The Basics of Theory (From the Notes of Justin Nicolas) A MUST READ!

Basics of Theory
Before discussing specific
theories,it is useful to
explore what social theory
is, and why it is essential
to sociology—as well as to
our understanding of
society.

What a Theory Explains
A theory explains what.
A sociological theory contains observations about the social world being a certain way. Details are provided to describe this widespread social condition, phenomenon, or way of being.

A theory explains who.
A sociological theory names the players involved—who makes this social condition happen, who enables it to persist, and who is affected by it.


A theory explains why.
A sociological theory offers an explanation for why this dimension of social life occurs, as well as why it persists over time.

A theory explains how.
A sociological theory describes the processes involved in this aspect of social life: What happens first, second, and so on.

A theory explains when.
A sociological theory offers a prediction as to what will or will not happen—and when it will or will not happen—given the various aspects of the social phenomenon being discussed.

In other words, a theory describes, explains, predicts. However, most people describe, explain and predict every day. Just about everyone discusses what they like or don’t like about the world they live in, and most everyone has some sort of belief about why things are the way they are, and what will happen in the future. So what makes a theory different from everyday talk?










Elements of a Theory
Theories emphasize consistent and predictable social patterns.
Theories strive to systematically generalize about the social world. We all make generalizations about people and society, but theories do this in a more consistent and in-depth manner. For example, a theorist might say something like: "Society is a three-level process. The A Level is all the individuals, the B Level is all the groups and organizations, and the C Level is the society at large. When A interacts with B, C is affected." This theorist would then employ this "ABC Model" to explain why something in society happened the way it did.


Theories have Propositions.
When you read theories in their original form, you will find that they often are expressed as propositions— generalized predictions about what will happen to A when confronted with more or less of B. For example, a theorist might assert: "The more powerful Level C is, the less powerful Level A is."

Theories utilize key terminologies.
The patterns and propositions of a theory are expressed through the consistent use of terminologies developed by the theorist to name and identify the various domains and components of society. These terminologies are intended to be both mutually exclusive and exhaustive. That is to say, what one term defines or describes is different from what another term describes or defines. Yet collectively, these terms are claimed to provide a full vocabulary for understanding whatever it is that the theory is trying to explain. For example, a theorist might state: "The C Level consists of culture, communication networks, normative processes, and economic production." The theorist would then describe, explain and predict about society by assigning all the parts of it to one of these four categories.

In Sociology, theories are purely sociological.

Different bodies of knowledge theorize on different aspects of life. In sociology, we focus on the social: How society and social groups form, persist, change, and how society and social groups cause events and patterns in people’s lives. In sociology, we do not look for biology, physiology, or an individual’s psychology to explain why things happen. We would not say: "He did what he did because of his male hormones," nor would we say it was because he was "crazy," or because of his left or right brain. We would look to see how social patterns compelled this person to do whatever he did. For example, we would analyze his life in terms of Levels A, B and C, as we outlined above. Other disciplines may well offer good information, but they aren’t sociology—they focus on other things.

However, the question could be raised: What is the use of these patterns, propositions, terminologies and this emphasis upon the social? Why do these tools help us to understand society?





Why Theories Matter

Theories get us thinking.

Most of us have fairly set ideas about life. We think we know the reason why a particular crime happened; we know exactly what is wrong with the world today, and how to fix it. By studying social theories, we expose ourselves to new ideas—things we haven’t thought of before. We often can see the social world differently for having studied a particular theory. We think to ourselves, "Oh, so that’s why that politician said what he did," or "So that’s why my mother said that to me when I was twelve."

Theories get us thinking critically.
Besides exposing us to new ideas, the study of social theory gets us to consider two or more different ideas at the same time. This is called critical thinking—the ability to consider more than one explanation at once. We can compare and contrast different theories, noting their similarities and differences. Good critical thinking skills sharpen our minds, and are important for both our professional and personal lives.

Theories are essential to sociological studies.

When a sociologist researches some segment of the human experience, he or she will employ a theory to frame the study. The theory might be used to generate research questions, inform the instrument of measure, or explain the findings. Sometimes, too, a new theory is generated as the result of a study. In fact, the theories you will find in a sociology textbook were all developed through the theorist’s empirical observations. He or she observed some aspect of social life, saw patterns, and theorized about it from there. Using a theory in a study helps keep the researcher from relying on his or her personal biases, or mere everyday "common sense." Theory helps to keep the study scientific and objective.

Using Theoretical terminologies is doing sociology.

Sociology "exists" only to the extent that we employ precise terminologies to describe a given phenomenon. If we merely say, "She did that because she was confused," or "Forty percent of the people surveyed answered 'yes' to Question Five," we are not doing sociology. Only when we explain the woman's actions in terms of a theoretical concept, or use theory to explain the answers to Question Five, are we exploring events sociologically.

So theories are building blocks of thought that make sociology possible. Before going on to explore the origins of sociological theory, there are a few more things to know about in the next section.

Other Things to Know
Sociological Theories Exist to Explain the Everyday World.

Theory is not about being so abstract and technical that the words have no meaning—it is created to help us gain more insights into the situations we face as individuals, and as a society. It helps us see why things are the way they are, and offers predictions about what might happen next, depending on what we do. If all you are doing is repeating back "meaningless" terms from a textbook, you aren’t understanding what a theory means. You understand a theory when you can give an example of it from the everyday world.

Sociological Theories Reflect the Differences of Opinion We Find in Society.

Since social theories are about explaining the world we live in, it only makes sense that different theories would represent the same debates we hear all the time—whether in dialog with ourselves, with other people, or watching the news on TV. Some theories suggest a match with moderate-to-conservative political viewpoints, while others are more in sympathy with a liberal-to-radical agenda. Still other theories offer more small-scale, individualized explanations that seem removed from politically-charged generalizations. In other words, theories reflect the world we live in, where some people are liberal, some are conservative, and some find these kinds of distinctions too broad and general.

Different Theories Focus on Different Aspects of the Social World.

If one theory explained everything, we would only need one theory. But such is hardly the case. It isn’t that one theory is "better" or "worse" than another, but that each theory focuses on an aspect of social life that no other theory addresses in quite the same way. This does not mean that the person who created the theory thinks that his or her ideas explain everything. It simply means that this particular aspect of the social world was what was most interesting to that theorist.

Different Theories Generate Different Research Questions.

Since theories explain the social world, sociological studies usually are framed by a particular theoretical perspective. If you want to figure out which theory you like "best," or which one you should use for a particular study, it goes back to what sort of question you are asking—what do you want to learn more about? If you apply Durkheim to your study, you will find yourself asking very different questions than if you applied Marx or Weber.

Sociology has Its Own Language.
In using precise terminologies to refer to specific social phenomenon, social theorists often assign new meanings to familiar words. For example, what a sociologist means by a word like "economy" might be highly specific—it may not mean what you assume it means. Not only that, but two different sociologists might assign two different meanings to the same word. For example, both Marx and Simmel refer to the "dialectic," but they use it differently.

Origins of Theory
Sociology came into being at a
particular junction in human history.
It asks certain basic questions about
social life, and much of its theory
reflects an historical debate that is
with us still.

The Advent of Sociology
Sociology, like other social sciences, came of age in Europe in the late 1800s, during the industrial revolution. Daily life in Europe had changed little since Feudal times. But suddenly, social life as it had been known was experiencing a dramatic upheaval.
We can take a look at several key social domains, and see how suddenly things were changing.

Geography:
Most people lived, worked and died on the farms they were born on. There were no automobiles, trains or planes; land and sea travel were costly, time-consuming, and risky. Moreover, there was no photography, so people literally could not see what other places looked like. People simply did not think in terms of ever going anyplace else. They did not ask themselves: Where do I want to live? Should I take that job that will force me to move to some other part of the country—or the world?
But with the advent of industry, new inventions changed transportation forever. Suddenly, people could travel to other places—even move to other places. And so they began to ask themselves new questions about where they wanted to live, and why.

Education:

Before the widespread use of printing presses, a book—and it would have been a single book— was written by hand. Most people never learned to read; the only book they knew of was the Bible, and they relied on their priest to tell them what it said and meant. Unless you were royalty or slated for the clergy, your "education" consisted mostly of learning the skills you would need to survive: farming, and home-related chores. Without access to formal schooling—or even a perceived need for it—people did not ask themselves: Do I want to go to college? Do I want to go to graduate school? What should I major in?
But with industrialization, many more books started getting written, published and distributed. Thus, there was a demand for more people to learn how to read—and so receive more formal education. Suddenly, people were asking questions about their education.

Work
Most people knew that they would always live on their farms, producing enough food and clothing to provide for their families. With no formal education, there was no formal career training. People believed that they were born into their station in life, in accordance with "God’s will." They did not ask themselves: What do I want to be when I grow up? Would I like to change careers or quit my job? How far do I want to go in my career?
But with the advent of industrialization, people could leave the farm to work in factories, and other places. They began to have more career choices, and so they began to wonder more about their professional lives.

Religion:
In Europe, most everyone belonged to the Church of Rome. It was taken for granted that people would be lifelong members of this one religion, and not question it. With so few people knowing how to read, there was little reason for anyone to do so. And so they did not ask themselves: Do I believe in God? What religion do I want to join—if any? Should I convert to my partner’s religion?
Only with the advent of mass-produced books (such as the Bible) did people learn to read for themselves, and some of them began questioning the religion they had been taught. This led to the Protestant Reform, along with many other expressions of dissatisfaction, doubt or disbelief in regard to religion.

Marriage:
A small percentage of people joined the Church, and so did not marry. Usually, by a young age they knew if this would be their fate, either by an inner "calling" or an arrangement made by their families. But the vast majority of people knew that if they lived to adulthood they would marry. Marriages were generally arranged, often to pay off debts or increase the family’s economic situation. Romantic love was not the point for most people; marriage was an inevitable matter of duty. If you were lucky, you were happy in your marriage, but if not, as long as you were having children and working hard to survive, little else mattered. Most people did not ask themselves: Do I want to get married, cohabitate, or live single? Do I want to leave my current partner for someone else? Am I straight or gay?
But with the advent of industrialization, people were reading, thinking, questioning, and moving away. The influence of the family lessened in some ways; there were fewer arranged marriages, and marriage by choice became the norm. And so people began asking more questions of themselves when it came to finding intimacy.

Children:
Little was known about disease and medicine, and so most children did not live to adulthood. Women simply kept getting pregnant—often eventually dying in childbirth—in the hopes of going full term with their latest pregnancy, and equally hoping that the child would survive. There were virtually no contraceptive devices available. And so people did not ask themselves: Do I want to have children—and if so, how many? What if my partner feels differently about children than I do? If I can’t have children, should I accept this, or seek out an alternative—and if so, which one?
But with the mass-production of contraceptive devices—which creates a market for new and better ones—people could assume more control over their reproductive capacities. And with the advent of important medical breakthroughs in industrialized countries, most babies—and mothers—survive childbirth. There are no longer the same conditions that would signal the "need" for constant pregnancy within the family. People must decide for themselves if and when to have or raise a child.

In sum, with industrialization came more choices. But with more choices came more uncertainty. Most of us would not actually want to go back in time and live in a way that gave us fewer choices. Yet on some level many of us might appreciate how simple life must be when so much is decided for us. (This is one of the reasons why books and movies set in "olden times" can seem so appealing— everyone seems to know exactly who they are and what is expected of them.) Most people enjoy being able to pick their own major in college, for example. Yet sometimes people are confused and depressed over not being able to decide upon a major. And so the freedom of the so-called modern society becomes a proverbial "double-edged sword." On the one hand, we are given more choices, but on the other hand, we must live with more uncertainty. The question, "Who am I?" is asked much more than it was a few hundred years ago.
Scholars began exploring this new social uncertainty brought on largely by industrialization. Eventually, this exploration led to the formation of a new kind of science: Social science. Disciplines such as sociology, psychology, anthropology and economics came of age at this time of dramatic social and cultural upheaval.

The Enlightenment and
Counter-Enlightenment
In the social upheaval set in motion by industrialization, some scholars began to ask a basic question:

What would hold society together?

For if people were abandoning centuries of tradition, if they were going to new places, doing new things, and exposing themselves to new ideas, would society collapse into chaos?
A second, closely-related question, was also posed:

What would give people's lives meaning?

For if there was no longer going to be an unshakable belief in one’s king and church, what would people put their faith in?
Given these concerns, there began a movement toward the creation of social sciences—the notion that human endeavor could be studied scientifically, just like forces of nature. Like other forms of science, social science was to be grounded in positivism—the systematic study of observable phenomenon. What was observed would be noted for its patterns and predictability. Based on these methodical, scientific observations, significant public policies and proscriptions could be recommended, just like a cure could be proposed for a disease.
Some of these scholars focused specifically on the social unit itself, and this scholarship became known as sociology. (Other scholars contributed more to such newly emerging disciplines as psychology,
This new science of sociology came of age at a time of dramatic philosophical strain between the so-called Enlightenment thinkers, and their adversaries, the Counter-Enlightenment school of thought.

The Enlightenment
The Enlightenment first began to flourish in the 18th Century. Enlightenment philosophers saw scientific and intellectual discourse as the key to creating a new world order that emphasized freedom, progress, and the emancipation of the human mind. From this perspective, new ideas and discourse should be welcomed, because they could contribute to making the world a better place. Only by getting beyond rigid ways of thinking could humankind progress toward its full potential.
Sociologically speaking, the Enlightenment perspective suggested that while rapid social change was inevitable, positivism could enable the changes to occur in ways that benefited the most people. The sociologist would serve an invaluable role in society, because he or she would have the intellectual skills needed to steer social change in a more humane direction.
Thus in answer to the two major questions stated above, this new positivistic open inquiry would provide people with new meanings, and would bring society together on a new level of understanding. In place of a monarch and religious dogma, humanistic change would be what held society together— and what people believed in.In many ways, the Enlightenment reflected what in today’s world we would call a liberal point of view: Change and innovate as needed to make society more responsive to the needs of as many people as possible.
Enlightenment thinkers, then, held a radical viewpoint for their time. They believed that rule by elite monarchs was a socially-constructed phenomenon—as opposed to the widely-held view that it was through divine providence. Enlightenment philosophers felt that the empowerment of each individual should be the proper goal of human society, and that through scientific study of society, this goal could be achieved.

The Counter-Enlightenment
The Counter-Enlightenment rose up in response to the Enlightenment. Both sides agreed that society should be scientifically studied. However, Counter-Enlightenment philosophers thought that the purpose for doing so should be to preserve as much of the existing social order as possible. While some change was seen as inevitable, the Counter-Enlightenment asserted that ideally the change would be minimal. These thinkers felt that it was extremely dangerous to be replacing centuries of tradition with new approaches to social life. Social chaos and a lack of meaning for the individual were likely to be the results, according to this school of thought.
The Counter-Enlightenment did not emphasize the freedom or happiness of the individual. Instead, they focused on the social unit itself. For without the social unit, they argued, there was no point in even discussing the individual. For in a state of social disorganization, no one would be able to accomplish much of anything. Counter-Enlightenment philosophers thought there was an underlying social order or reason to society. Thus, the existing segments and patterns thereof were all important, and deserved t be studied so that they could be preserved.
Counter-enlightenment scholars did not have the same kind of faith in positivism. They felt too many new ideas could only make for more confusion—and ultimately, fewer solutions. But they were not so naive as to think positivism would simply go away. Rather, they sought to re-channel positivism in ways that upheld the status quo.
Hence, the Counter-Enlightenment would assert that what would hold society together would be a preservation of as many traditional norms, values, beliefs and customs as possible. People should not be expected to find meaning in anything other than what they had always found meaning in.
To a large measure, the Counter-Enlightenment was in sympathy with what in today’s world would be called a conservative viewpoint: First and foremost, preserve the existing social order, and proceed slowly and cautiously with any social change—if at all. Otherwise, there might be chaos, which would serve the needs of no one.

To this day, the tension between the Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment is reflected in social theory. Some theories are more in keeping with the Enlightenment, and some are more similar to the Counter-Enlightenment. And this difference in theoretical approaches reflects a more basic debate we see in society—the competing liberal and conservative agendas. As a society, we continue to debate whether to change or leave a given situation alone. How much aid should we give the poor—or to other nations? How much regulation should there be over private industries? And so on. The discussion goes on—and social theories reflect the tensions thereof.
Now, to find out more about this strain between Enlightenment and the Counter-Enlightenment, and how it is reflected in some of the founding sociological scholarship, click on the light bulb.