The Classical Sociologists And Values

For the early positivists Comte and Durkeim, was the creastion of a better society a matter subjective values?

It was not a matter of subjective values or personal opinions about what was ‘best‘.

What view did Comte and Durkheim share?

The Enlightenment or modernist view of the role of sociology: as the science of society, sociology’s job was to discover the truth about how society works, uncovering the laws that govern its proper functioning. Equipped with this knowledge, social problems could be solved and human life improved.

In the view of the early positivists, what would scientific sociology reveal?

The one correct society. This gave sociologists a crucial role. By discovering the truth about how society works, sociologists would be able to say objectively and with scientific certainty what was really best for society.

What did Comte regard sociology as?

The ‘queen of the sciences‘ and saw sociologists as latter-day priests of a new scientific religion of truth.

What debate is there surrounding Marx?

Whether or not he was a positivist. However, it is true that he saw himself as a scientist and believed that his method of historical analyses, historical materialism, could reveal the line of development of human society.

For Marx, what did a development of human society involve?

An evolution through a series of different types of class-based society. leading ultimately to a future classless communist society, in which exploitation, alienation and poverty would be ended, and each individual would be free to reach their true potential.

What was the role of Marx’s sociology?

To reveal the truth of this development, especially to the proletariat, since they would be the class to overthrow capitalism and herald the birth of communist society/

What does Marx take for granted?

The value of the ideal communist society and argues that his scientific approach will show us how to reach it. In this, he is similar to Comte and Durkheim in that he sees science as helping to ‘deliver‘ the good society.

What did Marx, Durkheim and Comte make no distinction between?

The facts revealed by science and the values that we should hold - since they believed that science would tell us what these values should be.

In contrast to Marx, Durkheim and Comte, what does Weber make a sharp contrast between?

Value judgements and facts, and he argues that we cannot drive the one from the other,

What is an example of Weber’s distinction.

For example, research might show that divorcees are more likely to commit suicide. However, this fact does not demonstrate the truth of the value judgment that we should make divorce harder to obtain. There is nothing about the fact that logically compels us to accept the value.

For example, we might argue that we should instead make it harder to get married (another value), or that people have every right to commit suicide if they wish (a third value). None of these value judgments are 'proven' by the established fact. Indeed, in Weber's view, a value can be neither proved nor disproved by the facts: they belong to different realms.

Despite making a sharp distinction between facts and values, what did Weber still see an essential role for?

Values in sociological research. We can divide his views into four stages of the research process.

What are the four elements of Weber’s research process?

1. Values as a guide to research.

2. Data collection and hypothesis testing.

3. Values in the interpretation of data.

4. Values and the sociologist as a citizen.

What idea did Weber take from phenomenology?

That social reality is made up of a ‘meaningless infinity‘ of facts that make it impossible to study in its totality.Therefore, the best the researcher can do is select certain facts and study these.

How do we choose which facts to study?

In Weber’s view, we can only select them in terms of what we regard as important based on our own values - their value relevance to us.

What are values essential in enabling us to do?

Select which aspects of reality to study and in developing concepts with which to understand these aspects.

While values are essential in selecting us to study, in Weber’s view, what must we be?

As objective and unbiased as possible when we are actually collecting facts, keeping our values and prejudices.

What are example of keeping values and prejudices out of the research process.

Not asking leading questions.

One we have gathered the facts, what can we use them to test?

A hypothesis. Again, we must keep out values out of the process.

When do values become important again?

When we come to interpret the data we have collected. The facts need to be set in a theoretical framework so that we can understand their significance and draw conclusions from them.

In Weber’s view, what is our choice of theoretical framework or perspective influenced by?

Our values. Therefore, we must be explicit about them, spelling out our values so that others can see if unconscious bias is present in our interpretation of data.

What do research findings often have very real effects on?

People’s lives, but sociologists sometimes choose to ignore the uses to which their work is put. They argue that their job is merely to conduct objective research and discover the facts; it is for the politicians or public to decide what use to make of the findings.

What does Weber argue?

That scientists and sociologists are also human beings and citizens and they most not dodge the moral and political issues their work raises by hiding behind words like ‘objectivity‘ or ‘value freedom‘.

In Weber’s view, what must scientists and sociologists take responsibility for?

The harm their research may do.

To summarise, what does Weber see values as relevant to?

The sociologist in choosing what to research, in interpreting the data collected and in deciding the use to which the findings should be put. By contrast, the sociologist’s values must be kept out of the actual process of fact gathering.