretive frameworks to social phenomena in the same sense
that one might apply them to natural phenomena. Instead, Weber proposed a more empathic
interpretive method that would take into account one’s own cultural biases and orientations.
With fellow sociologist Wilhelm Dilthey, Weber introduced the concept of verstehen, a
German word that means to understand in a deep, empathetic way. In seeking verstehen,
outside observers of a social world—an entire culture or a small setting—attempt to
understand it from an insider’s point of view.

In his book The Nature of Social Action (1922), Weber described sociology as striving to
“interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in
which action proceeds and the effects it produces.” He and other like-minded sociologists
proposed a philosophy of anti positivism whereby social researchers would strive for
subjectivity as they worked to represent social processes, cultural norms, and societal values.
This approach led to some research methods whose aim was not to generalize or predict (as is
traditional in science), but to systematically gain an in-depth understanding of social worlds.

The different approaches to research based on positivism or anti positivism are often
considered the foundation for the differences found today between quantitative sociology and
qualitative sociology. Quantitative sociology uses statistical methods such as surveys with
large numbers of participants. Researchers analyze data using statistical techniques to see if
they can uncover patterns of human behavior. Qualitative sociology seeks to understand
human behavior by learning about it through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and analysis
of content sources (like books, magazines, journals, and popular media).

Q2.: Write down the core assumptions of functionalism. Also discuss

Talcott Parson’s AGIL scheme with examples.
Ans: Core assumptions of Functionalism:

1. Humans have certain biological and psychological needs; many cultural traits exist to
fulfill the universal biological and/or psychological needs of individuals.
2. The main task of a culture is to maintain itself; many cultural traits have a part to play,
a job to do, a function to perform, in maintaining the entire society.
3. Each culture is a system of interrelated parts; change one part, and you may change
every other part.

Talcott Parson’s AGIL scheme:

Parsons' theory is a part of the paradigm of action theory. AGIL represents the functional
scheme for the whole general action system (including the human condition paradigm), so
that AGIL also defines the cultural system, the personality system etc. The social system
represent the integral part of the action system and is in this way only a subsystem within the
greater whole of systems. For example, the order of the cultural system vis-a-vis the AGIL
functional scheme is:
A: Cognitive symbolization. G: Expressive symbolization. I: Moral-evaluative symbolization.
L: Constitutive symbolization.
Society, in this paradigm, is defined as prototypical category of the social system, that meets
the essential functional prerequisites that define the system's universal attributes. AGIL
scheme outlines four systematic, core functions, that are prerequisites for any society to be
able to persist over time. It is a misconception that the system functions are "institutions,"
they exist on a much higher level of theoretical comprehension than institutions yet each
system is inhabited by institutions. Institutions have either universal implications or historical
implications depending on their form, nature and specification. The system shapes the
"nature" of its institutions—so that the political system is the orbit of "political institutions."
The stockmarket is common-sensically not regarded as a political institution yet the stock-
market might have political functions (which is a different analytical issue).
AGIL is an acronym from the initials of each of the four systemic necessities. The AGIL
system is considered a cybernetic hierarchy and has generally the following order L-I-G-A,
when the order is viewed from an "informational" point of view; this implies that the L
function could "control" or define the I function (and the I the G and so on) approximately in
the way in which a computer-game-program "defines" the game. The program does not
"determine" the game (which actual outcome would depend on the input of the player, that
was what Parsons in a sense called the voluntaristic aspect of action) but it "determined" the
logical parameter of the game, which lies implicit in the game's concrete design and rules. In
this way, Parsons would say that culture would not determine the social system but it would
"define it." The AGIL system had also an energy side (or a "conditional" side), which would
go A-G-I-L. So that the Adaptive level would be on the highest level of the cybernetic
hierarchy from the energy or "conditional" point of view. However, within these two reverse
sequences of the hierarchy Parsons maintained that in the long historical perspective, a
system which was high in information (that is, a system that followed the L-I-G-A sequence)
would tend to prevail over system which was high in energy. For example in the human
body, the DNA is the informational code which will tend to control "the body" which is high
in energy. Within the action system, Parsons would maintain that it was culture which was
highest in information and which in his way was in cybernetic control over other components
of the action system, as well as the social system. However, it is important to maintain that all
action systems (including social systems) are always depending on the (historically specific)
equilibrium of the overall forces of information and condition, which both shape the outcome
of the system. Also it is important to highlight that the AGIL system does not "guarantee"
any historical system survival; they rather specify the minimum conditions for whether
societies or action systems in principle can survive. Whether a concrete action system survive
or not is a sheer historical question.

• Adaptation, or the capacity of society to interact with the environment. This includes,
among other things, gathering resources and producing commodities to social
redistribution.
• Goal Attainment, or the capability to set goals for the future and make decisions
accordingly. Political resolutions and societal objectives are part of this necessity.
• Integration, or the harmonization of the entire society is a demand that the values and
norms of society are solid and sufficiently convergent. This requires, for example, the
religious system to be fairly consistent, and even in a more basic level, a common
language.
• Latency, or latent pattern maintenance, challenges society to maintain the integrative
elements of the integration requirement above. This means institutions like family and
 school, which mediate belief systems and values between an older generation and its
successor.[2]
These four functions aim to be intuitive. For example, a tribal system of hunter-gatherers
needs to gather food from the external world by hunting animals and gathering other goods.
They need to have a set of goals and a system to make decisions about such things as when to
migrate to better hunting grounds. The tribe also needs to have a common belief system that
enforces actions and decisions as the community sees fit. Finally, there needs to be some kind
of educational system to pass on hunting and gathering skills and the common belief system.
If these prerequisites are met, the tribe can sustain its existence.

Q3. Elaborate Merton’s theory of functionalism in detail.?

Ans. Merton’s theory of Functionalism:

Robert King Merton (1910-2003) is a self-styled “Durkheimian,” writing very much in the
functional tradition. In conceiving of society as a system it becomes natural to see it, like
other systems, as composed of parts that are interrelated and whose operations have
consequences on the whole. For example, when examining a simple system like the human
body it becomes readily apparent that the various organs are interrelated and impact the
overall health of the body. So is it with sociocultural systems. Functional analysis is a
consequence of thinking of society as a total system. Functionalism is the analysis of social
phenomena in terms of their effect on other phenomena and on the sociocultural system as a
whole.

The functional orientation has long been implicit in biology and physiology, as well as in the
social sciences of anthropology, economics, and sociology. Social scientists as diverse as
Malthus, Spencer, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber have each engaged in describing the
interrelationships between social phenomena. To take a famous example, Weber wrote of the
effect that a religious belief, what he called the “Protestant Ethic,” had on the rise of
capitalism. In a more explicit functional reference, Durkheim wrote of the “functions” of
criminal punishment in terms of its impact upon criminal behavior as well as its effect on
society as a whole (it serves to bind society together, making explicit the rules as well as
building consensus around these rules).

Robert K. Merton’s signal contribution to functionalism lies in his clarification and

codification of functional analysis. Specifically, Merton:

1. strips functionalism bare of the unexamined and insupportable assumptions of many

of its practitioners,
2. broadens the analysis to incorporate change as well as stability,
3. makes critical distinctions between functions and personal motives,
4. develops a descriptive protocol for functional analysis to guide the analyst in social
observations, and
 5. engages in the functional analysis of a variety of sociocultural phenomena to
demonstrate the utility of the perspective.

One assumption of traditional functionalism is that all widespread activities or items are
functional for the entire system. Functional unity, Merton stated, cannot be assumed; at most
it is an empirical question to be determined by social research. Further, it is possible for some
social or cultural items to have functions for some groups within a social system and not for
others. Instead, Merton offered a “provisional assumption” that widespread and persisting
sociocultural forms have a “net balance” of positive over negative consequences.

A second assumption of traditional functionalism is that all such prevalent activities and
cultural elements have sociological functions and are therefore necessary for the maintenance
of that system. Sociocultural systems may well have functional needs or prerequisites,
Merton asserted, but these needs may be met by a diversity of forms. Calling it a “major
theorem of functional analysis,” Merton asserted that “just as the same item may have
multiple functions, so may the same function be diversely fulfilled by alternative items”
(Merton 1948/1968, 87– 88).

One of the charges hurled against functional analysis in the 1940s and 1950s, and still echoed
today, is that functionalism is an inherently conservative perspective devoted to preserving
the status quo. Merton suggested that this charge is due to the fact that analysts, chiefly in
anthropology, have adopted these postulates that are untenable and unnecessary to the
functional orientation. To offset the focus on stability of traditional functionalism, Merton
introduced the concept of “dysfunction.” Whereas functions contribute to the adjustment of
the system, dysfunctions are those consequences that lead to instability and ultimately
change. The analyst must recognize, Merton asserted, that institutional structures and cultural
elements are interrelated and mutually supporting, and that the dominant orientation of
sociocultural systems is to stability. “As we survey the course of history, it seems reasonably
clear that all major social structures have in due course been cumulatively modified or
abruptly terminated. In either event, they have not been eternally fixed and unyielding to
change” (Merton 1948/1968, 95).

Merton insisted that social structures can only be analyzed in terms of both statics (stability)
and dynamics (change). The concept of dysfunction allows functional theory to focus on
change. The concept of dysfunction is based on tension, strain, or contradictions within
component elements of sociocultural systems. Dysfunctional elements create pressures for
change within the system (Merton 1948/1968, 176). Social mechanisms within the system,
including the interrelation and predominantly mutually supporting elements of the system,
operate to keep these strains in check, attempting to limit or minimize change of the social
structure. However, such mechanisms are not always effective, and the accumulation of stress
and resulting conflict often cause systemic change. One of the primary goals of functional
analysis is to identify these dysfunctions and examine how they are contained or reduced in
the sociocultural system as well as how they sometimes cause systemic or fundamental
change. Merton, 1948/1968, p. 107.

“Functions are those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or adjustment of
a given system; and dysfunctions, those observed consequences which lessen adaptation or
adjustment of the system.” Motive, on the other hand, is the subjective orientation of the actor
engaged in the behavior (Merton 1948/1968, 105). The failure to distinguish between
functions and motives is one of the chief sources of confusion for students of functionalism.
The observer Merton is implicitly referring to is the social scientist.

Q4: Discuss the contribution of Emile Durkheim in Sociological Theory.?

Ans: The Contribution of Emile Durkheim:

Durkheim (1858-1917) who devoted himself to the scientific study of sociology is widely
regarded as a pioneer in French sociology. It is known that Emile Durkheim inherits some of
Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer’s ideas and developed a systematic sociology both in
theory and methodology (Moñivas, 2007, p. 18). However, some of his works have been
questioned and criticized. In order to examine the contribution of Emile Durkheim to the
scientific study of society critically, one should consider Durkheim’s groundbreaking works
including: The Division of Labour (1893), Rules of Sociological Method (1895), and Suicide
(1897), all of which reflect a popular topic about individualism and a new social regulation in
modern industrial society (Barnes, 1920, p. 4).This essay will first describe Durkheim’s
notion of social facts which run through as a principle concept in his sociology. It will discuss
its characteristics as well as importance, and then introduce Durkheim’s methodological
approach to study social facts. The essay will move on to explore Durkheim’s contribution to
the social sciences through the use of examples which include his study of The Division of
Labour and Suicide. In addition, limitations will be mentioned when examine his works. This
essay will argue that in spite of some criticism both in theories and methods. The overall
contribution of Durkheim remains one of the peaks in modern sociology.
Second, social facts are external from individuals. Durkheim rejects Comte’s opinion to unify
social science with other scientific disciplines and try to treat it independently. He argues that
social facts are different from those assumptions in people’s mind and regular acting such as
drinking or sleeping in everyday life. As a result, one could distinguish a kind of conduct and
thought out of biology and psychology and classifies it into the particular category of
sociology
(Allan, 2005, p. 102). Casteel (2009) considered this as ‘an important issue to Durkheim’ that
‘complete Comte’s project and establish sociology as its own academic discipline’. Besides,
such externality also reflects on continuum and social facts are kind of objectivities that ‘prior
to individuals, but individuals are born into them and enact them’, thus social facts could be
observed and measured by statistics (McCormack, 1996). However, Lukes (1973, p. 11)
argues that Durkheim’s concepts about ‘externality’ is ambiguous. For example, ‘collective
consciousnesses’, which defined as a kind of similar and general perspectives and emotions
such as religion that could react on people in an indirectly way that without crystallized
forms. As is regarded as a social fact, it should be outside and independent from individuals.
Nevertheless, Durkheim explained that collective consciousnesses are derived from most
individuals in a society as a ‘group mind’ thus failed to support his notion about externality.

Thirdly, social facts have external coercions on individuals. It limits the choices of
individuals and if individuals try to go against them, they may likely to get resistance by
certain external constraint power such as public laws. Additionally, those coercive powers are
not only administered by social organization but also potential moral awareness which called
‘social currents’ (Harrington, 2005, p.28). However, Durkheim failed to distinguish the power
of coercion and prestige. For examples, the power of public law which administered by
institutions composed on individuals not only by means of the ‘acceptance of legitimacy’, but
also fear of sanction. On the other hand, beliefs may probably constraint individuals through
prestige or moral obligation (Lukes 1973, p. 13). Moreover, it is argued that Durkheim
neglects the reaction from individuals on social facts. Some critics who challenged
Durkheim’s theory believe that individuals could have the capability of creation on social
facts (Casteel, 2009).
In his book ‘The rules of Sociological Method’, Durkheim highlights the importance of study
social facts as well as the methods to study them. He accepts Comte’s idea that every social
phenomenon should be studied as a thing within the context of society. Due to its objectivity,
one could use positive approaches to observe, experiment, compare and analysis social
phenomenon in favour of finding the sociological laws, demonstrating the normal and
pathological as well as speculating the future development of society (Craib, 1997, p.30). In
Durkheim methodology of social science, he stresses the importance of looking at society
scientifically and discovering the formations (collective consciousnesses etc.) as well as
functions (social cohesion, change etc.) of social facts and how they have effects on
individuals within the scope of society (Brown, 2008). Emirbayer (1996) point out that
Durkheim has rejected metaphysics and uses ‘statistical methodology’ and ‘comparative
strategy’ (p. 264) to explore the correlations and casual relations among a number of
systematic and connected variables by collecting and interpreting evidences.

Durkheim has exercised his theory and methodology in two of his major works: ‘The
Division of Labor’ and ‘Suicide’. In ‘The Division of Labor’, Durkheim argues that there
have other approaches to integrate the society beside religion. One of them is the division of
labor, which he regarded as a powerful evidence of how social bonds transit from collective
consciousness to division of labor (Brown, 2008). Durkheim highlights the functional
interdependence of different individuals or units of the society which could be explained by
the term of ‘solidarity’ (Allan, 2005, p. 122). In the division of labor, he illustrates two kinds
of solidarity: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. He compared primitive society and
modern society using the organismic approach to explore how individuals maintain solidarity.
In primitive society where there is low productivity, individuals are automatically bond
together by the ‘collective consciousnesses’, an external uniform beliefs imposed on
individuals. On the other hand, organic solidarity exists in modern society. Spencer
enormously influenced Durkheim’s Division of Labor. Spencer believes that society was
stimulated by the fundamental force of population growth, which changes the way of society
to distribute production and wealth (Jones, 205, p. 345). Durkheim developed his
evolutionary and organism doctrine. According to Barnes (1920, p. 240), for Durkheim,
‘social evolution is characterized by a decrease in this repressive and mechanical type of
social cohesion or solidarity and by a corresponding increase in the development of individual
consciousness and personality’. That is, with a dense growth of population as the determinant
cause of raised intensive division of labor, individuals are more interdependent on diverse
contribution of others to perform a cooperatively function instead of the dominance of
collective conscience (Sirianni, 1984). Brown (2008) points out that ‘individualism becomes
more important than the collective’ to maintain social solidarity and represents the
characteristic of modern society.

In another significant book ‘Suicide’ Durkheim explained a popular moral phenomenon in the
19th society. Suicide can be defined as ‘every case of death which results directly or
indirectly from a positive or negative act, accomplished by the victim himself which he
knows must produce this result’ (Lukes, 1973, p. 202). Durkheim first considered suicide is a
private action but also as a matter of a social fact that exists external to each individual in the
society. Thus, the statistics of suicide could reflect diverse outside forces through which one
could access to the origins of the weakness of the society as well as solution to those problem.
Then he theoretically categorizes different but general social causes of individual suicide and
draws its effect by deduction approach. There are four forms of suicide respect to two levels
of imbalanced social forces: integration and moral rule (Thompson, 1982). Firstly, it is
regarded that egoistic suicide is the consequence of excessive individualism. In a deteriorated
society, individual who integrate less with others and act on their own interest is likely to act
egoistic suicide. By contrast, altruistic suicide is result from excessive conformity, Durkheim
stats that suicide becomes one’s obligation. It often happens in modern societies among
civilized people who sacrifice themselves in order to save others such as military (Durkheim,
1979). The other two kinds of suicide are classified into the group of moral regulation.
Durkheim again divided the situation that people tends to conduct anomic suicide into four
aspects of crisis: decline in the capability of social organizations to instruct people’s lives;
rapid social transformation; wealth no longer satisfied people and unbalanced marriage.
Finally, Durkheim view fatalistic as the product of rigid but strong moral norm which often
committed by slaves (Jones, 1986).
Q5. Define theory and discuss its basic building blocks.
Ans. Theory:

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what
they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should
be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central
elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the
more facts it explains—the stronger the theory.

Basic Building blocks of theory:

David Whetten (1989) suggests that there are four building blocks of a theory: constructs,
propositions, logic, and boundary conditions/assumptions. Constructs capture the “what” of
theories (i.e., what concepts are important for explaining a phenomenon), propositions
capture the “how” (i.e., how are these concepts related to each other), logic represents the
“why” (i.e., why are these concepts related), and boundary conditions/assumptions examines
the “who, when, and where” (i.e., under what circumstances will these concepts and
relationships work). Though constructs and propositions were previously discussed in
Chapter 2, we describe them again here for the sake of completeness.

Constructs are abstract concepts specified at a high level of abstraction that are chosen
specifically to explain the phenomenon of interest. Recall from Chapter 2 that constructs may
be unidimensional (i.e., embody a single concept), such as weight or age, or multi-
dimensional (i.e., embody multiple underlying concepts), such as personality or culture.
While some constructs, such as age, education, and firm size, are easy to understand, others,
such as creativity, prejudice, and organizational agility, may be more complex and abstruse,
and still others such as trust, attitude, and learning, may represent temporal tendencies rather
than steady states. Nevertheless, all constructs must have clear and unambiguous operational
definition that should specify exactly how the construct will be measured and at what level of
analysis (individual, group, organizational, etc.). Measurable representations of abstract
constructs are called variables. For instance, intelligence quotient (IQ score) is a variable that
is purported to measure an abstract construct called intelligence. As noted earlier, scientific
research proceeds along two planes: a theoretical plane and an empirical plane. Constructs are
conceptualized at the theoretical plane, while variables are operationalized and measured at
the empirical (observational) plane.

Propositions are associations postulated between constructs based on deductive logic.

Propositions are stated in declarative form and should ideally indicate a cause-effect
relationship (e.g., if X occurs, then Y will follow). Note that propositions may be conjectural
but MUST be testable, and should be rejected if they are not supported by empirical
observations. However, like constructs, propositions are stated at the theoretical level, and
they can only be tested by examining the corresponding relationship between measurable
variables of those constructs. The empirical formulation of propositions, stated as
relationships between variables, is called hypotheses. The distinction between propositions
(formulated at the theoretical level) and hypotheses (tested at the empirical level) is depicted
in Figure 4.1.

The third building block of a theory is the logic that provides the basis for justifying the
propositions as postulated. Logic acts like a “glue” that connects the theoretical constructs
and provides meaning and relevance to the relationships between these constructs. Logic also
represents the “explanation” that lies at the core of a theory. Without logic, propositions will
be ad hoc, arbitrary, and meaningless, and cannot be tied into a cohesive “system of
propositions” that is the heart of any theory.

Finally, all theories are constrained by assumptions about values, time, and space, and
boundary conditions that govern where the theory can be applied and where it cannot be
applied. For example, many economic theories assume that human beings are rational (or
boundedly rational) and employ utility maximization based on cost and benefit expectations
as a way of understand human behavior. In contrast, political science theories assume that
people are more political than rational, and try to position themselves in their professional or
personal environment in a way that maximizes their power and control over others. Given the
nature of their underlying assumptions, economic and political theories are not directly
comparable, and researchers should not use economic theories if their objective is to
understand the power structure or its evolution in a organization. Likewise, theories may have
implicit cultural assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to individualistic or collective
cultures), temporal assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to early stages or later stages of
human behavior), and spatial assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to certain localities but
not to others). If a theory is to be properly used or tested, all of its implicit assumptions that
form the boundaries of that theory must be properly understood. Unfortunately, theorists
rarely state their implicit assumptions clearly, which leads to frequent misapplications of
theories to problem situations in research.