The Relationship of Sociology with Other Social Sciences
close and intimate relationship between Sociology and other social sciences. For our precise .. Of the four branches of anthropology, Sociology is the most. the increasingly intimate relationship be- tween sociology and anthropology. The in- fluence of anthropological methods, con- cepts, and even theories has. As a mother of social sciences Sociology has close and intimate relationship .. a very close and intimate relationship between Sociology and Anthropology.
Howard to remark that History is past Sociology, and Sociology is present History. But inspite of their close relationship the two subjects are distinct, i History is concrete and sociology is abstract.
There is much in history that has no direct relation to Sociology, while there is much in Sociology which is not in history.
The sociologist would try to find out the common aspects of the events recorded by historians and then to generalise, ii Sociology and History have different attitudes. History would deal with events in all their aspects while sociology would study them from the viewpoint of social relationship involved.
For example, the historians would describe a war, all the circumstances accompanied with it, while sociologists would try to understand a war as a social phenomenon.
They will study its impact on the lives of the people, their social institutions, etc. Sociology and Political Science: Sociology and political science have been very closely related to each other till recently. The two subjects have even now much in common. Political science is a branch of social science dealing with the principles of organisation and government of human society. In other words, Political Science deals with the social groups organised under the sovereign of the state.
It is rightly said that without the sociological background the study of political science will be incomplete. The forms of government, the nature of governmental organs, the laws and sphere of the state activity are determined by the social process. The special study of political life of the society is indispensable for the complete study of the society as a whole.
According to Comte and Spencer, there is no difference whatsoever between the two. Catlin has remarked that political science and sociology are two facets or aspects of the same figure. In the opinion of F. Eminent sociologists like Durkheim, Malinowski, Parsons, Spencer, Mertons, Max Weber and Leryhaix made important contributions in the field of political science.
Political Sociology is an inter-disciplinary science which seeks to combine sociological and political approaches. The two subjects are, however, different from each other. The scope of Sociology is much wider than that of Political Science.
Political Science studies the state and government only, whereas sociology studies all the social institutions. Sociology being the science of society it deals with man in all his associated processes, while Political Science being the science of the political society is concerned with only one form of human association. Political science is a special science. Political organisation is a special kind of social organisation and that is why political science is a special science while sociology is a general science.
Political Science deals with organised communities only. Sociology deals with both organised and unorganised communities whereas Political Science is concerned only with organised communities.
As such sociology is prior to Political Science. Unlike Political Science which treats only conscious activities of man, sociology treats unconscious activities of man also. Political Science starts with the assumption that man is a political being; sociology goes behind this assumption and tries to explain how and why man became a political being.
Sociology and Anthropology lie so close together that they often appear as two names for the same field of enquiry. Thus according to its etymological meaning, Anthropology is the study of man as such that is a study of the development of human race.
Anthropology has thus a very wide field of study. Anthropology has been divided into three divisions: Anthropology thus devotes its attention entirely to the study of man and his culture as they developed in times long past. Sociology, on the other hand, studies the same phenomena as they exist at present. In fact the historical part of Sociology is identical with Cultural Anthropology. Anthropology has contributed substantially to the study of Sociology.
Sociology has to depend upon Anthropology to understand the present day social phenomena from our knowledge of the past. Sociology has borrowed cultural area, cultural traits, interdependent traits, cultural lag and other conceptions from social anthropology on whose basis cultural sociology has developed.
The discoveries of Linton and Kardiner have influenced sociology in no small degree. From their researches it is evident that each society has its own culture and the personality of its members is moulded according to it in their infancy.
Likewise the research done by Malinowski has proved valuable to sociology. He has given a functional view point to the study of culture.
The researches of Franz Boas and Otto Kineberg have proved that there is no co-relation between anatomical characteristics and mental superiority. The concept of racial superiority has been disproved by anthropology. Karoeber has called sociology and anthropology twin sisters. Evans Pritchard considers social anthropology to be a branch of sociology.
In the same way, some of the conclusions drawn by sociologists have also helped the anthropologists. For example, anthropologists like Morgan and his followers have come to the conclusion regarding the existence of primitive communism from the conception of private property in our modern society.
Relationships - Sociology - Oxford Bibliographies
It studies its political and legal problems, family organisation, religion, art, industries and occupations etc. Sociology studies only its particular aspects.
The focus of sociologist is social interaction. Secondly, Anthropology studies cultures which are small and static while Sociology studies civilizations which are vast and dynamic. Thirdly, Anthropology and Sociology are separate sciences as the former is the study of man and his culture as they developed in times long past; while the latter studies the same phenomena as they are at present.
It does not make any suggestions for the future.
The fact that society is influenced by economic factors while economic processes are largely determined by the social environments clearly proves that the relation between Sociology and Economics is very intimate. Economics is defined as a study of mankind in ordinary business of life or to be more exact, it is the science of wealth in its three phases of production, distribution and consumption. It is thus concerned with that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with use of material requisites of well being.
Economics, in other words, is concerned with material welfare of the human beings.
But economic welfare is only a part of human welfare and it can be sought only with the proper knowledge of social laws. Economics cannot go far ahead without the help of sociology and other social sciences. For instance, in order to solve economic problems of unemployment, poverty, business cycle or inflation an economist has to take into consideration the social phenomena existing at the particular time. Sociology is thus of considerable help to economics in providing specific data into which economic generalisations may be fitted.
The Relationship of Sociology with Other Social Sciences
Economic and social order is inextricably interwoven. Many of the problems of sociology and economics are common. The problems of population growth, environmental pollution, slum clearance, child and family welfare, and urbanisation are as much economic as sociological which cannot be solved unless and until the social attitudes of the people are given due consideration. The theories of socialism, communism, democracy and welfare state are nothing but the theories of social reorganisation. Economic forces play a very important role in every aspect of our social life.
It is for this reason that sociologists have been concerned with economic institutions. The earliest sociologists like Spencer have included the economic activity of man in their analysis of social relationships.
Sumner, Durkheim and Weber also approached the study of society through its economic institutions. Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels had gone to the extent of asserting that economic factor was the sole motive force of the society. Since their times, economic determination Economic conditions have a determining influence over the social has found a significant place in the theories of many social scientists seeking to explain this vital phenomenon.
In spite of inter-dependence of these two sciences, as explained above they are quite distinct from each other, i the field of sociology is wider, firstly, the field of Economics is restricted only to the economic activities of man whereas Sociology is concerned with all the relationships which are not simply economic but social.
The scope of Sociology is thus much wider than that of economics; ii Sociology has a comprehensive viewpoint. But a sociologist, on the other hand, is primarily interested in the social aspects of economic activities rather than in the mechanism of production and distribution, iii Economics is much older than Sociology.
Thirdly, economics is much older a science than sociology. Though philosophers like Comte would subordinate economics to, and include it in sociology. Sociology is a science of only recent growth whereas economics has attained an advanced degree of maturity. It has been realised from ancient times that Geography has a great impact on human society, the influences of geographical conditions on human society are predominant and that there is a close relationship between physical conditions and social phonemena.
Geographical environment as defined by MacIver consists of those conditions that nature provides for man. It includes the earth surface with all its physical features and natural resources, the distribution of land and water, mountain and plains, minerals, plants and animals, the climate and all the cosmic forces, gravitational, electric, radiational that play upon the earth and affect the life of man. There is no denying the fact that there is a correspondence between physical conditions and modes of living e.
One can also observe the differences between the modes and exigencies of human life in mountains, in the plains and by the seaboard, in the desert and in the forest. Some of the thinkers have attributed a dominant role to Geography, regarding it as the primary determinant of wealth and health, the size or energy of populations, of their customs and social organisations, of their creeds and philosophies. One of the pioneers of modern social geography was a Frenchman Le Play who in his important study of European workers had developed the thesis that locality determines work and thus has a great influence on the economic organisation of the family and this social institutions of the people.
The emphasis of Le Play and his successors upon the relationship between the characteristics of the physical environment and social development has influenced the sociologists at other places also.
They have made us aware of the inter-play between climate and topography and the various aspects of the physical environment on the one side and the political and economic, technological and cultural phenomena on the other. But we should not lay too much stress on geographical factors determining the social life in a particular region.
It is not necessary that similar environments should produce similar cultures. We have even in primitive societies different occupations being followed by different people in the same regional setting. The geographical environments alone never explain the rise of a civilization. The growth of civilization changes and minimises the direct influence of local geographical conditions. Many of the occupations of the modern man have no relation to the geographical environments.
As the social heritage grows the immediate geographical factors would assume a less determinant role in the interpretation of society.Theories About Family & Marriage: Crash Course Sociology #37
Man has assumed great control over natural factors so that the overall influence of geographical forces is no longer overpowering. The fact, however, remains that geography is a contributing, if not a determining, factor of human progress and, therefore, the relation between Sociology and Geography is intimate. This tendency creates many problems in the developing countries, as most of the people of such developing countries are poor and illiterate. They are not aware about the dangerous impact of unsafe physical or sexual relationship.
So the people of developing countries like Bangladesh are very vulnerable in the aspect of erosion of values and spreading different types of sexually transmitted diseases. He explained that how intimacy or the system of intimate relationships is gradually changing from one social stage to another.
Intimate relationship generally denotes an interpersonal relationship particularly between male and female that involves physical, psychological and emotional intimacy. Giddens tries to explore and explain all these aspects of intimacy in his book.
In human relationships, the meaning and level of intimacy varies within and between relationships. In anthropological research, intimacy is considered the product of a successful seduction, 2 a process of rapport building 3 that enables parties to confidently disclose previously hidden thoughts and feelings.
To sustain intimacy for any length of time requires well-developed emotional and interpersonal awareness.
Transformation of intimacy and its impact in developing countries
Intimacy requires an ability to be both separate and together participants in an intimate relationship Aronson, Scholars classified intimacy in four types: Physical, emotional, cognitive and experiential. Emotional intimacy, particularly in sexual relationships, typically develops after a certain level of trust has been reached and personal bonds have been established.
Cognitive or intellectual intimacy takes place when two people exchange thoughts, share ideas and enjoy similarities and differences between their opinions. If they can do this in an open and comfortable way, they can become quite intimate in an intellectual area.
Experiential intimacy is when two people get together to actively involve themselves with each other, probably saying very little to each other, not sharing any thoughts or many feelings, but being involved in mutual activities with one another. Imagine observing two house painters whose brushstrokes seemed to be playing out a duet on the side of the house.
They may be shocked to think that they were engaged in an intimate activity with each other, however from an experiential point of view, they would be very intimately involved Healthy Place, But all these types of intimacy or intimate relationships are not equally existed in all stages of our social system. These are gradually changed from one era to another.