Sociology: Are We Free? A Critique of the Social Sciences

by Tom Kando

Abstract: In this article, I plead for of a humanistic conception of sociology. Because of its positivist origins, Sociology has been desperate to emulate the physical sciences. I argue that modeling Sociology (as well as Psychology, Economics, Political Science and the other human disciplines) after the physical sciences is an error. Human behavior is value-based. Therefore, its study cannot avoid values. Nor should values be treated as facts. Post-modern Sociology does this when it becomes ideological. Humans define their environment, they are self-conscious, they react to knowledge, and they decide upon and choose courses of action. A humanistic sociology recognizes this and thus leaves room for freedom.

(Note: To professional sociologists, this article may read like a superficial rehash of a debate which has been raging in our field for over half a century, and more or less a statement of the Symbolic Interactionist position. But I wrote this for the lay public. Hopefully it will clarify for non-sociologists some of our field’s interesting aspects. You can consider this article an advertisement for Sociology.)

Knowledge

If we follow Descartes, we can say that all knowledge consists of two areas: knowledge about the physical world and knowledge about the (human) mind. We can call these the physical sciences and the human sciences - or the sciences and the humanities.

The physical sciences deal with stars, rocks, plants, animals, biology and the body, including the human body. The human disciplines deal with human behavior, thoughts, emotions, relationships, conflict, motivations, values, good and evil, beauty and ugliness, freedom and oppression, justice and injustice.


In the modern world, the University has supplanted the Church as the ultimate arbiter of “truth.” This is a good. For centuries, the Catholic Church had been the repository of valuable knowledge - for example the wisdom of Aristotle. Had it not been for the Church, the Dark Ages would have been even darker. However, by the time of the Renaissance, the Church had become the main obstacle to progress.

When it comes to climate change, evolution, vaccination and other physical issues, there are no alternatives to science and to knowledge emanating from universities. The natural sciences will undoubtedly continue to contribute to knowledge and to progress. MIT, Caltech, the medical schools, Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, and all the wannabe “universities” such as Cal. State are turning out physicians, engineers, nurses and biologists, and many of these people are helping to find a cure for cancer, to explore the planets and to make better computers.

But I have spent my life in the so-called Social Sciences. I say ‘so-called,’ because I do not believe that Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, Economics and their relatives are, strictly speaking, true “sciences,” despite their claim to that status. We could call the study of human behavior the “behavioral disciplines,” or the “social disciplines,” or the “human disciplines.” When it comes to the social sciences, the modern university is sometimes in danger of emulating the Medieval Church, becoming a source not of truth, but of mystification. I suppose that many other sectors are far more guilty of spreading disinformation - the media, organized religion, political parties, governments, even the arts. Still, the university bears some responsibility for spreading lies. This seems to be especially so in the social sciences.

When I chose to major in Sociology, what attracted me to it was the Sociological Perspective. My introduction to basic sociological concepts was a revelation. All of a sudden a light went on. Concepts like social structure, norm, role, culture and the entire reified sociological vocabulary helped me to suddenly see life in a fascinating new way. Regularities in human behavior emerged before my eyes. However, my sociological imagination became more and more frustrated. I felt increasingly that Sociology was moving in the wrong direction. Let me explain:

Comte, the Founders, Positivism

When the Frenchman Auguste Comte invented Sociology, he envisioned a new discipline which would combine the best of two worlds, namely (1) the subject matter of the humanities, and (2) the methods of the natural sciences. Hitherto, since Aristotle, there had been two broad areas of knowledge - science and humanities. Now there would be three. This was the Positivist project.

Positivism, as I use the term here, is the belief that human behavior is subject to the same scientific laws as is physical matter. Feeding on the prestige of physical science (Darwin for instance), the human disciplines - not only Sociology, but also Psychology, Economics, Political Science and other fields - were able to define themselves and to be accepted by the lay public (albeit in vulgarized form) as exact, quantitative, sciences essentially no different from biology and physics.

The goal of science, in its applied form, is to improve the human condition. For example, medicine is the applied branch of biology. When the behavioral disciplines advanced their claim to scientific status, society welcomed them with open arms, believing that they would replicate the success of biology and medicine. Just as those sciences had scored great victories in the fight against disease, so the social “sciences” would cure society’s illnesses.

Durkheim, Spencer and other pioneers of Sociology were influenced by Darwin and they sometimes applied biological concepts to their new discipline. There arose concepts such as social pathology, and thus the medicalization of human behavior, particularly deviant behavior. For example, crime was no longer a moral issue; it became an illness.

As a result of its positivist origins, Sociology became dominated by one type of Sociology, namely what the great American sociologist C. Wright Mills called abstract empiricism: It consists of using purely quantitative methods, to the point of fetishism, and being purely “empirical,”i.e. merely collecting observed data while neglecting meaningful reflection. This was one way in which Sociology disappointed me. leave comment here

To read the full version of this essay please go to: Sociology: Are We Free?