Urban sociology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sociology

History

Outline

Portal
Theory

Positivism

Antipositivism

Postpositivism

Functionalism

Conflict theories

Social constructionism

Structuralism

Interactionism

Critical theory

Structure and agency

Actornetwork theory
Methods

Quantitative

Qualitative

Historical

Mathematical

Computational

Ethnography

Ethnomethodology

Network analysis
Subfields

Criminology

Conflict
Culture
Development

Deviance

Demography

Education

Economic

Environmental

Family

Gender

Health

Industrial

Inequality

Knowledge

Law
Literature

Medical

Military

Organizational

Political

Race and ethnicity

Religion

Rural
Science

Social change

Social movements

Social psychology

Stratification

STS
Technology

Urban
Browse

Bibliography

By country

Index
Journals
Organizations

People
Timeline

Urban sociology is the sociological study of life and human interaction in metropolitan areas. It
is a normative discipline of sociology seeking to study the structures, processes, changes and
problems of an urban area and by doing so provide inputs for planning and policy making. In
other words, it is the sociological study of cities and their role in the development of society.
[1]
Like most areas of sociology, urban sociologists use statistical analysis, observation, social
theory, interviews, and other methods to study a range of topics, including migration and
demographic trends, economics, poverty, race relations and economic trends.
The philosophical foundations of modern urban sociology originate from the work of sociologists
such as Karl Marx, Ferdinand Tnnies, mile Durkheim, Max Weber and Georg Simmel who
studied and theorized the economic, social and cultural processes of urbanization and its effects
on social alienation, class formation, and the production or destruction of collective and individual
identities.
These theoretical foundations were further expanded upon and analyzed by a group of
sociologists and researchers who worked at the University of Chicago in the early twentieth
century. In what became known as the Chicago School of sociology the work ofRobert
Park, Louis Wirth and Ernest Burgess on the inner city of Chicago revolutionized the purpose of
urban research in sociology but also the development of human geography through its use of
quantitative and ethnographic research methods. The importance of the theories developed by
the Chicago School within urban sociology have been critically sustained and critiqued but still
remain one of the most significant historical advancements in understanding urbanization and
the city within the social sciences.[2]

Contents
[hide]

1Development and rise of urban sociology

2Evolution of urban sociology

3Criticism

4See also

5References
o

5.1Notes

5.2Further reading

Development and rise of urban sociology [edit]

Further information: Chicago school (sociology)
Urban sociology rose to prominence within the academy in North America through a group of
sociologists and theorists at the University of Chicago from 1915 to 1940 in what became known
as the Chicago School of Sociology. The Chicago School of Sociology combined sociological and
anthropological theory with ethnographic fieldwork in order to understand how individuals interact
within urban social systems.[3][4] Unlike the primarily macro-based sociology that had marked
earlier subfields, members of the Chicago School placed greater emphasis on micro-scale social
interactions that sought to provide subjective meaning to how humans interact under structural,
cultural and social conditions. The theory of symbolic interaction, the basis through which many
methodologically-groundbreaking ethnographies were framed in this period, took primitive shape
alongside urban sociology and shaped its early methodological leanings. Symbolic interaction
was forged out of the writings of early micro-sociologists George Mead and Max Weber, and
sought to frame how individuals interpret symbols in everyday interactions. With early urban

sociologists framing the city as a 'superorganism', the concept ofsymbolic interaction aided in
parsing out how individual communities contribute to the seamless functioning of the city itself. [5]
Scholars of the Chicago School originally sought to answer a single question: how did an
increase in urbanism during the time of the Industrial Revolution contribute to the magnification
of contemporary social problems? Sociologists centered on Chicago due to its 'tabula rasa' state,
having expanded from a small town of 10,000 in 1860 to an urban metropolis of over two million
in the next half-century. Along with this expansion came many of the era's emerging social
problems - ranging from issues with concentrated homelessness and harsh living conditions to
the low wages and long hours that characterized the work of the many newly arrived European
immigrants. Furthermore, unlike many other metropolitan areas, Chicago did not expand outward
at the edges as predicted by early expansionist theorists, but instead 'reformatted' the space
available in a concentric ring pattern.[6] As with many modern cities the business district occupied
the city center and was surrounded by slum and blighted neighborhoods, which were further
surrounded by workingmens' homes and the early forms of the modern suburbs. Urban theorists
suggested that these spatially distinct regions helped to solidify and isolate class relations within
the modern city, moving the middle class away from the urban core and into the privatized
environment of the outer suburbs.[7]
Due to the high concentration of first-generation immigrant families in the inner city of Chicago
during the early 20th century, many prominent early studies in urban sociology focused upon the
transmission of immigrants' native culture roles and norms into new and developing
environments. Political participation and the rise in inter-community organizations were also
frequently covered in this period, with many metropolitan areas adopting census techniques that
allowed for information to be stored and easily accessed by participating institutions such as the
University of Chicago. Park, Burgess and McKenzie, professors at the University of Chicago and
three of the earliest proponents of urban sociology, developed the Subculture Theories, which
helped to explain the often-positive role of local institutions on the formation of community
acceptance and social ties.[8]When race relations break down and expansion renders one's
community members anonymous, as was proposed to be occurring in this period, the inner city
becomes marked by high levels of social disorganization that prevent local ties from being
established and maintained in local political arenas.
The rise of urban sociology coincided with the expansion of statistical inference in
the behavioural sciences, which helped ease its transition and acceptance in educational
institutions along with other burgeoning social sciences. Micro-sociology courses at the
University of Chicago were among the earliest and most prominent courses on urban sociological
research in the United States.

Evolution of urban sociology[edit]

Further information: Social network
The evolution and transition of sociological theory from the Chicago School began to emerge in
the 1970s with the publication of Claude Fischer's (1975) "Toward a Theory of Subculture
Urbanism" which incorporated Bourdieu's theories on social capital and symbolic capital within
the invasion and succession framework of the Chicago School in explaining how cultural groups
form, expand and solidify a neighbourhood. The theme of transition by subcultures and groups
within the city was further expanded by Barry Wellman's (1979) "The Community Question: The
Intimate Networks of East Yorkers" which determined the function and position of the individual,
institution and community in the urban landscape in relation to their community. Wellman's
categorization and incorporation of community focused theories as "Community Lost",
"Community Saved", and "Community Liberated" which center around the structure of the urban
community in shaping interactions between individuals and facilitating active participation in the
local community are explained in detail below:
Community lost: The earliest of the three theories, this concept was developed in the late 19th
century to account for the rapid development of industrial patterns that seemingly caused rifts
between the individual and their local community. Urbanites were claimed to hold networks that
were impersonal, transitory and segmental, maintaining ties in multiple social networks while at

the same time lacking the strong ties that bound them to any specific group. This disorganization
in turn caused members of urban communities to subsist almost solely on secondary affiliations
with others, and rarely allowed them to rely on other members of the community for assistance
with their needs.
Community saved: A critical response to the community lost theory that developed during the
1960s, the community saved argument suggests that multistranded ties often emerge in
sparsely-knit communities as time goes on, and that urban communities often possess these
strong ties, albeit in different forms. Especially among low-income communities, individuals have
a tendency to adapt to their environment and pool resources in order to protect themselves
collectively against structural changes. Over time urban communities have tendencies to become
urban villages, where individuals possess strong ties with only a few individuals that connect
them to an intricate web of other urbanities within the same local environment.
Community liberated: A cross-section of the community lost and community saved arguments,
the community liberated theory suggests that the separation of workplace, residence and familial
kinship groups has caused urbanites to maintain weak ties in multiple community groups that are
further weakened by high rates of residential mobility. However, the concentrated number of
environments present in the city for interaction increase the likelihood of individuals developing
secondary ties, even if they simultaneously maintain distance from tightly-knit communities.
Primary ties that offer the individual assistance in everyday life form out of sparsely-knit and
spatially dispersed interactions, with the individual's access to resources dependent on the
quality of the ties they maintain within their community.[9]
Along with the development of these theories, urban sociologists have increasingly begun to
study the differences between the urban, rural and suburban environment within the last halfcentury. Consistent with the community liberated argument, researchers have in large part found
that urban residents tend to maintain more spatially-dispersed networks of ties than rural or
suburban residents. Among lower-income urban residents, the lack of mobility and communal
space within the city often disrupts the formation of social ties and lends itself to creating an
unintegrated and distant community space. While the high density of networks within the city
weakens relations between individuals, it increases the likelihood that at least one individual
within a network can provide the primary support found among smaller and more tightly-knit
networks. Since the 1970s, research into social networks has focused primarily on the types of
ties developed within residential environments. Bonding ties, common of tightly-knit
neighborhoods, consist of connections that provide an individual with primary support, such as
access to income or upward mobility among a neighborhood organization. Bridging ties, in
contrast, are the ties that weakly connect strong networks of individuals together. A group of
communities concerned about the placement of a nearby highway may only be connected
through a few individuals that represent their views at a community board meeting, for instance.
[10]

However, as theory surrounding social networks has developed, sociologists such as Alejandro
Portes and the Wisconsin model of sociological research began placing increased leverage on
the importance of these weak ties.[11] While strong ties are necessary for providing residents with
primary services and a sense of community, weak ties bring together elements of different
cultural and economic landscapes in solving problems affecting a great number of individuals. As
theorist Eric Oliver notes, neighborhoods with vast social networks are also those that most
commonly rely on heterogeneous support in problem solving, and are also the most politically
active.[12]
As the suburban landscape developed during the 20th century and the outer city became a
refuge for the wealthy and, later, the burgeoning middle class, sociologists and urban
geographers such as Harvey Molotov, David Harvey and Neil Smith began to study the structure
and revitalization of the most impoverished areas of the inner city. In their research,
impoverished neighborhoods, which often rely on tightly-knit local ties for economic and social
support, were found to be targeted by developers for gentrification which displaced residents
living within these communities.[13] Political experimentation in providing these residents with
semi-permanent housing and structural support - ranging from Section 8 housing to Community
Development Block Grant programs- have in many cases eased the transition of low-income

residents into stable housing and employment. Yet research covering the social impact of forced
movement among these residents has noted the difficulties individuals often have with
maintaining a level of economic comfort, which is spurred by rising land values and inter-urban
competition between cities in as a means to attract capital investment. [14] [15] The interaction
between inner-city dwellers and middle class passersby in such settings has also been a topic of
study for urban sociologists.[16][17]

Criticism[edit]
Many theories in urban sociology have been criticized, most prominently directed toward the
ethnocentric approaches taken by many early theorists that lay groundwork for urban studies
throughout the 20th century. Early theories that sought to frame the city as an adaptable
superorganism often disregarded the intricate roles of social ties within local communities,
suggesting that the urban environment itself rather than the individuals living within it controlled
the spread and shape of the city. For impoverished inner-city residents, the role of highway
planning policies and other government-spurred initiatives instituted by the planner Robert
Moses and others have been criticized as unsightly and unresponsive to residential needs. The
slow development of empirically-based urban research reflects the failure of local urban
governments to adapt and ease the transition of local residents to the short-lived industrialization
of the city.[18]
Some modern social theorists have also been critical toward the apparent shortsightedness that
urban sociologists have shown toward the role of culture in the inner city. William Julius
Wilson has criticized theory developed throughout the middle of the twentieth century as relying
primarily on structural roles of institutions, and not how culture itself affects common aspects of
inner-city life such as poverty. The distance shown toward this topic, he argues, presents an
incomplete picture of inner-city life.The urban sociological theory is viewed as one important
aspect of sociology.

Guilds were and are associations of artisans or merchants who control the practice of
their craft in a particular town. The earliest types of guild were formed
as confraternities of tradesmen. They were organized in a manner something between
a professional association, trade union, a cartel, and a secret society. They often
depended on grants of letters patent by a monarch or other authority to enforce the flow
of trade to their self-employed members, and to retain ownership of tools and the supply
of materials. A lasting legacy of traditional guilds are the guildhalls constructed and used
as meeting places.

One of the legacies of the guilds, the elevatedWindsor Guildhall was originally a meeting place
for guilds, as well as magistrates' seat and town hall.

An important result of the guild framework was the emergence

of universities at Bologna (established in 1088), Oxford (at least since 1096)
and Paris (c. 1150).[1]
Contents
[hide]

1History of guilds
o

1.1Early guildlike associations

1.2Medieval guild

1.2.1Organization

1.2.2Fall of the guilds

1.2.3Influence of guilds

1.2.4Economic consequences
2Modern guilds

2.1Europe

2.2North America

2.3Australia

2.4Virtual world guilds

3See also

4Notes

5References

6Further reading

7External links
History of guilds[edit]

Early guildlike associations[edit]

In medieval cities, craftsmen tended to form associations based on their trades,
confraternities of textile workers, masons, carpenters, carvers, glass workers, each of
whom controlled secrets of traditionally imparted technology, the "arts" or "mysteries" of
their crafts. Usually the founders were free independent master craftsmen who hired
apprentices.[2]

Traditional wrought-iron guild sign of a glazier in Germany. These signs can be found in many
old European towns where guild members marked their places of business. Many survived
through time or staged a comeback in industrial times. Today they are newly created or even
restored, especially in old town areas.

Medieval guild[edit]
There were several types of guilds, including the two main categories of merchant guilds
and craft guilds[3] but also the frith guild and religious guild.[4]
The continental system of guilds and merchants arrived in England after the Norman
Conquest, with incorporated societies of merchants in each town or city holding
exclusive rights of doing business there. In many cases they became the governing body
of a town. For example, London's Guildhall became the seat of the Court of Common
Council of the City of London Corporation, the worlds oldest continuously elected local
government[5] whose members to this day must be Freemen of the City.[6] The Freedom
of the City, effective from the Middle Ages until 1835, gave the right to trade, and was
only bestowed upon members of a Guild or Livery.[7]
Trade guilds arose in the 14th century as craftsmen united to protect their common
interest.
Early egalitarian communities called "guilds" (for the gold deposited in their common
funds) were denounced by Catholic clergy for their "conjurations"the binding oaths
sworn among the members to support one another in adversity, kill specific enemies,

and back one another in feuds or in business ventures. The occasion for these oaths
were drunken banquets held on December 26, the pagan feast ofJul (Yule)in
858, West Francian Bishop Hincmar sought vainly to Christianize the guilds.[8]
In the Early Middle Ages, most of the Roman craft organizations, originally formed
as religious confraternities, had disappeared, with the apparent exceptions of
stonecutters and perhaps glassmakers, mostly the people that had local skills. Gregory
of Tours tells a miraculous tale of a builder whose art and techniques suddenly left him,
but were restored by an apparition of the Virgin Mary in a dream. Michel
Rouche[9] remarks that the story speaks for the importance of practically transmitted
journeymanship.
In France, guilds were called corps de mtiers. According to Viktor Ivanovich Rutenburg,
"Within the guild itself there was very little division of labour, which tended to operate
rather between the guilds. Thus, according to tienne Boileau's Book of Handicrafts, by
the mid-13th century there were no less than 100 guilds in Paris, a figure which by the
14th century had risen to 350."[10] There were different guilds of metal-workers: the
farriers, knife-makers, locksmiths, chain-forgers, nail-makers, often formed separate and
distinct corporations; the armourers were divided into helmet-makers, escutcheonmakers, harness-makers, harness-polishers, etc. [11] In Catalan towns, specially
at Barcelona, guilds or gremis were a basic agent in the society: a shoemakers' guild is
recorded in 1202.[citation needed]
In England, specifically in the City of London Corporation, more than 110 guilds,
[12]
referred to as livery companies, survive today,[13] with the oldest more than a thousand
years old.[citation needed] Other groups, such as the Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers, have
been formed far more recently. Membership in a livery company is expected for
individuals participating in the governance of The City, as the Lord Mayor and
the Remembrancer.
The Syndics of the Drapers' Guildby Rembrandt, 1662.

The guild system reached a mature state in Germany circa 1300 and held on in German
cities into the 19th century, with some special privileges for certain occupations
remaining today. In the 15th century, Hamburg had 100 guilds, Cologne 80, and Lbeck
70.[14] The latest guilds to develop in Western Europe were the gremios of Spain: e.g.,
Valencia (1332) or Toledo (1426).
Not all city economies were controlled by guilds; some cities were "free." Where guilds
were in control, they shaped labor, production and trade; they had strong controls
over instructional capital, and the modern concepts of a lifetime progression
of apprentice to craftsman, and then from journeyman eventually to widely
recognized master and grandmaster began to emerge. In order to become a Master, a
Journeyman would have to go on a three-year voyage called Journeyman years. The
practice of the Journeyman years still exists in Germany and France.

As production became more specialized, trade guilds were divided and subdivided,
eliciting the squabbles over jurisdiction that produced the paperwork by which economic
historians trace their development: The metalworking guilds of Nuremberg were divided
among dozens of independent trades in the boom economy of the 13th century, and
there were 101 trades in Paris by 1260.[15] In Ghent, as in Florence, the woolen textile
industry developed as a congeries of specialized guilds. The appearance of the
European guilds was tied to the emergent money economy, and to urbanization. Before
this time it was not possible to run a money-driven organization, as commodity
money was the normal way of doing business.

A center of urban government: theGuildhall, London (engraving, ca 1805)

The guild was at the center of European handicraft organization into the 16th century. In
France, a resurgence of the guilds in the second half of the 17th century is symptomatic
of the monarchy's concerns to impose unity, control production and reap the benefits of
transparent structure in the shape of more efficient taxation. [citation needed]
The guilds were identified with organizations enjoying certain privileges (letters patent),
usually issued by the king or state and overseen by local town business authorities
(some kind of chamber of commerce). These were the predecessors of the
modern patent andtrademark system. The guilds also maintained funds in order to
support infirm or elderly members, as well as widows and orphans of guild members,
funeral benefits, and a 'tramping' allowance for those needing to travel to find work. As
the guild system of the City of Londondeclined during the 17th century, the Livery
Companies transformed into mutual assistance fraternities along such lines.
European guilds imposed long standardized periods of apprenticeship, and made it
difficult for those lacking the capital to set up for themselves or without the approval of
their peers to gain access to materials or knowledge, or to sell into certain markets, an
area that equally dominated the guilds' concerns. These are defining characteristics
of mercantilism in economics, which dominated most European thinking about political
economy until the rise of classical economics.
The guild system survived the emergence of early capitalists, which began to divide
guild members into "haves" and dependent "have-nots". The civil struggles that
characterize the 14th-century towns and cities were struggles in part between the
greater guilds and the lesser artisanal guilds, which depended on piecework. "In
Florence, they were openly distinguished: the Arti maggiori and the Arti minorialready

there was a popolo grasso and a popolo magro".[16] Fiercer struggles were those
between essentially conservative guilds and the merchant class, which increasingly
came to control the means of production and the capital that could be ventured in
expansive schemes, often under the rules of guilds of their own. German social
historians trace the Zunftrevolution, the urban revolution of guildmembers against a
controlling urban patriciate, sometimes reading into them, however, perceived foretastes
of the class struggles of the 19th century.

Locksmith, 1451

In the countryside, where guild rules did not operate, there was freedom for the
entrepreneur with capital to organize cottage industry, a network of cottagers who spun
and wove in their own premises on his account, provided with their raw materials,
perhaps even their looms, by the capitalist who took a share of the profits. Such a
dispersed system could not so easily be controlled where there was a vigorous local
market for the raw materials: wool was easily available in sheep-rearing regions,
whereas silk was not.
Organization[edit]
In Florence, Italy, there were seven to 12 "greater guilds" and 14 "lesser guilds" the most
important of the greater guilds was that for judges and notaries, who handled the legal
business of all the other guilds and often served as an arbitrator of disputes. Other
greater guilds include the wool, silk, and the money changers' guilds. They prided
themselves on a reputation for very high quality work, which was rewarded with premium
prices. The guilds fined members who deviated from standards. Other greater guilds
included those of doctors, druggists, and furriers. Among the lesser guilds, were those
for bakers, saddle makers, ironworkers and other artisans. They had a sizable
membership, but lacked the political and social standing necessary to influence city
affairs.[17]
The guild was made up by experienced and confirmed experts in their field of handicraft.
They were called master craftsmen. Before a new employee could rise to the level of

mastery, he had to go through a schooling period during which he was first called
an apprentice. After this period he could rise to the level of journeyman. Apprentices
would typically not learn more than the most basic techniques until they were trusted by
their peers to keep the guild's or company's secrets.
Like journey, the distance that could be travelled in a day, the title 'journeyman' derives
from the French words for 'day' (jour and journe) from which came the middle English
word journei. Journeymen were able to work for other masters, unlike apprentices, and
generally paid by the day and were thus day labourers. After being employed by a
master for several years, and after producing a qualifying piece of work, the apprentice
was granted the rank of journeyman and was given documents (letters or certificates
from his master and/or the guild itself) which certified him as a journeyman and entitled
him to travel to other towns and countries to learn the art from other masters. These
journeys could span large parts of Europe and were an unofficial way of communicating
new methods and techniques, though by no means all journeymen made such travels
they were most common in Germany and Italy, and in other countries journeymen from
small cities would often visit the capital. [18]

The Haarlem Painter's Guild in 1675, by Jan de Bray.

After this journey and several years of experience, a journeyman could be received as
master craftsman, though in some guilds this step could be made straight from
apprentice. This would typically require the approval of all masters of a guild, a donation
of money and other goods (often omitted for sons of existing members), and the
production of a so-called "masterpiece,' which would illustrate the abilities of the aspiring
master craftsman; this was often retained by the guild. [19]
The medieval guild was established by charters or letters patent or similar authority by
the city or the ruler and normally held a monopoly on trade in its craft within the city in
which it operated: handicraft workers were forbidden by law to run any business if they
were not members of a guild, and only masters were allowed to be members of a guild.
Before these privileges were legislated, these groups of handicraft workers were simply
called 'handicraft associations'.
The town authorities might be represented in the guild meetings and thus had a means
of controlling the handicraft activities. This was important since towns very often
depended on a good reputation for export of a narrow range of products, on which not

only the guild's, but the town's, reputation depended. Controls on the association of
physical locations to well-known exported products, e.g. wine from
the Champagne and Bordeaux regions of France, tin-glazed earthenwares from certain
cities in Holland, lace from Chantilly, etc., helped to establish a town's place in global
commerce this led to modern trademarks.
In many German and Italian cities, the more powerful guilds often had considerable
political influence, and sometimes attempted to control the city authorities. In the 14th
century, this led to numerous bloody uprisings, during which the guilds dissolved town
councils and detained patricians in an attempt to increase their influence. In fourteenthcentury north-east Germany, people of Wendish, i.e. Slavic, origin were not allowed to
join some guilds.[20] According to Wilhelm Raabe, "down into the eighteenth century no
German guild accepted a Wend."[21]
Fall of the guilds[edit]

An example of the last of the British Guilds meeting rooms c.1820

As Ogilvie (2004) shows, the guilds negatively affected quality, skills, and innovation.
Through what economists now call "rent-seeking" they imposed deadweight losses on
the economy. Ogilvie says they generated no demonstrable positive externalities and
notes that industry began to flourish only after the guilds faded away. Guilds persisted
over the centuries because they redistributed resources to politically powerful
merchants. On the other hand, Ogilvie agrees, guilds created "social capital" of shared
norms, common information, mutual sanctions, and collective political action. This social
capital benefited guild members, even as it hurt outsiders. [22]
The guild system became a target of much criticism towards the end of the 18th century
and the beginning of the 19th century. They were believed to oppose free trade and
hinder technological innovation, technology transfer and business development.
According to several accounts of this time, guilds became increasingly involved in simple
territorial struggles against each other and against free practitioners of their arts.
Two of the most outspoken critics of the guild system were Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and Adam Smith, and all over Europe a tendency to oppose government
control over trades in favour of laissez-faire free market systems was growing rapidly
and making its way into the political and legal system. The French Revolution saw guilds

as a last remnant of feudalism. The Le Chapelier Law of 1791 abolished the guilds in
France.[23] Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter X, paragraph 72):
It is to prevent this reduction of price, and consequently of wages and profit, by
restraining that free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all
corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established. (...) and
when any particular class of artificers or traders thought proper to act as a corporation
without a charter, such adulterine guilds, as they were called, were not always
disfranchised upon that account, but obliged to fine annually to the king for permission to
exercise their usurped privileges.
Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto also criticized the guild system for its rigid
gradation of social rank and the relation of oppressor/oppressed entailed by this system.
From this time comes the low regard in which some people hold the guilds to this day. In
part due to their own inability to control unruly corporate behavior, the tide turned against
the guilds.
Because of industrialization and modernization of the trade and industry, and the rise of
powerful nation-states that could directly issue patent and copyright protections often
revealing the trade secrets the guilds' power faded. After the French Revolution they
fell in most European nations through the 19th century, as the guild system was
disbanded and replaced by free trade laws. By that time, many former handicraft
workers had been forced to seek employment in the emerging manufacturing industries,
using not closely guarded techniques but standardized methods controlled
by corporations.
Influence of guilds[edit]

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this sectio
by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (December 2008) (Learn how and when to remove thi
template message)

Shoemakers, 1568

Guilds are sometimes said to be the precursors of modern trade unions. Guilds,
however, can also be seen as a set of self-employed skilled craftsmen with ownership
and control over the materials and tools they needed to produce their goods. Guilds
were more like cartels than they were like trade unions (Olson 1982). However, the
journeymen organizations, which were at the time illegal, [24] may have been influential.
The exclusive privilege of a guild to produce certain goods or provide certain services
was similar in spirit and character with the originalpatent systems that surfaced in
England in 1624. These systems played a role in ending the guilds' dominance, as trade
secret methods were superseded by modern firms directly revealing their techniques,
and counting on the state to enforce their legal monopoly.
Some guild traditions still remain in a few handicrafts, in Europe especially
among shoemakers and barbers. Some ritual traditions of the guilds were conserved
in order organizations such as the Freemasons, allegedly deriving from the Masons
Guild, and the Oddfellows, allegedly derived from various smaller guilds. These are,
however, not very important economically except as reminders of the responsibilities of
some trades toward the public.
Modern antitrust law could be said to derive in some ways from the original statutes by
which the guilds were abolished in Europe.
Economic consequences[edit]
The economic consequences of guilds have led to heated debates among economic
historians. On the one side, scholars say that since merchant guilds persisted over long
periods they must have been efficient institutions (since inefficient institutions die out).
Others say they persisted not because they benefited the entire economy but because
they benefited the owners, who used political power to protect them. Ogilvie (2011) says
they regulated trade for their own benefit, were monopolies, distorted markets, fixed
prices, and restricted entrance into the guild. [18] Ogilvie (2008) argues that their long
apprenticeships were unnecessary to acquire skills, and their conservatism reduced the
rate of innovation and made the society poorer. She says their main goal was rent
seeking, that is, to shift money to the membership at the expense of the entire economy.
[25]

Epstein and Prak's book (2008) rejects Ogilvie's conclusions. [26] Specifically, Epstein
argues that guilds were cost-sharing rather than rent-seeking institutions. They located
and matched masters and likely apprentices through monitored learning. Whereas the
acquisition of craft skills required experience-based learning, he argues that this process
necessitated many years in apprenticeship.[27]
The extent to which guilds were able to monopolize markets is also debated. [28]

Modern guilds[edit]

Modern guilds exist in different forms around the world. Scholars from the history of
ideas have noticed that consultants play a part similar to that of the journeymen of the
guild systems: they often travel a lot, work at many companies and spread new practices
and knowledge between companies and corporations.[citation needed]
Professional organizations replicate guild structure and operation. [29] Professions such as
architecture, engineering, geology, and land surveying require varying lengths of
apprenticeships before one can gain a "professional" certification. These certifications
hold great legal weight: most states make them a prerequisite to practicing there. [citation needed]
Thomas W. Malone champions a modern variant of the guild structure for modern "elancers", professionals who do mostly telework for multiple
employers. Insurance including any professional liability, intellectual capital protections,
an ethical code perhaps enforced by peer pressure and software, and other benefits of a
strong association of producers of knowledge, benefit from economies of scale, and may
prevent cut-throat competition that leads to inferior services undercutting prices. [citation
needed]
And, as with historical guilds, such a structure will resist foreign competition.
The free software community has from time to time explored a guild-like structure to
unite against competition fromMicrosoft, e.g. Advogato assigns journeyer and master
ranks to those committing to work only or mostly on free software. [citation needed]

Europe[edit]
In many European countries guilds have experienced a revival as local organizations for
craftsmen, primarily in traditional skills. They may function as forums for developing
competence and are often the local units of a national employer's organization.
In the City of London, the ancient guilds survive as Livery Companies, all of which play a
ceremonial role in the City's many customs. The City of London Livery Companies
maintain strong links with their respective trade, craft or profession, some still retain
regulatory, inspection or enforcement roles. The senior members of the City of London
Livery Companies (known as Liverymen) elect the Sheriffs and approve the candidates
for the office of Lord Mayor of London. Guilds also survive in many other towns and
cities the UK including in Preston, Lancashire, as the Preston Guild Merchant where
among other celebrations descendants of Burgesses are still admitted into membership.
With the City of London Livery Companies the UK have over 300 extant guilds and
growing.
In 1878 the London Livery companies established the City and Guilds of London
Institute the forerunner of the engineering school (still called City and Guilds college)
at Imperial College London. The aim of the City and Guilds of London Institute was the
Advancement of Technical Education. As of 2013 "City and Guilds" operates as an
examining and accreditation body for vocational, managerial and engineering
qualifications from entry-level craft and trade skills up to post-doctoral achievement. [30]

The Finnish equivalents of honor societies in universities function as guilds. [citation needed]
In Germany there are no longer any Znfte (or Gilden - the terms used were rather
different from town to town), nor any restriction of a craft to a privileged corporation.
However, under one other name they used to have (albeit more rarely), to wit, Innungen,
guilds continue to exist. These corporations are corporations under public law, albeit the
membership is voluntary; the president normally comes from the ranks of mastercraftsmen and is called Obermeister ("Master-in-chief"). Journeymen elect their own
representative bodies, with their president having the traditional title of Altgesell (Senior
Journeyman).
There are also "Craft Chambers" (Handwerkskammern), which have less resemblance
to ancient guilds in that they are organized for all crafts in a certain region, not just one.
In them membership is mandatory, and they serve to establish self-governance of the
crafts.

North America[edit]
In the United States guilds exist in several fields.
In the film and television industry, guild membership is generally a prerequisite for
working on major productions in certain capacities. The Screen Actors Guild, Directors
Guild of America, Writers Guild of America, East, Writers Guild of America, West and
other profession-specific guilds have the ability to exercise strong control
in Hollywood as a result of a rigid system of intellectual-property rights and a history of
power-brokers also holding guild membership (e.g., DreamWorks founder Steven
Spielberg was, and is, a DGA member). These guilds maintain their own contracts with
production companies to ensure a certain number of their members are hired for roles in
each film or television production, and that their members are paid a minimum of guild
"scale," along with other labor protections. These guilds set high standards for
membership, and exclude professional actors, writers, etc. who do not abide by the strict
rules for competing within the film and television industry in America.
The Newspaper Guild is a labor union for journalists and other newspaper workers, with
over 30,000 members in North America.
Real-estate brokerage offers an example of a modern American guild system. Signs of
guild behavior in real-estate brokerage include: standard pricing (6% of the home price),
strong affiliation among all practitioners, self-regulation (see National Association of
Realtors), strong cultural identity (see realtor), little price variation with quality
differences, and traditional methods in use by all practitioners. In September 2005 the
U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against the National Association of
Realtors, challenging NAR practices that (the DOJ asserted) prevent competition from
practitioners who use different methods. The DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission in
2005 advocated against state laws, supported by NAR, that disadvantage new kinds of
brokers.[31] U.S. v. National Assoc. of Realtors, Civil Action No. 05C-5140 (N.D. Ill. Sept.
7, 2005).

The practice of law in the United States also exemplifies modern guilds at work. Every
state maintains its own bar association, supervised by that state's highest court. The
court decides the criteria for entering and staying in the legal profession. In most states,
every attorney must become a member of that state's bar association in order to practice
law. State laws forbid any person from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and
practicing attorneys are subject to rules of professional conduct that are enforced by the
state's high court.[citation needed]
Medical associations comparable to guilds include the state Medical Boards,
the American Medical Association, and the American Dental Association. Medical
licensing in most states requires specific training, tests and years of low-paid
apprenticeship (internship and residency) under harsh working conditions. Even qualified
international or out-of-state doctors may not practice without acceptance by the local
medical guild (Medical board). Similarly, nurses and physicians' practitioners have their
own guilds. A doctor cannot work as a physician's assistant unless (s)he separately
trains, tests and apprentices as one.[citation needed]

Australia[edit]
Australia is home to The Pharmacy Guild of Australia (the peak association in the
pharmacy industry) and the Guild of Commercial Filmmakers (an association of makers
of commercial, short and feature films).[citation needed] Australia's fine jewellery industry has
members of the Gold and Silversmith's Guild of Australia (GSGA) who practice their
manufacturing locally.

Virtual world guilds[edit]

Main article: Clan (video gaming)
Groups called guilds exist in online communities such as massively multiplayer online
games.
These guilds usually represent a group of individuals that share the same interests and
goals. While they may be organized around in-game economic production, they
generally do not control production. Guilds in online games can range in size from a
small group of a few players to massive guilds that have players from around the world.
See also[edit]

Organized labour portal

Catholic Police Guild

Guild of Saint Luke Painter's Guilds

Guild of St. Bernulphus

Guild socialism

Hanseatic League

List of guilds in the United Kingdom

Shreni

Trade Guilds of South India

Jti -guilds (of mediaeval origin) in India

Za (guilds)

Cohong

Timpani Guilds

Trade union

Sreni (Guilds): a Unique Social Innovation of Ancient India

By Manikant Shah & D.P. Agrawal
Ancient Indian guilds are a unique and multi-faceted form of organisation, which
combined the functions of a democratic government, a trade union, a court of
justice and a technological institution. The trained workers of the guilds provided a
congenial atmosphere for work. They procured raw materials for manufacturing,
controlled quality of manufactured goods and their price, and located markets for
their sale. Though seen through the Eurocentric blinkers they have been
misunderstood. It was believed that the IndianGuild system also followed the
European feudal or the manorial system of the high Middle Ages, due mainly to
sudden increase in trade. These European guilds identified as Merchant Guilds and
Craft Guilds lasted in some places until the nineteenth and the twentieth century,
though probably their golden age was in the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries.
The Craft Guilds being the direct producers were more important than the
Merchant Guilds. But the Indian guilds were far more important and complex
institutions than the European examples.
Ancient Indian guilds have been a subject of some debate, both about their real
character and antiquity.

Historical Review
Romila Thapar (2000:73 ) informs us that "The ancient sources frequently refer to
the system of guilds which began in the early Buddhist period and continued
through the Mauryan period. .Topography aided their development, in as much
as particular areas of a city were generally inhabited by all tradesmen of a certain
craft. Tradesmen's villages were also known, where one particular craft was
centred, largely due to the easy availability of raw material. The three chief
requisites necessary for the rise of a guild system were in existence. Firstly, the
localization of occupation was possible, secondly the hereditary character of
professions was recognized, and lastly the idea of a guild leader or jetthaka was a
widely accepted one. The extension of trade in the Mauryan period must have
helped considerably in developing and stabilizing the guilds, which at first were an
intermediate step between a tribe and a caste. In later years they were dominated
by strict rules, which resulted in some of them gradually becoming castes. Another
early incentive to forming guilds must have been competition. Economically it was
better to work in a body than to work individually, as a corporation would provide
added social status, and when necessary, assistance could be sought from other
members. By gradual stages guilds developed into the most important industrial
bodies in their areas.
"Having arrived at a point when the guilds controlled almost the entire
manufactured output, they found that they had to meet greater demands than they
could cater for by their own labour and that of their families; consequently they
had to employ hired labour. This consisted of two categories, the karmakaras and
the bhrtakas who were regarded as free labourers working for a regular wage, and
the dasas who were slaves. Asoka refers to both categories in his edicts when he
speaks of the bhatakas and the dasas. Thus by the Mauryan period the guilds had
developed into fairly large-scale organizations, recognized at least in the northern
half of the sub-continent if not throughout the country. It would seem that they
were registered by local officials and had a recognized status, as there was a
prohibition against any guilds other than the local co-operative ones entering the
villages. This suggests that a guild could not move from one area to another
without official permission."
Thapar explains that the distribution of work was not only organized in terms of
the professions living in the town but also in terms of the physical occupation by
different professions of different parts of the town. Each sreni had its own
professional code, working arrangements, duties and obligations and even religious
observances. Matters relating to wider areas of dispute were sometimes settled

by srenis among themselves. Social mobility among such groups, where an entire
group would seek to change its ritual status on the basis of an improvement of
actual status, would be more frequent, since the economic opportunities for
improving actual status would be more easily available, particularly in periods of
expanding trade. It is not coincidental that the greatest activity of heterodox sects
and of religious movements associated with social protest was in periods of
expanding trade (Thapar 1996: 133).
U.N. Ghosal informs us that Narada prohibits mutual combination and unlawful
wearing of arms as well as mutual conflicts among the groups. Brihaspati lays
down the extreme penalty of banishment for one who injures the common interest
or insults those who are learned in the Vedas. According to Katyayana, one
committing a heinous crime, or causing a split, or destroying the property of the
groups, is to be proclaimed before the King and 'destroyed'. On the other hand, all
members, we are told by Brihaspati, have an equal share in whatever is acquired by
the committee of advisers or is saved by them, whatever they acquire through the
King's favour as well as whatever debts are incurred by them for the purpose of the
groupThe evidence of the late Smriti law of guilds is corroborated in part by a
certain type of clay-seals, which, have been recovered from the excavations of
Gupta sites at Basarh (ancient Vaisali) and Bhita (near Allahabad). These seals bear
the legend nigama in Gupta characters (Bhita) and more particularly the
legends sreni-kulikanigamaand sreni-sarthavaha-kulika-nigama (Basarh). These
names are often joined with those of private individuals. We have here a probable
reference to the conventions or compacts made by local industrial and trading
groups with private individuals or individual members. Such documents would be
called sthitipatras or samvitpatras in the technical sense of the late Smritis (Ghosal
1997: 603-607).
Recently Kiran Kumar Thaplyal (2001) has come out with a very critical and
comprehensive study of guilds (srenis) in ancient India.
Thaplyal shows that both Merchant Guilds as well the Craft Guilds were very
much present and played a vital role in the socio-economic structure of ancient
India. His database is literary evidence as found in the scriptures, texts and also
archaeological findings. He discusses the institution of the Guilds in four time
brackets: 1) The Vedic period, 2) Buddhist/Jain period, 3) Mauryan period and 4)
and the Post-Mauryan period. Thaplyal sketches a brief historical review and
discusses various aspects of the laws, apprenticeship, structure, offices, accounts
and the functions of these guilds. He also shows the relationship of the guild to the

state. Reference is made to the cobblers' guild, the oil millers' guild, potters guild,
weavers' guild, and hydraulic engineers' guild.
Thaplyal writes that Buddhism and Jainism, which emerged in the 6th century BC,
were more egalitarian than Brahmanism that preceded them and provided a better
environment for the growth of guilds. Material wealth and animals were sacrificed
in the Brahmanical yajnas. The Buddhists and Jains did not perform such yajnas.
Thus, material wealth and animals were saved and made available for trade and
commerce. Since the Buddhists and Jains disregarded the social taboos of
purity/pollution in mixing and taking food with people of lower varnas, they felt
less constrained in conducting long distance trade. The Gautama Dharmasutra (c.
5th century BC) states that "cultivators, traders, herdsmen, moneylenders, and
artisans have authority to lay down rules for their respective classes and the king
was to consult their representatives while dealing with matters relating to them."
The Jataka tales refer to eighteen guilds, to their heads, to localization of industry
and to the hereditary nature of professions. The Jataka stories frequently refer to a
son following the craft of his father. Often, kula and putta occur as suffixes to
craft-names, the former indicating that the whole family adopted a particular craft
and the latter that the son followed the craft of his father. This ensured regular
trained manpower and created more specialization. Here it is pointed out that the
hereditary nature of profession in Indian guilds makes them different from the
European guilds of the Middle Ages whose membership was invariably based on
the choice of an individual. It may, however, be pointed out that adopting a family
profession was more common with members of craftsmen's guilds than with
members of traders' guilds.
As regards the existence of the Guilds in India prior to the Buddhist/Jain period,
Thaplyal informs that scholars are divided on the issue of whether the guild system
was in existence in the early Vedic period. Some consider Vedic society sufficiently
advanced to warrant the existence of such economic organizations and consider
terms, like sreni, puga, gana,vrata in Vedic literature as indicative of guild
organization and sreshthi as president of a guild. Others consider early Vedic
society to be rural with nomadism still in vogue and opine that the Aryans,
preoccupied with war as they were, could not produce surplus food-grains, so vital
for enabling craftsmen to devote their whole time in the pursuit of crafts. They
hold that neither terms like sreni and puga in Vedic literature denote a guild,
or sreshthi, the 'guild president'. However, Thaplyal says that division of labour
under the varna system may have been conducive to the emergence of guild
organization. Agriculture, animal husbandry and trade, the three occupations of the

Vaisyas, in course of time developed as separate groups. In the Upanishads (c. 6th
century BC) there are several pieces of evidence regarding the existence of guilds
in that period.
The Mauryan period is highlighted by the extensive treatment given to Guilds by
Kautilya who considers the possibility of guilds as agencies capable of becoming
centres of power. Thaplyal points out that the Mauryan Empire (c. 320 to c. 200
BC) witnessed better maintained highways and increased mobility of men and
merchandise. The state participated in agricultural and industrial production. The
government kept a record of trades and crafts and related transactions and
conventions of the guilds, indicating state intervention in guild-affairs. The state
allotted guilds separate areas in a town for running their trade and crafts. The
members of the tribal republics that lost political power due to their incorporation
in the extensive Mauryan Empire took to crafts and trades and formed economic
organizations.
Thaplyal considers the period c. 200 BC to c. AD 300 as the last phase of guilds in
ancient India. The decline of the Mauryan Empire (c. 200 BC) led to political
disintegration and laxity in state control over guilds, allowing them better chances
to grow. The epigraphs from Sanchi, Bharhut, Bodhgaya, Mathura and the sites of
western Deccan refer to donations made by different craftsmen and traders. Guilds
of flour-makers, weavers, oil-millers, potters, manufacturers of hydraulic engines,
corn-dealers, bamboo-workers, etc. find mention in the epigraphs. The period
witnessed a closer commercial intercourse with the Roman Empire in which Indian
merchants earned huge profits. The evidence of the Manusmriti and
the Yajnavalkyasmriti shows an increase in the authority of guilds in comparison to
earlier periods. Epigraphic evidence of the period refers to acts of charity and piety
of the guilds as also their bank-like functions.
Guild Laws
Apart from their socio-economic importance, the guilds must have exercised
considerable political influence as well in those times as is shown by Thaplyal by
quoting from the texts and the scriptures at length. Thaplyal says that Guilds had
their laws, based on customs and usage, regarding organization, production,
fixation of prices of commodities, etc. These rules were generally recognized by
the state. The laws were a safeguard against state oppression and interference in
guild affairs. The Gautama Dharmasutra enjoins upon the king to consult guild
representatives while dealing with matters concerning guilds. In Kautilya's scheme,
a Superintendent of Accounts was to keep a record of the customs and transactions

of corporations. Manu enjoins that a guild member who breaks an agreement must
be banished from the realm by the king. According to Yajnavalkya, profits and
losses were to be shared by members in proportion to their shares. According to
the Mahabharata, for breach of guild laws, there was no expiation. Yajnavalkya
prescribes severe punishment for one who embezzles guild property. According to
him, one who does not deposit in the joint fund money obtained for the corporation
was to pay eleven times the sum by way of penalty. The guild rules helped in
smooth functioning of the guilds and in creating greater bonds of unity among
guild members.
Guild Structure
Thaplyal explains that the Guilds had three components: (a) the General Assembly,
(b) the Guild Chairman or the Head, and (c) the Executive Officers, each with its
well-defined sphere of jurisdiction.
(a) The General Assembly

All the members of the Guild constituted the General Assembly. Jataka stories give
round figures of 100, 500,1000 as members of different guilds. There is a reference
to 1000 carpenters of Varanasi under two heads. This could be because the number
was considered large enough to make the guild unwieldy, though it may be pointed
out that a few references to 1000 members of a guild, without division, do occur.
The Nasik Inscription of the time of Nahapana refers to two weavers' guilds at
Govardhana (Nasik). Mention of bickering within large Guilds is not infrequent
and it is possible that a place had more than one Guild of the same trade.
(b) The Guild Head

The head of a guild is often referred to as the jetthaka or pamukkha in early

Buddhist literature. Often he is referred to after the occupation followed by the
guild of which he was the head, e.g. 'head of garland makers' (malakara jetthaka),
'head of carpenters' guild' (vaddhaki jetthaka), etc. Apparently the Guild Head
exercised considerable power over the members of his Guild. Setthis were
merchant-cum-bankers and often headed merchant guilds. The guild head could
punish a guilty member even to the extent of excommunication. Ancient texts do
not seem to specify whether the office of the head of a guild was elective or
hereditary though there are positive references to either. It appears that normally
headship of a guild went to the eldest son. Succession is mentioned only after the
death of the head and not in his lifetime, which would suggest that the head
remained in office life-long. The evidence of two Damodarpur Copper-plate
inscriptions of the 5th century AD shows that one Bhupala held the office
of nagarasreshthi for well nigh half a century, supports this.

(c) Executive Officers

To assist the guild head and to look after the day-to-day business of the guild,
Executive Officers came to be appointed. The earliest reference to Executive
Officers is met with in the Yajnavalkyasmriti. Their number varied according to
need and circumstances. Yajnavalkya says that they should be pure, free from
avarice and knower of the Vedas. It is not specially stated whether the Executive
Officers were elected by the Assembly or were nominated by the guild head.
Functions of the Guilds
Besides serving the purpose of keeping the members of a trade together like a close
community, the Guilds undertook many useful roles such as administrative,
economic, charitable and banking functions. Thaplyal reports that the powerful
Guilds performed judicial functions as well. The guilds had a good deal of
administrative control over their members. Looking after the interests of their
members making things convenient for them was their prime concern. The trained
workers of the guilds provided a congenial atmosphere for work. They procured
raw materials for manufacturing, controlled quality of manufactured goods and
their price, and located markets for their sale. Although the Arthasastra does not
contain any reference to guilds loaning money to the general public, yet there are
references suggesting that the king's spies borrowed from guilds on the pretext of
procuring various types of merchandize. This shows that guilds loaned money to
artisans and merchants as well. Guilds established their efficiency and integrity,
and epigraphic evidence shows that not only the general public, even the royalty
deposited money with them. However, the guilds had limited scope in banking in
comparison to modern banks. Thaplyal refers to a few epigraphs here. A Mathura
Inscription (2nd century AD) refers to the two permanent endowments of 550
silver coins each with two guilds to feed Brahmins and the poor from out of the
interest money. Of the two Nasik Inscriptions (2nd century AD) one records the
endowment of 2000 karshapanas at the rate of one percent (per month) with a
weavers' guild for providing cloth to bhikshus and 1000 karshapanas at the rate of
0.75 percent (per month) with another weavers' guild for serving light meals to
them. Apart from these more epigraphs and inscriptions are mentioned as evidence
in this regard. In addition to this the guilds engaged in works of Charity as well.
Guilds worked to alleviate distress and undertook works of piety and charity as a
matter of duty. They were expected to use part of their profits for preservation and
maintenance of assembly halls, watersheds, shrines, tanks and gardens, as also for
helping widows, the poor and destitute.

Besides these functions, the Guilds could try their members for offence in
accordance with their own customs and usages, which came to acquire almost the
status of law. A guild member had to abide by both guild and state laws.
The Vasishtha Dharmasutra holds the evidence of guilds as valid in settling
boundary disputes. However the jurisdiction of guild courts was confined to civil
cases alone. All guilds acted as courts for their members but either only important
ones, or representatives of various guilds authorized by the state, would have acted
as courts for general public. Guilds, being organizations of people of different
castes following the same profession, would also have had some Brahmin
members, some of whom would have been Executive Officers and probably they,
with the help of members or Executive Officers of other varnas would have
formed the courts of justice.
Considering the distinction between the caste and the guild Thaplyal holds that
though similar in some respects, they were basically different. Guilds were
economic institutions; castes were social groups. Whereas caste is necessarily
hereditary, the guild membership is not so. One could be a member of only one
caste, but one could be a member of more than one guild. However, in areas
populated by people of the same caste membership of guild and caste coincided
and the head of the guild presided over the meetings of both guild and caste.
Lastly, Thaplyal looks into the relationship between the guild and the state
informing us that the Guilds enjoyed considerable autonomy, which came not as a
favour from the state but by their inherent right. The guilds safeguarded the
interests of traders and craftsmen against oppression by the king, as well as legal
discrimination they were normally subjected to. Manu enjoins upon a king, to
acquire knowledge of laws of the srenis and other institutions while dealing with
them. Yajnavalkya lays down that such rules of corporations as are not against
sacred laws should be observed. Even Kautilya, a champion of state control over
all spheres of activity, lays down rules for the protection of artisans. Since the state
earned a sizable income from taxation through guilds, it naturally provided
facilities to them by maintaining roads for transport of merchandise and also
granted subsidies and loans to them. Some prosperous merchants, as members of
the guilds, or otherwise, must have extended financial support to kings in times of
emergency. Kings honoured guild heads by offering gifts. Guild heads were present
at important state ceremonies. The heads of guilds accompanied Suddhodana in
welcoming the Buddha, and also Bimbisara in paying a visit to the Buddha.
Tradition believes that they, along with others, waited for the coronation ceremony

of Bharata, and also accompanied Bharata to visit Rama at Chitrakuta.

Thenaigamas participated in Rama's coronation ceremony.
There is no evidence of a guild or a combination of guilds attempting to capture
political power. The guilds of the period were local in character, with no central
organization. Interests of different guilds were of different kinds, sometimes even
conflicting and so they could hardly form a joint front against the state. However,
in case of contests for succession to the royal throne, they might have helped the
claimants of their choice in acquiring it. However, Kautilya advises the king to see
that heads of different guilds do not unite against him, and win the support of the
guilds by means of reconciliation and gifts, and to weaken the ones as are inimical
to him. He also advises the king to grant land, which is under attack from enemy to
the guild of warriors. Guild quarrels, both internal and external, provided the king
with appropriate opportunities to interfere in guild affairs. Yajnavalkya enjoins that
a king should settle quarrels among guilds according to their usages and make
them follow the established path.
So we find that Thaplyal in this article, well substantiated by literary evidence, has
tried to show that the social institutions that we generally attribute to the ingenuity
of the west were already present in the socio-economic structures of ancient Indian
society.
We had made such unique social innovations which served a variety of useful
functions: specialisation of crafts, quality control of products, defence against
state's oppression, composing differences among different sections of society,
providing justice to the needy, charity to the poor etc. Guilds were perhaps the
earliest democratic institutions of the world.

The Manor System

The manor system was a way that feudal lords organized their lands in order to produce agric
house and accompanying village, farmland, meadowland, and wasteland. The lord of the man
brick cottages that were all in the same area. The serfs' cottages were very small and only co
when they weren't working in the fields. Serfs farmed and completed other jobs around the m
to go to heaven in their after life.

The manor system also used a special system to farm their fields. This system was called the
of land. In the autumn one third was planted to wheat, barley, or rye, and in the spring an
legumes to be harvested in late summer. One strip was always left barren so that when the
the strips were one acre of land and the best soil was given to the lord of the land while th
quality. This system provided for the manor quite well, sometimes there was even a surplus
allowed for towns and villages to gro

Click play below to take a tour of a preserved manor house that d

The manor system was where the majority of people lived during the
Middle Ages. Since much of Europe was devestated by war, powerful lords
and ladies built fortified castles where they could live, along with their
respective staff. These massive plots of land became known as manors. A
manor was self-sufficient, meaning that everything needed to survive could
be located on the property. For example, manors had housing for all the
people who worked for the lord and lady, food sources, water sources, and
specialty shops. Please look at the diagram below, which depicts a typical
medieval manor:

Sociology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the discipline. For the journal, see Sociology (journal).

Sociology

History

Outline

Portal
Theory

Positivism

Antipositivism

Postpositivism

Functionalism

Conflict theories

Social constructionism

Structuralism

Interactionism

Critical theory

Structure and agency

Actornetwork theory
Methods

Quantitative

Qualitative
Historical

Mathematical

Computational

Ethnography

Ethnomethodology

Network analysis
Subfields

Conflict

Criminology

Culture

Development

Deviance

Demography

Education

Economic

Environmental

Family

Gender

Health

Industrial

Inequality

Knowledge

Law
Literature

Medical

Military

Organizational

Political

Race and ethnicity

Religion

Rural
Science

Social change

Social movements

Social psychology

Stratification

STS
Technology

Urban
Browse

Bibliography

By country

Index

Journals
Organizations

People
Timeline

Sociology is the study of social behaviour or society, including its origins, development,
organization, networks, andinstitutions.[1][2][3][4][5] It is a social science that uses various
methods of empirical investigation[6] and critical analysis[7] to develop a body of
knowledge about social order, disorder, and change. Many sociologists aim to conduct
research that may be applied directly to social policy and welfare, while others focus
primarily on refining the theoretical understanding of social processes. Subject matter
ranges from the micro-sociology level of individual agency and interaction to
the macro level of systems and the social structure.[8]
The traditional focuses of sociology include social stratification, social class, social
mobility, religion, secularization, law, sexuality anddeviance. As all spheres of human
activity are affected by the interplay between social structure and individual agency,
sociology has gradually expanded its focus to further subjects, such
as health, medical, military and penal institutions, the Internet, education,social
capital and the role of social activity in the development of scientific knowledge.
The range of social scientific methods has also expanded. Social researchers draw upon
a variety of qualitative and quantitativetechniques. The linguistic and cultural turns of the
mid-twentieth century led to increasingly interpretative, hermeneutic,
andphilosophic approaches towards the analysis of society. Conversely, the end of the
1990s and the beginning of 2000s have seen the rise of
new analytically, mathematically and computationally rigorous techniques, such
as agent-based modelling and social network analysis.[9][10]
Social research informs politicians and policy
makers, educators, planners, legislators, administrators, developers, business
magnates, managers, social workers, non-governmental organizations, non-profit
organizations, and people interested in resolvingsocial issues in general. There is often
a great deal of crossover between social research, market research, and
other statisticalfields.[11]
Contents
[hide]

1Classification

2History
o

2.1Origins

2.2Foundations of the academic discipline

2.3Positivism and anti-positivism

2.3.1Positivism

2.3.2Anti-positivism
2.4Other developments

3Theoretical traditions
3.1Classical theory

3.1.1Functionalism

3.1.2Conflict theory

3.1.3Symbolic Interactionism

3.1.4Utilitarianism
3.220th-century social theory

3.2.1Pax Wisconsana

3.2.2Structuralism

3.2.3Post-structuralism

4Central theoretical problems

o

4.1Subjectivity and objectivity

4.2Structure and agency

4.3Synchrony and diachrony

5Research methodology
o

5.1Sampling

5.2Methods

5.3Computational sociology

6Scope and topics

6.1Culture

6.1.1Art, music and literature

6.2Criminality, deviance, law and punishment

6.2.1Sociology of law

6.3Communications and information technologies

6.3.1Internet and digital media

6.3.2Media
6.4Economic sociology

6.4.1Work, employment, and industry

6.5Education

6.6Environment

6.6.1Human ecology

6.7Family, gender, and sexuality

6.8Health, illness, and the body

6.8.1Death, dying, bereavement

6.9Knowledge and science

6.10Leisure

6.11Peace, war, and conflict

6.12Political sociology

6.13Population and demography

6.14Public sociology

6.15Race and ethnic relations

6.16Religion

6.17Social change and development

6.18Social networks

6.19Social psychology

6.20Stratification, poverty and inequality

6.21Urban and rural sociology

6.21.1Community sociology
6.22Violence

7Other academic disciplines

8Journals

9See also

10References

11Further reading

12External links

Classification[edit]
Sociology shouldn't be confused with various general social studies courses, which bear
little relation to sociological theory or social science research methodology. The
USNational Science Foundation classifies sociology as a STEM field.[12][13]

History[edit]
Main articles: History of sociology, List of sociologists, and Timeline of sociology

Origins[edit]

Ibn Khaldun statue inTunis, Tunisia (13321406)

Sociological reasoning pre-dates the foundation of the discipline. Social analysis has
origins in the common stock of Western knowledge andphilosophy, and has been carried
out from as far back as the time of ancient Greek philosopher Plato, if not before. The
origin of the survey, i.e., the collection of information from a sample of individuals, can
be traced back to at least the Domesday Book in 1086,[14][15] while ancient philosophers
such as Confucius wrote on the importance of social roles. There is evidence of early
sociology in medieval Islam. Some considerIbn Khaldun, a 14th-century Arab[16]
[17]
Islamic scholar from North Africa (Tunisia), to have been the first sociologist and father
of sociology (seeBranches of the early Islamic philosophy); his Muqaddimah was
perhaps the first work to advance social-scientific reasoning on social
cohesionand social conflict.[18][19][20][21][22][23]

The word sociology (or "sociologie") is derived from both Latin and Greek origins.
The Latin word: socius, "companion"; the suffix -logy, "the study of" from Greek from , lgos, "word", "knowledge". It was first coined in 1780 by the French
essayist Emmanuel-Joseph Sieys (17481836) in an unpublished manuscript.
[24]
Sociology was later defined independently by the French philosopher of
science, Auguste Comte (17981857), in 1838.[25] Comte used this term to describe a
new way of looking at society.[26] Comte had earlier used the term "social physics", but
that had subsequently been appropriated by others, most notably the Belgian
statistician Adolphe Quetelet. Comte endeavoured to unify history, psychology and
economics through the scientific understanding of the social realm. Writing shortly after
the malaise of the French Revolution, he proposed that social ills could be remedied
through sociological positivism, an epistemological approach outlined in The Course in
Positive Philosophy (18301842) and A General View of Positivism (1848). Comte
believed a positivist stage would mark the final era, after
conjecturaltheological and metaphysical phases, in the progression of human
understanding.[27] In observing the circular dependence of theory and observation in
science, and having classified the sciences, Comte may be regarded as the
first philosopher of science in the modern sense of the term.[28]

Auguste Comte (17981857)

Comte gave a powerful impetus to the development of sociology, an impetus which bore
fruit in the later decades of the nineteenth century. To say this is certainly not to claim
that French sociologists such as Durkheim were devoted disciples of the high priest of
positivism. But by insisting on the irreducibility of each of his basic sciences to the
particular science of sciences which it presupposed in the hierarchy and by emphasizing
the nature of sociology as the scientific study of social phenomena Comte put sociology
on the map. To be sure, [its] beginnings can be traced back well beyond Montesquieu,
for example, and to Condorcet, not to speak of Saint-Simon, Comte's immediate
predecessor. But Comte's clear recognition of sociology as a particular science, with a
character of its own, justified Durkheim in regarding him as the father or founder of this
science, in spite of the fact that Durkheim did not accept the idea of the three states and
criticized Comte's approach to sociology.[29]
Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy: IX Modern Philosophy 1974

Karl Marx (18181883)

Both Auguste Comte and Karl Marx (18181883) set out to develop scientifically justified
systems in the wake of European industrialization andsecularization, informed by various
key movements in the philosophies of history and science. Marx rejected Comtean
positivism[30] but in attempting to develop a science of society nevertheless came to be
recognized as a founder of sociology as the word gained wider meaning. ForIsaiah
Berlin, Marx may be regarded as the "true father" of modern sociology, "in so far as
anyone can claim the title."[31]
To have given clear and unified answers in familiar empirical terms to those theoretical
questions which most occupied men's minds at the time, and to have deduced from
them clear practical directives without creating obviously artificial links between the two,
was the principle achievement of Marx's theory. The sociological treatment of historical
and moral problems, which Comte and after him,Spencer and Taine, had discussed and
mapped, became a precise and concrete study only when the attack of militant Marxism
made its conclusions a burning issue, and so made the search for evidence more
zealous and the attention to method more intense. [32]
Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx: His Life and Environment 1937

Herbert Spencer (18201903)

Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 8 December 1903) was one of the most popular and
influential 19th-century sociologists. It is estimated that he sold one million books in his
lifetime, far more than any other sociologist at the time. So strong was his influence that
many other 19th century thinkers, including mile Durkheim, defined their ideas in
relation to his. Durkheim's Division of Labour in Society is to a large extent an extended
debate with Spencer from whose sociology, many commentators now agree, Durkheim
borrowed extensively.[33] Also a notable biologist, Spencer coined the term "survival of the
fittest". While Marxian ideas defined one strand of sociology, Spencer was a critic of

socialism as well as strong advocate for a laissez-faire style of government. His ideas
were highly observed by conservative political circles, especially in the United
Statesand England.[34]

Foundations of the academic discipline[edit]

Main articles: mile Durkheim and Social facts

mile Durkheim

The first formal Department of Sociology in the world was established by Albion Small at the invitation of William Rainey Harper - at the University of Chicago in 1892, and
the American Journal of Sociology was founded shortly thereafter in 1895 by Small as
well.[35] However, the institutionalization of sociology as an academic discipline was
chiefly led by mile Durkheim (18581917), who developed positivism as a foundation to
practical social research. While Durkheim rejected much of the detail of Comte's
philosophy, he retained and refined its method, maintaining that the social sciences are
a logical continuation of the natural ones into the realm of human activity, and insisting
that they may retain the same objectivity, rationalism, and approach to causality.
[36]
Durkheim set up the first European department of sociology at the University of
Bordeaux in 1895, publishing his Rules of the Sociological Method (1895).[37] For
Durkheim, sociology could be described as the "science ofinstitutions, their genesis and
their functioning".[38]
Durkheim's monograph, Suicide (1897) is considered a seminal work in statistical
analysis by contemporary sociologists. Suicide is a case study of variations in suicide
rates among Catholic and Protestant populations, and served to distinguish sociological
analysis from psychology or philosophy. It also marked a major contribution to the
theoretical concept of structural functionalism. By carefully examining suicide statistics in
different police districts, he attempted to demonstrate that Catholic communities have a
lower suicide rate than that of Protestants, something he attributed to social (as opposed
to individual or psychological) causes. He developed the notion of objective sui
generis "social facts" to delineate a unique empirical object for the science of sociology
to study.[36] Through such studies he posited that sociology would be able to determine
whether any given society is 'healthy' or 'pathological', and seek social reform to negate
organic breakdown or "social anomie".
Sociology quickly evolved as an academic response to the perceived challenges
of modernity, such as industrialization, urbanization,secularization, and the process of
"rationalization".[39] The field predominated in continental Europe, with
British anthropology and statisticsgenerally following on a separate trajectory. By the turn
of the 20th century, however, many theorists were active in the Anglo-Saxon world. Few

early sociologists were confined strictly to the subject, interacting also

with economics, jurisprudence, psychology and philosophy, with theories being
appropriated in a variety of different fields. Since its inception, sociological epistemology,
methods, and frames of inquiry, have significantly expanded and diverged. [8]
Durkheim, Marx, and the German theorist Max Weber (18641920) are typically cited as
the three principal architects of sociology.[40] Herbert Spencer, William Graham
Sumner,Lester F. Ward, W. E. B. Du Bois, Vilfredo Pareto, Alexis de Tocqueville, Werner
Sombart, Thorstein Veblen, Ferdinand Tnnies, Georg Simmel and Karl Mannheim are
often included on academic curricula as founding theorists. Curricula also may
include Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Marianne Weber and Friedrich Engels as founders of
the feminist tradition in sociology. Each key figure is associated with a particular
theoretical perspective and orientation.[41]
Marx and Engels associated the emergence of modern society above all with the
development of capitalism; for Durkheim it was connected in particular with
industrialization and the new social division of labor which this brought about; for Weber
it had to do with the emergence of a distinctive way of thinking, the rational calculation
which he associated with the Protestant Ethic (more or less what Marx and Engels
speak of in terms of those 'icy waves of egotistical calculation'). Together the works of
these great classical sociologists suggest what Giddens has recently described as 'a
multidimensional view of institutions of modernity' and which emphasises not only
capitalism and industrialism as key institutions of modernity, but also 'surveillance'
(meaning 'control of information and social supervision') and 'military power' (control of
the means of violence in the context of the industrialisation of war). [41]
John Harriss, The Second Great Transformation? Capitalism at the End of the
Twentieth Century 1992

Positivism and anti-positivism[edit]

Positivism[edit]
Main article: Positivism
The overarching methodological principle of positivism is to conduct sociology in broadly
the same manner as natural science. An emphasis on empiricism and the scientific
method is sought to provide a tested foundation for sociological research based on the
assumption that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such
knowledge can only arrive by positive affirmation through scientific methodology.
Our main goal is to extend scientific rationalism to human conduct.... What has been
called our positivism is but a consequence of this rationalism. [42]
mile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
The term has long since ceased to carry this meaning; there are no fewer than twelve
distinct epistemologies that are referred to as positivism. [36][43] Many of these approaches
do not self-identify as "positivist", some because they themselves arose in opposition to
older forms of positivism, and some because the label has over time become a term of
abuse[36] by being mistakenly linked with a theoretical empiricism. The extent of
antipositivist criticism has also diverged, with many rejecting the scientific method and
others only seeking to amend it to reflect 20th century developments in the philosophy of
science. However, positivism (broadly understood as a scientific approach to the study of
society) remains dominant in contemporary sociology, especially in the United States. [36]

Loc Wacquant distinguishes three major strains of positivism: Durkheimian, Logical, and
Instrumental.[36] None of these are the same as that set forth by Comte, who was unique
in advocating such a rigid (and perhaps optimistic) version. [44][45] While mile Durkheim
rejected much of the detail of Comte's philosophy, he retained and refined its method.
Durkheim maintained that the social sciences are a logical continuation of the natural
ones into the realm of human activity, and insisted that they should retain the same
objectivity, rationalism, and approach to causality.[36] He developed the notion of
objective sui generis "social facts" to delineate a unique empirical object for the science
of sociology to study.[36]
The variety of positivism that remains dominant today is termed instrumental positivism.
This approach eschews epistemological and metaphysical concerns (such as the nature
of social facts) in favour of methodological clarity, replicability, reliability and validity.
[46]
This positivism is more or less synonymous with quantitative research, and so only
resembles older positivism in practice. Since it carries no explicit philosophical
commitment, its practitioners may not belong to any particular school of thought. Modern
sociology of this type is often credited to Paul Lazarsfeld,[36] who pioneered large-scale
survey studies and developed statistical techniques for analysing them. This approach
lends itself to what Robert K. Merton called middle-range theory: abstract statements
that generalize from segregated hypotheses and empirical regularities rather than
starting with an abstract idea of a social whole. [47]
Anti-positivism[edit]
Main article: Anti-positivism
Reactions against social empiricism began when German philosopher Hegel voiced
opposition to both empiricism, which he rejected as uncritical, and determinism, which
he viewed as overly mechanistic.[48] Karl Marx's methodology borrowed from Hegelian
dialecticism but also a rejection of positivism in favour of critical analysis, seeking to
supplement the empirical acquisition of "facts" with the elimination of illusions. [49] He
maintained that appearances need to be critiqued rather than simply documented. Early
hermeneuticians such as Wilhelm Dilthey pioneered the distinction between natural and
social science ('Geisteswissenschaft'). Various neoKantian philosophers,phenomenologists and human scientists further theorized how the
analysis of the social world differs to that of the natural world due to the irreducibly
complex aspects of human society, culture, and being.[50][51]
At the turn of the 20th century the first generation of German sociologists formally
introduced methodological anti-positivism, proposing that research should concentrate
on human cultural norms, values, symbols, and social processes viewed from a
resolutely subjective perspective. Max Weber argued that sociology may be loosely
described as a science as it is able to identify causal relationships of human "social
action"especially among "ideal types", or hypothetical simplifications of complex social
phenomena.[52] As a non-positivist, however, Weber sought relationships that are not as
"historical, invariant, or generalisable" [53] as those pursued by natural scientists. Fellow
German sociologist,Ferdinand Tnnies, theorized on two crucial abstract concepts with
his work on "Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft" (lit. community and society). Tnnies
marked a sharp line between the realm of concepts and the reality of social action: the
first must be treated axiomatically and in a deductive way ("pure sociology"), whereas
the second empirically and inductively ("applied sociology"). [54]

Max Weber

[Sociology is] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and
thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and
the effects which it produces. By 'action' in this definition is meant the human behaviour
when and to the extent that the agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful ... the
meaning to which we refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an
individual agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of agents on an
approximate average in a given set of cases, or (b) the meaning attributed to the agent
or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in the abstract. In neither case is the
'meaning' to be thought of as somehow objectively 'correct' or 'true' by some
metaphysical criterion. This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action,
such as sociology and history, and any kind ofprior discipline, such as jurisprudence,
logic, ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to extract from their subject-matter 'correct' or
'valid' meaning.[55]
Max Weber, The Nature of Social Action 1922
Both Weber and Georg Simmel pioneered the "Verstehen" (or 'interpretative') method in
social science; a systematic process by which an outside observer attempts to relate to
a particular cultural group, or indigenous people, on their own terms and from their own
point of view.[56] Through the work of Simmel, in particular, sociology acquired a possible
character beyond positivist data-collection or grand, deterministic systems of structural
law. Relatively isolated from the sociological academy throughout his lifetime, Simmel
presented idiosyncratic analyses of modernity more reminiscent of
the phenomenological and existential writers than of Comte or Durkheim, paying
particular concern to the forms of, and possibilities for, social individuality. [57] His
sociology engaged in a neo-Kantian inquiry into the limits of perception, asking 'What is
society?' in a direct allusion to Kant's question 'What is nature?' [58]

Georg Simmel

The deepest problems of modern life flow from the attempt of the individual to maintain
the independence and individuality of his existence against the sovereign powers of
society, against the weight of the historical heritage and the external culture and
technique of life. The antagonism represents the most modern form of the conflict which
primitive man must carry on with nature for his own bodily existence. The eighteenth
century may have called for liberation from all the ties which grew up historically in
politics, in religion, in morality and in economics in order to permit the original natural
virtue of man, which is equal in everyone, to develop without inhibition; the nineteenth
century may have sought to promote, in addition to man's freedom, his individuality
(which is connected with the division of labor) and his achievements which make him
unique and indispensable but which at the same time make him so much the more
dependent on the complementary activity of others; Nietssche may have seen the
relentless struggle of the individual as the prerequisite for his full development, while
socialism found the same thing in the suppression of all competition but in each of
these the same fundamental motive was at work, namely the resistance of the individual
to being leveled, swallowed up in the social-technological mechanism. [59]
Georg Simmel, The Metropolis and Mental Life 1903

Other developments[edit]

Bust of Ferdinand Tnniesin Husum, Germany

The first college course entitled "Sociology" was taught in the United States at Yale in
1875 by William Graham Sumner.[60] In 1883 Lester F. Ward, the first president of the
American Sociological Association, published Dynamic SociologyOr Applied social
science as based upon statical sociology and the less complex sciences and attacked
the laissez-faire sociology of Herbert Spencer and Sumner.[34] Ward's 1200 page book

was used as core material in many early American sociology courses. In 1890, the
oldest continuing American course in the modern tradition began at the University of
Kansas, lectured by Frank W. Blackmar.[61] The Department of Sociology at
the University of Chicago was established in 1892 byAlbion Small, who also published
the first sociology textbook: An introduction to the study of society 1894. [62] George
Herbert Mead and Charles Cooley, who had met at the University of Michigan in 1891
(along with John Dewey), would move to Chicago in 1894.[63] Their influence gave rise
to social psychology and the symbolic interactionism of the modern Chicago School.
[64]
The American Journal of Sociology was founded in 1895, followed by the American
Sociological Association (ASA) in 1905.[62] The sociological "canon of classics" with
Durkheim and Max Weber at the top owes in part to Talcott Parsons, who is largely
credited with introducing both to American audiences. [65] Parsons consolidated the
sociological tradition and set the agenda for American sociology at the point of its fastest
disciplinary growth. Sociology in the United States was less historically influenced
by Marxism than its European counterpart, and to this day broadly remains more
statistical in its approach.[66]
The first sociology department to be established in the United Kingdom was at
the London School of Economics and Political Science (home of the British Journal of
Sociology) in 1904.[67] Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and Edvard Westermarck became
the lecturers in the discipline at the University of London in 1907.[68][69] Harriet Martineau,
an English translator of Comte, has been cited as the first female sociologist. [70] In 1909
the Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Soziologie (German Sociological Association) was
founded byFerdinand Tnnies and Max Weber, among others. Weber established the
first department in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in 1919,
having presented an influential new antipositivist sociology.[71] In 1920, Florian
Znaniecki set up the first department in Poland. The Institute for Social Research at
the University of Frankfurt (later to become the Frankfurt School of critical theory) was
founded in 1923.[72] International co-operation in sociology began in 1893, when Ren
Worms founded the Institut International de Sociologie, an institution later eclipsed by
the much larger International Sociological Association (ISA), founded in 1949.[73]

Theoretical traditions[edit]
Main article: Sociological theory

Classical theory[edit]
The contemporary discipline of sociology is theoretically multi-paradigmatic [74] as a result
of the contentions of classical social theory. In Randall Collins' well-cited survey of
sociological theory[75] he retroactively labels various theorists as belonging to four
theoretical traditions: Functionalism, Conflict, Symbolic Interactionism, and Utilitarianism.
[76]
Modern sociological theory descends predominately from functionalist (Durkheim) and
conflict-centred (Marx and Weber) accounts of social structure, as well as the symbolic
interactionist tradition consisting of micro-scale structural (Simmel)
and pragmatist (Mead, Cooley) theories of social interaction. Utilitarianism, also known
as Rational Choice or Social Exchange, although often associated with economics, is an
established tradition within sociological theory.[77][78] Lastly, as argued by Raewyn Connell,
a tradition that is often forgotten is that of Social Darwinism, which brings the logic of
Darwinian biological evolution and applies it to people and societies. [79] This tradition
often aligns with classical functionalism. It was the dominant theoretical stance in
American sociology from around 1881 to 1915[80] and is associated with several founders
of sociology, primarily Herbert Spencer, Lester F. Ward and William Graham Sumner.

Contemporary sociological theory retains traces of each of these traditions and they are
by no means mutually exclusive.
Functionalism[edit]
Main article: Structural functionalism
A broad historical paradigm in both sociology and anthropology, functionalism addresses
the social structure, referred to as social organization in among the classical theorists, as
a whole and in terms of the necessary function of its constituent elements. A common
analogy (popularized by Herbert Spencer) is to regard norms and institutions as 'organs'
that work towards the proper-functioning of the entire 'body' of society.[81] The perspective
was implicit in the original sociological positivism of Comte, but was theorized in full by
Durkheim, again with respect to observable, structural laws. Functionalism also has an
anthropological basis in the work of theorists such as Marcel Mauss, Bronisaw
Malinowskiand Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-Brown's specific usage that the prefix
'structural' emerged.[82] Classical functionalist theory is generally united by its tendency
towards biological analogy and notions of social evolutionism, in that the basic form of
society would increase in complexity and those forms of social organization that
promoted solidarity would eventually overcome social disorganization.
As Giddens states: "Functionalist thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly
towards biology as the science providing the closest and most compatible model for
social science. Biology has been taken to provide a guide to conceptualizing the
structure and the function of social systems and to analysing processes of evolution via
mechanisms of adaptation ... functionalism strongly emphasizes the pre-eminence of the
social world over its individual parts (i.e. its constituent actors, human subjects)." [83]
Conflict theory[edit]
Main article: Conflict theory
Functionalist theories emphasize "cohesive systems" and are often contrasted with
"conflict theories", which critique the overarching socio-political system or emphasize the
inequality between particular groups. The following quotes from Durkheim and Marx
epitomize the political, as well as theoretical, disparities, between functionalist and
conflict thought respectively:
To aim for a civilisation beyond that made possible by the nexus of the surrounding
environment will result in unloosing sickness into the very society we live in. Collective
activity cannot be encouraged beyond the point set by the condition of the social
organism without undermining health.[84]
mile Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society 1893
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and
slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word,
oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an
uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a
revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
classes.[85]
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto 1848
Symbolic Interactionism[edit]
Main articles: Symbolic interactionism, Dramaturgy (sociology), Interpretive sociology,
and Phenomenological sociology

Symbolic interaction; often associated with Interactionism, Phenomenological

sociology, Dramaturgy, Interpretivism, is a sociological tradition that places emphasis on
subjective meanings and the empirical unfolding of social processes, generally accessed
through micro-analysis.[86] This tradition emerged in the Chicago School of the 1920s and
1930s, which prior to World War II "had been the center of sociological research and
graduate study".[87] The approach focuses on creating a framework for building a theory
that sees society as the product of the everyday interactions of individuals. Society is
nothing more than the shared reality that people construct as they interact with one
another. This approach sees people interacting in countless settings using symbolic
communications to accomplish the tasks at hand. Therefore, society is a complex, everchanging mosaic of subjective meanings.[88] Some critics of this approach argue that it
only looks at what is happening in a particular social situation, and disregards the effects
that culture, race or gender (i.e. social-historical structures) may have in that situation.
[89]
Some important sociologists associated with this approach include Max
Weber, George Herbert Mead,Erving Goffman, George Homans and Peter Blau. It is
also in this tradition that the radical-empirical approach of Ethnomethodology emerges
from the work of Harold Garfinkel.
Utilitarianism[edit]
Main articles: Utilitarianism, Rational choice theory, and Exchange theory
Utilitarianism is often referred to as exchange theory or rational choice theory in the
context of sociology. This tradition tends to privilege the agency of individual rational
actors and assumes that within interactions individuals always seek to maximize their
own self-interest. As argued by Josh Whitford, rational actors are assumed to have four
basic elements, the individual has (1) "a knowledge of alternatives," (2) "a knowledge of,
or beliefs about the consequences of the various alternatives," (3) "an ordering of
preferences over outcomes," (4) "A decision rule, to select among the possible
alternatives"[90] Exchange theory is specifically attributed to the work of George C.
Homans, Peter Blau andRichard Emerson.[91] Organizational sociologists James G.
March and Herbert A. Simon noted that an individual's rationality is bounded by the
context or organizational setting. The utilitarian perspective in sociology was, most
notably, revitalized in the late 20th century by the work of former ASA president James
Coleman.

20th-century social theory[edit]

Following the decline of theories of sociocultural evolution, in the United States, the
interactionism of the Chicago School dominated American sociology. As Anselm
Straussdescribes, "We didn't think symbolic interaction was a perspective in sociology;
we thought it was sociology." [87] After World War II, mainstream sociology shifted to the
survey-research of Paul Lazarsfeld at Columbia University and the general theorizing
of Pitirim Sorokin, followed by Talcott Parsons at Harvard University. Ultimately, "the
failure of the Chicago, Columbia, and Wisconsin [sociology] departments to produce a
significant number of graduate students interested in and committed to general theory in
the years 193645 was to the advantage of the Harvard department." [92] As Parsons
began to dominate general theory, his work predominately referenced European
sociologyalmost entirely omitting citations of both the American tradition of
sociocultural-evolution as well as pragmatism. In addition to Parsons' revision of the
sociological canon (which included Marshall, Pareto, Weber and Durkheim), the lack of
theoretical challenges from other departments nurtured the rise of the Parsonian
structural-functionalist movement, which reached its crescendo in the 1950s, but by the
1960s was in rapid decline.[93]

By the 1980s, most functionalisms in Europe had broadly been replaced by conflictoriented approaches[94] and to many in the discipline, functionalism was considered "as
dead as a dodo."[95] "According to Giddens, the orthodox consensus terminated in the
late 1960s and 1970s as the middle ground shared by otherwise competing perspectives
gave way and was replaced by a baffling variety of competing perspectives. This third
'generation' of social theory includes phenomenologically inspired approaches, critical
theory, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism, post-structuralism, and
theories written in the tradition of hermeneutics and ordinary language philosophy." [96]
Pax Wisconsana[edit]
While some conflict approaches also gained popularity in the United States, the
mainstream of the discipline instead shifted to a variety of empirically oriented middlerange theories with no single overarching, or "grand", theoretical orientation. John Levi
Martin refers to this "golden age of methodological unity and theoretical calm" as
the Pax Wisconsana,[97] as it reflected the composition of the sociology department at
the University of WisconsinMadison: numerous scholars working on separate projects
with little contention.[98] Omar Lizardo describes the Pax Wisconsana as: "a Midwestern
flavored, Mertonian resolution of the theory/method wars in which [sociologists] all
agreed on at least two working hypotheses: (1) grand theory' is a waste of time; (2) [and]
good theory has to be good to think with or goes in the trash bin." [99] Despite the aversion
to grand theory in the later half of the 20th century, several new traditions have emerged
that propose various syntheses: structuralism, post-structuralism, cultural sociology and
systems theory.
Structuralism[edit]
Anthony Giddens

The structuralist movement originated primarily from the work of Durkheim as interpreted
by two European anthropologists. Anthony Giddens' theory of structuration draws on
the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure and the French anthropologist Claude
Lvi-Strauss. In this context, 'structure' refers not to 'social structure' but to
the semiotic understanding of human culture as a system of signs. One may delineate
four central tenets of structuralism: First, structure is what determines the structure of a
whole. Second, structuralists believe that every system has a structure. Third,
structuralists are interested in 'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than
changes. Finally, structures are the 'real things' beneath the surface or the appearance
of meaning.[100]
The second tradition of structuralist thought, contemporaneous with Giddens, emerges
from the American school of social network analysis, [101]spearheaded by the Harvard
Department of Social Relations led by Harrison White and his students in the 1970s and
1980s. This tradition of structuralist thought argues that, rather than semiotics, social
structure is networks of patterned social relations. And, rather than Levi-Strauss, this
school of thought draws on the notions of structure as theorized by Levi-Strauss'
contemporary anthropologist, Radcliffe-Brown.[102] Some[103] refer to this as "network
structuralism," and equate it to "British structuralism" as opposed to the "French
structuralism" of Levi-Strauss.
Post-structuralism[edit]
Post-structuralist thought has tended to reject 'humanist' assumptions in the conduct of
social theory.[104] Michel Foucault provides a potent critique in his Archaeology of the
Human Sciences, though Habermas and Rorty have both argued that Foucault merely
replaces one such system of thought with another.[105][106] The dialogue between these

intellectuals highlights a trend in recent years for certain schools of sociology and
philosophy to intersect. The anti-humanist position has been associated with
"postmodernism", a term used in specific contexts to describe an era or phenomena, but
occasionally construed as a method.

Central theoretical problems[edit]

Overall, there is a strong consensus regarding the central problems of sociological
theory, which are largely inherited from the classical theoretical traditions. This
consensus is: how to link, transcend or cope with the following "big three" dichotomies:
[107]
subjectivity and objectivity, structure and agency, and synchrony and diachrony. The
first deals withknowledge, the second with action, and the last with time. Lastly,
sociological theory often grapples with the problem of integrating or transcending the
divide between micro, meso and macro-scale social phenomena, which is a subset of all
three central problems.

Subjectivity and objectivity[edit]

Main articles: Objectivity (science), Objectivity (philosophy), and Subjectivity
The problem of subjectivity and objectivity can be divided into a concern over the
general possibilities of social actions, and, on the other hand the specific problem of
social scientific knowledge. In the former, the subjective is often equated (though not
necessarily) with the individual, and the individual's intentions and interpretations of the
objective. The objective is often considered any public or external action or outcome, on
up to society writ large. A primary question for social theorists, is how knowledge
reproduces along the chain of subjective-objective-subjective, that is to say: how
is intersubjectivity achieved? While, historically, qualitative methods have attempted to
tease out subjective interpretations, quantitative survey methods also attempt to capture
individual subjectivities. Also, some qualitative methods take a radical approach to
objective description in situ.
The latter concern with scientific knowledge results from the fact that a sociologist is part
of the very object they seek to explain. Bourdieu puts this problem rather succinctly:
[peacock term]

How can the sociologist effect in practice this radical doubting which is indispensable for
bracketing all the presuppositions inherent in the fact that she is a social being, that she
is therefore socialised and led to feel "like a fish in water" within that social world whose
structures she has internalised? How can she prevent the social world itself from
carrying out the construction of the object, in a sense, through her, through these unselfconscious operations or operations unaware of themselves of which she is the apparent
subject
Pierre Bourdieu, "The Problem of Reflexive Sociology" in An Invitation to Reflexive
Sociology,1992, pg 235

Structure and agency[edit]

Main article: Structure and agency
Structure and agency, sometimes referred to as determinism versus voluntarism, [108] form
an enduring ontological debate in social theory: "Do social structures determine an
individual's behaviour or does human agency?" In this context 'agency' refers to the
capacity of individuals to act independently and make free choices, whereas 'structure'
relates to factors that limit or affect the choices and actions of individuals (such as social
class, religion, gender, ethnicity, and so on). Discussions over the primacy of either

structure and agency relate to the core of sociological epistemology ("What is the social
world made of?", "What is a cause in the social world, and what is an effect?"). [109] A
perennial question within this debate is that of "social reproduction": how are structures
(specifically, structures producing inequality) reproduced through the choices of
individuals?

Synchrony and diachrony[edit]

Synchrony and diachrony, or statics and dynamics, within social theory are terms that
refer to a distinction emerging out of the work of Levi-Strauss who inherited it from the
linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure.[102] The former slices moments of time for analysis,
thus it is an analysis of static social reality. Diachrony, on the other hand, attempts to
analyse dynamic sequences. Following Saussure, synchrony would refer to social
phenomena as a static concept like a language, while diachrony would refer to unfolding
processes like actual speech. In Anthony Giddens' introduction to Central Problems in
Social Theory, he states that, "in order to show the interdependence of action and
structure ... we must grasp the time space relations inherent in the constitution of all
social interaction." And like structure and agency, time is integral to discussion of social
reproduction. In terms of sociology, historical sociology is often better positioned to
analyse social life as diachronic, while survey research takes a snapshot of social life
and is thus better equipped to understand social life as synchronized. Some argue that
the synchrony of social structure is a methodological perspective rather than an
ontological claim.[102]Nonetheless, the problem for theory is how to integrate the two
manners of recording and thinking about social data.

Research methodology[edit]
Main article: Social research
Many people divide sociological research methods into two broad categories, although
many others see research methods as a continuum: [110]

Quantitative designs approach social phenomena through quantifiable evidence,

and often rely on statistical analysis of many cases (or across intentionally designed
treatments in an experiment) to create valid and reliable general claims

Qualitative designs emphasize understanding of social phenomena through direct

observation, communication with participants, or analysis of texts, and may stress
contextual and subjective accuracy over generality

Many sociologists are divided into camps of support for particular research techniques.
These disputes relate to the epistemological debates at the historical core of social
theory. While very different in many aspects, both qualitative and quantitative
approaches involve a systematic interaction between theory and data.[111] Quantitative
methodologies hold the dominant position in sociology, especially in the United States.
[36]
In the discipline's two most cited journals, quantitative articles have historically
outnumbered qualitative ones by a factor of two. [112] (Most articles published in the largest
British journal, on the other hand, are qualitative.) Most textbooks on the methodology of
social research are written from the quantitative perspective, [113] and the very term
"methodology" is often used synonymously with "statistics." Practically all sociology PhD
programmes in the United States require training in statistical methods. The work
produced by quantitative researchers is also deemed more 'trustworthy' and 'unbiased'
by the greater public,[114] though this judgment continues to be challenged by
antipositivists.[114]

The choice of method often depends largely on what the researcher intends to
investigate. For example, a researcher concerned with drawing a statistical
generalization across an entire population may administer a survey questionnaire to a
representative sample population. By contrast, a researcher who seeks full contextual
understanding of an individual's social actions may choose ethnographic participant
observation or open-ended interviews. Studies will commonly combine, or 'triangulate',
quantitative and qualitative methods as part of a 'multi-strategy' design. For instance, a
quantitative study may be performed to gain statistical patterns or a target sample, and
then combined with a qualitative interview to determine the play of agency.[111]

Sampling[edit]

The bean machine, designed by early social research methodologist Sir Francis Galton to
demonstrate the normal distribution, which is important to much quantitativehypothesis testing.

Quantitative methods are often used to ask questions about a population that is very
large, making a census or a complete enumeration of all the members in that population
infeasible. A 'sample' then forms a manageable subset of a population. In quantitative
research, statistics are used to draw inferences from this sample regarding the
population as a whole. The process of selecting a sample is referred to as 'sampling'.
While it is usually best to sample randomly, concern with differences between specific
subpopulations sometimes calls for stratified sampling. Conversely, the impossibility of
random sampling sometimes necessitates nonprobability sampling, such
as convenience sampling orsnowball sampling.[111]

Methods[edit]
The following list of research methods is neither exclusive nor exhaustive:

Archival research or the Historical method: draws upon the secondary

data located in historical archives and records, such as biographies, memoirs,
journals, and so on.

Content analysis: The content of interviews and other texts is systematically

analysed. Often data is 'coded' as a part of the 'grounded theory' approach using
qualitative data analysis (QDA) software, such as Atlas.ti, MAXQDA, NVivo,
[115]
or QDA Miner.

Experimental research: The researcher isolates a single social process and

reproduces it in a laboratory (for example, by creating a situation where unconscious
sexist judgements are possible), seeking to determine whether or not certain
social variables can cause, or depend upon, other variables (for instance, seeing if
people's feelings about traditional gender roles can be manipulated by the activation
of contrasting gender stereotypes).[116] Participants are randomly assigned to different

groups that either serve as controlsacting as reference points because they are
tested with regard to the dependent variable, albeit without having been exposed to
any independent variables of interestor receive one or more treatments.
Randomization allows the researcher to be sure that any resulting differences
between groups are the result of the treatment.

Longitudinal study: An extensive examination of a specific person or group over a

long period of time.

Observation: Using data from the senses, the researcher records information
about social phenomenon or behaviour. Observation techniques may or may not
feature participation. In participant observation, the researcher goes into the field
(such as a community or a place of work), and participates in the activities of the field
for a prolonged period of time in order to acquire a deep understanding of it. [117] Data
acquired through these techniques may be analysed either quantitatively or
qualitatively. In the observation research, a sociologist might study global warming in
some part of the that is less populated.

Survey research: The researcher gathers data using interviews, questionnaires,

or similar feedback from a set of people sampled from a particular population of
interest. Survey items from an interview or questionnaire may be open-ended or
closed-ended.[118] Data from surveys is usually analysed statistically on a computer.

Computational sociology[edit]

A social networkdiagram: individuals (or 'nodes') connected by relationships

Main article: Computational sociology

Sociologists increasingly draw upon computationally intensive methods to analyse and
model social phenomena.[119] Using computer simulations,artificial intelligence, text
mining, complex statistical methods, and new analytic approaches like social
network analysis and social sequence analysis, computational sociology develops and
tests theories of complex social processes through bottom-up modelling of social
interactions.[120]
Although the subject matter and methodologies in social science differ from those in
natural science or computer science, several of the approaches used in contemporary
social simulation originated from fields such as physics and artificial intelligence.[121][122] By
the same token, some of the approaches that originated in computational sociology have
been imported into the natural sciences, such as measures of network centrality from the
fields of social network analysis and network science. In relevant literature,
computational sociology is often related to the study of social complexity.[123] Social
complexity concepts such as complex systems, non-linear interconnection among macro

and micro process, andemergence, have entered the vocabulary of computational

sociology.[124] A practical and well-known example is the construction of a computational
model in the form of an "artificial society", by which researchers can analyse the
structure of a social system.[125][126]

Scope and topics[edit]

Main article: Outline of sociology

Culture[edit]

Max Horkheimer (left, front),Theodor Adorno (right, front), andJrgen Habermas (right, back)
1965

Main articles: Sociology of culture and Cultural studies

Sociologists' approach to culture can be divided into a "sociology of culture" and "cultural
sociology"the terms are similar, though not entirely interchangeable. [127] The sociology
of culture is an older term, and considers some topics and objects as more-or-less
"cultural" than others. Conversely, cultural sociology sees all social phenomena as
inherently cultural.[128] Sociology of culture often attempts to explain certain cultural
phenomena as a product of social processes, while cultural sociology sees culture as a
potential explanation of social phenomena.[129]
For Simmel, culture referred to "the cultivation of individuals through the agency of
external forms which have been objectified in the course of history". [57] While early
theorists such as Durkheim and Mauss were influential in cultural anthropology,
sociologists of culture are generally distinguished by their concern for modern (rather
than primitive or ancient) society. Cultural sociology often involves
thehermeneutic analysis of words, artefacts and symbols, or ethnographic interviews.
However, some sociologists employ historical-comparative or quantitative techniques in
the analysis of culture, Weber and Bourdieu for instance. The subfield is sometimes
allied withcritical theory in the vein of Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, and other
members of the Frankfurt School. Loosely distinct from the sociology of culture is the
field of cultural studies. Birmingham School theorists such as Richard
Hoggart and Stuart Hall questioned the division between "producers" and "consumers"
evident in earlier theory, emphasizing the reciprocity in the production of texts. Cultural
Studies aims to examine its subject matter in terms of cultural practices and their relation
to power. For example, a study of a subculture (such as white working class youth in
London) would consider the social practices of the group as they relate to the dominant
class. The "cultural turn" of the 1960s ultimately placed culture much higher on the
sociological agenda.
Art, music and literature[edit]
Main articles: Sociology of literature, Sociology of art, Sociology of film, and Sociology of
music

Sociology of literature, film, and art is a subset of the sociology of culture. This field
studies the social production of artistic objects and its social implications. A notable
example is Pierre Bourdieu's 1992 Les Rgles de L'Art: Gense et Structure du Champ
Littraire, translated by Susan Emanuel as Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the
Literary Field(1996). None of the founding fathers of sociology produced a detailed study
of art, but they did develop ideas that were subsequently applied to literature by others.
Marx's theory of ideology was directed at literature by Pierre Macherey, Terry Eagleton
and Fredric Jameson. Weber's theory of modernity as cultural rationalization, which he
applied to music, was later applied to all the arts, literature included, by Frankfurt School
writers such as Adorno and Jrgen Habermas. Durkheim's view of sociology as the
study of externally defined social facts was redirected towards literature by Robert
Escarpit. Bourdieu's own work is clearly indebted to Marx, Weber and Durkheim.

Criminality, deviance, law and punishment[edit]

Main articles: Criminology, Sociology of law, Sociology of punishment, Deviance
(sociology), and Social disorganization theory
Criminologists analyse the nature, causes, and control of criminal activity, drawing upon
methods across sociology, psychology, and the behavioural sciences. The sociology of
deviance focuses on actions or behaviours that violate norms, including both formally
enacted rules (e.g., crime) and informal violations of cultural norms. It is the remit of
sociologists to study why these norms exist; how they change over time; and how they
are enforced. The concept of social disorganization is when the broader social systems
leads to violations of norms. For instance, Robert K. Merton produced a typology of
deviance, which includes both individual and system level causal explanations of
deviance.[130]
Sociology of law[edit]
The study of law played a significant role in the formation of classical sociology.
Durkheim famously described law as the "visible symbol" of social solidarity.[131] The
sociology of law refers to both a sub-discipline of sociology and an approach within the
field of legal studies. Sociology of law is a diverse field of study that examines the
interaction of law with other aspects of society, such as the development of
legal institutions and the effect of laws on social change and vice versa. For example, an
influential recent work in the field relies on statistical analyses to argue that the increase
in incarceration in the US over the last 30 years is due to changes in law and policing
and not to an increase in crime; and that this increase significantly contributes to
maintaining racial stratification.[132]

Communications and information technologies[edit]

The sociology of communications and information technologies includes "the social
aspects of computing, the Internet, new media, computer networks, and other
communication and information technologies".[133]
Internet and digital media[edit]
Main articles: Sociology of the Internet and Digital sociology
The Internet is of interest to sociologists in various ways; most practically as a tool
for research and as a discussion platform.[134] The sociology of the Internet in the broad
sense regards the analysis of online communities (e.g. newsgroups, social networking
sites) and virtual worlds, thus there is often overlap with community sociology. Online
communities may be studied statistically through network analysis or interpreted
qualitatively through virtual ethnography. Moreover, organizational change is catalysed
throughnew media, thereby influencing social change at-large, perhaps forming the

framework for a transformation from an industrial to an informational society. One

notable text isManuel Castells' The Internet Galaxythe title of which forms an intertextual reference to Marshall McLuhan's The Gutenberg Galaxy.[135] Closely related to the
sociology of the Internet, is digital sociology, which expands the scope of study to
address not only the internet but also the impact of the other digital media and devices
that have emerged since the first decade of the twenty-first century.
Media[edit]
Main article: Media studies
As with cultural studies, media study is a distinct discipline that owes to the convergence
of sociology and other social sciences and humanities, in particular, literary
criticism andcritical theory. Though the production process or the critique of aesthetic
forms is not in the remit of sociologists, analyses of socializing factors, such
as ideological effects andaudience reception, stem from sociological theory and method.
Thus the 'sociology of the media' is not a subdiscipline per se, but the media is a
common and often-indispensable topic.

Economic sociology[edit]
Main article: Economic sociology
The term "economic sociology" was first used by William Stanley Jevons in 1879, later to
be coined in the works of Durkheim, Weber and Simmel between 1890 and 1920.
[136]
Economic sociology arose as a new approach to the analysis of economic
phenomena, emphasizing class relations and modernity as a philosophical concept. The
relationship between capitalism and modernity is a salient issue, perhaps best
demonstrated in Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) and
Simmel's The Philosophy of Money (1900). The contemporary period of economic
sociology, also known as new economic sociology, was consolidated by the 1985 work
of Mark Granovetter titled "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of
Embeddedness". This work elaborated the concept of embeddedness, which states that
economic relations between individuals or firms take place within existing social relations
(and are thus structured by these relations as well as the greater social structures of
which those relations are a part). Social network analysis has been the primary
methodology for studying this phenomenon. Granovetter's theory of the strength of weak
ties and Ronald Burt's concept of structural holes are two best known theoretical
contributions of this field.
Work, employment, and industry[edit]
Main articles: Industrial sociology, sociology of work, and Industrial relations
The sociology of work, or industrial sociology, examines "the direction and implications of
trends in technological change, globalization, labour markets, work
organization,managerial practices and employment relations to the extent to which these
trends are intimately related to changing patterns of inequality in modern societies and to
the changing experiences of individuals and families the ways in which workers
challenge, resist and make their own contributions to the patterning of work and shaping
of work institutions."[137]

Education[edit]
Main article: Sociology of education
The sociology of education is the study of how educational institutions determine social
structures, experiences, and other outcomes. It is particularly concerned with the
schooling systems of modern industrial societies. [138] A classic 1966 study in this field
by James Coleman, known as the "Coleman Report", analysed the performance of over

150,000 students and found that student background and socioeconomic status are
much more important in determining educational outcomes than are measured
differences in school resources (i.e. per pupil spending).[139] The controversy over "school
effects" ignited by that study has continued to this day. The study also found that socially
disadvantaged black students profited from schooling in racially mixed classrooms, and
thus served as a catalyst for desegregation busing in American public schools.

Environment[edit]
Main articles: Environmental sociology and Sociology of disaster
Environmental sociology is the study of human interactions with the natural environment,
typically emphasizing human dimensions of environmental problems, social impacts of
those problems, and efforts to resolve them. As with other sub-fields of sociology,
scholarship in environmental sociology may be at one or multiple levels of analysis, from
global (e.g. world-systems) to local, societal to individual. Attention is paid also to the
processes by which environmental problems become defined and known to humans. As
argued by notable environmental sociologist John Bellamy Foster, the predecessor to
modern environmental sociology is Marx's analysis of the metabolic rift, which influenced
contemporary thought on sustainability. Environmental sociology is often interdisciplinary
and overlaps with the sociology of risk, rural sociology and the sociology of disaster.
Human ecology[edit]
Main articles: Human ecology, Architectural sociology, Visual sociology, and Sociology
of space
Human ecology deals with interdisciplinary study of the relationship between humans
and their natural, social, and built environments. In addition to Environmental sociology,
this field overlaps with architectural sociology, urban sociology, and to some
extent visual sociology. In turn, visual sociologywhich is concerned with all visual
dimensions of social lifeoverlaps with media studies in that it uses photography, film
and other technologies of media.

Family, gender, and sexuality[edit]

Main articles: Sociology of the family, Sociology of childhood, Sociology of
gender, Feminist sociology, Feminist theory, and Queer theory

"Rosie the Riveter" was an iconic symbol of the Americanhomefront and a departure fromgender
roles due to wartime necessity.

Family, gender and sexuality form a broad area of inquiry studied in many sub-fields of
sociology. A family is a group of people who are related by kinship ties :- Relations of
blood / marriage / civil partnership or adoption. The family unit is one of the most
important social institutions found in some form in nearly all known societies. It is the
basic unit of social organization and plays a key role in socializing children into the
culture of their society. The sociology of the family examines the family, as
an institution and unit of socialization, with special concern for the comparatively modern

historical emergence of the nuclear family and its distinct gender roles. The notion of
"childhood" is also significant. As one of the more basic institutions to which one may
apply sociological perspectives, the sociology of the family is a common component on
introductory academic curricula. Feminist sociology, on the other hand, is a normative
sub-field that observes and critiques the cultural categories of gender and sexuality,
particularly with respect to power and inequality. The primary concern of feminist
theory is the patriarchy and the systematic oppression of women apparent in many
societies, both at the level of small-scale interaction and in terms of the broader social
structure. Feminist sociology also analyses how gender interlocks with race and class to
produce and perpetuate social inequalities.[140] "How to account for the differences in
definitions of femininity and masculinity and in sex role across different societies and
historical periods" is also a concern.[141] Social psychology of gender, on the other hand,
uses experimental methods to uncover the microprocesses of gender stratification. For
example, one recent study has shown that resume evaluators penalize women for
motherhood while giving a boost to men for fatherhood. [142]

Health, illness, and the body[edit]

Main articles: Sociology of health and illness and Medical sociology
The sociology of health and illness focuses on the social effects of, and public attitudes
toward, illnesses, diseases, mental health and disabilities. This sub-field also overlaps
withgerontology and the study of the ageing process. Medical sociology, by contrast,
focuses on the inner-workings of medical organizations and clinical institutions. In
Britain, sociology was introduced into the medical curriculum following the Goodenough
Report (1944).[143]
The sociology of the body and embodiment[144] takes a broad perspective on the idea of
"the body" and includes "a wide range of embodied dynamics including human and nonhuman bodies, morphology, human reproduction, anatomy, body fluids, biotechnology,
genetics. This often intersects with health and illness, but also theories of bodies as
political, social, cultural, economic and ideological productions. [145] The ISA maintains a
Research Committee devoted to "The Body in the Social Sciences". [146]
Death, dying, bereavement[edit]
A subfield of the sociology of health and illness that overlaps with cultural sociology is
the study of death, dying and bereavement, [147] sometimes referred to broadly as
thesociology of death. This topic is exemplifed by the work of Douglas
Davies and Michael C. Kearl.

Knowledge and science[edit]

Main articles: Sociology of knowledge, Sociology of scientific knowledge, Sociology of
the history of science, and Sociology of science
The sociology of knowledge is the study of the relationship between human thought and
the social context within which it arises, and of the effects prevailing ideas have on
societies. The term first came into widespread use in the 1920s, when a number of
German-speaking theorists, most notably Max Scheler, and Karl Mannheim, wrote
extensively on it. With the dominance of functionalism through the middle years of the
20th century, the sociology of knowledge tended to remain on the periphery of
mainstream sociological thought. It was largely reinvented and applied much more
closely to everyday life in the 1960s, particularly by Peter L. Berger and Thomas
Luckmann in The Social Construction of Reality (1966) and is still central for methods
dealing with qualitative understanding of human society (compare socially constructed
reality). The "archaeological" and "genealogical" studies of Michel Foucault are of
considerable contemporary influence.

The sociology of science involves the study of science as a social activity, especially
dealing "with the social conditions and effects of science, and with the social structures
and processes of scientific activity." [148] Important theorists in the sociology of science
include Robert K. Merton and Bruno Latour. These branches of sociology have
contributed to the formation of science and technology studies. Both the ASA and
the BSA have sections devoted to the subfield of Science, Knowledge and Technology.
[149][150]
The ISAmaintains a Research Committee on Science and Technology[151]

Leisure[edit]
Main articles: Sociology of leisure and Sociology of sport
Sociology of leisure is the study of how humans organize their free time. Leisure
includes a broad array of activities, such as sport, tourism, and the playing of games.
The sociology of leisure is closely tied to the sociology of work, as each explores a
different side of the workleisure relationship. More recent studies in the field move
away from the workleisure relationship and focus on the relation between leisure and
culture. This area of sociology began with Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure
Class.[152]

Peace, war, and conflict[edit]

Main articles: Peace and conflict studies, Military sociology, and Sociology of terrorism
This subfield of sociology studies, broadly, the dynamics of war, conflict resolution,
peace movements, war refugees, conflict resolution and military institutions. [153] As a
subset of this subfield, military sociology aims towards the systematic study of the
military as a social group rather than as an organization. It is a highly specialized subfield which examines issues related to service personnel as a distinct group with
coerced collective action based on shared interests linked to survival
in vocation and combat, with purposes and values that are more defined and narrow
than within civil society. Military sociology also concerns civilian-military relations and
interactions between other groups or governmental agencies. Topics include the
dominant assumptions held by those in the military, changes in military members'
willingness to fight, military unionization, military professionalism, the increased
utilization of women, the military industrial-academic complex, the military's dependence
on research, and the institutional and organizational structure of military. [154]

Political sociology[edit]
Main article: Political sociology

Jrgen Habermas

Historically political sociology concerned the relations between political organization and
society. A typical research question in this area might be: "Why do so few American
citizens choose to vote?"[155] In this respect questions of political opinion formation
brought about some of the pioneering uses of statistical survey research by Paul
Lazarsfeld. A major subfield of political sociology developed in relation to such questions,

which draws on comparative history to analyse socio-political trends. The field

developed from the work of Max Weber and Moisey Ostrogorsky.[156]
Contemporary political sociology includes these areas of research, but it has been
opened up to wider questions of power and politics. [157]Today political sociologists are as
likely to be concerned with how identities are formed that contribute to structural
domination by one group over another; the politics of who knows how and with what
authority; and questions of how power is contested in social interactions in such a way
as to bring about widespread cultural and social change. Such questions are more likely
to be studied qualitatively. The study of social movements and their effects has been
especially important in relation to these wider definitions of politics and power. [158]
Political sociology has also moved beyond methodological nationalism and analysed the
role of non-governmental organizations, the diffusion of the nation-state throughout the
Earth as a social construct, and the role of stateless entities in the modern world society.
Contemporary political sociologists also study inter-state interactions and human rights.

Population and demography[edit]

Main articles: Demography, Human ecology, and Mobilities
Demographers or sociologists of population study the size, composition and change over
time of a given population. Demographers study how these characteristics impact, or are
impacted by, various social, economic or political systems. The study of population is
also closely related to human ecology and environmental sociology, which studies a
populations relationship with the surrounding environment and often overlaps with urban
or rural sociology. Researchers in this field may study the movement of populations:
transportation, migrations, diaspora, etc., which falls into the subfield known
as Mobilities studies and is closely related to human geography. Demographers may
also study spread of disease within a given population or epidemiology.

Public sociology[edit]
Main article: Public sociology
Public sociology refers to an approach to the discipline which seeks to transcend the
academy in order to engage with wider audiences. It is perhaps best understood as a
style of sociology rather than a particular method, theory, or set of political values. This
approach is primarily associated with Michael Burawoy who contrasted it with
professional sociology, a form of academic sociology that is concerned primarily with
addressing other professional sociologists. Public sociology is also part of the broader
field of science communication or science journalism. In a distinct but similar vein,
[159]
applied sociology, also known as clinical sociology, policy sociology or sociological
practice, applies knowledge derived from sociological research to solve societal
problems.

Race and ethnic relations[edit]

Main articles: Sociology of race and ethnic relations and Sociology of immigration
The sociology of race and of ethnic relations is the area of the discipline that studies
the social, political, and economic relations between races and ethnicities at all levels of
society. This area encompasses the study of racism, residential segregation, and other
complex social processes between different racial and ethnic groups. This research
frequently interacts with other areas of sociology such as stratification and social
psychology, as well as with postcolonial theory. At the level of political policy, ethnic
relations are discussed in terms of either assimilationism or multiculturalism.[160] Antiracism forms another style of policy, particularly popular in the 1960s and 70s.

Religion[edit]

Main article: Sociology of religion

The sociology of religion concerns the practices, historical backgrounds, developments,
universal themes and roles of religion in society.[161] There is particular emphasis on the
recurring role of religion in all societies and throughout recorded history. The sociology of
religion is distinguished from the philosophy of religion in that sociologists do not set out
to assess the validity of religious truth-claims, instead assuming what Peter L.
Berger has described as a position of "methodological atheism". [162] It may be said that
the modern formal discipline of sociology began with the analysis of religion in
Durkheim's 1897 study of suicide rates among Roman
Catholic and Protestant populations. Max Weber published four major texts on religion in
a context of economic sociology and social stratification: The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism (1905), The Religion of China: Confucianism and
Taoism (1915), The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism (1915),
and Ancient Judaism (1920). Contemporary debates often centre on topics such
as secularization, civil religion, the intersection of religion and economics and the role of
religion in a context of globalization and multiculturalism.

Social change and development[edit]

Main articles: Social change, Development studies, Community development,
and International development
The sociology of change and development attempts to understand how societies
develop and how they can be changed. Within this field, sociologists often
use macrosociological methods or historical-comparative methods. In contemporary
studies of social change, there is overlaps with international development or community
development. However, most of the founders of sociology had theories of social change
based on their study of history. For instance, Marx contended that the material
circumstances of society ultimately caused the ideal or cultural aspects of society,
while Weber argued that it was in fact the cultural mores of Protestantism that ushered in
a transformation of material circumstances. In contrast to both, Durkheim argued that
societies moved from simple to complex through a process of sociocultural evolution.
Sociologists in this field also study processes of globalization and imperialism. Most
notably, Immanuel Wallerstein extends Marx's theoretical frame to include large spans of
time and the entire globe in what is known as world systems theory. Development
sociology is also heavily influenced by post-colonialism. In recent years, Raewyn
Connell issued a critique of the bias in sociological research towards countries in
the Global North. She argues that this bias blinds sociologists to the lived experiences of
the Global South, specifically, so-called, "Northern Theory" lacks an adequate theory of
imperialism and colonialism.

Social networks[edit]

Harrison White

Main articles: Social network, Social network analysis, Figurational Sociology, Relational
sociology, and Sociomapping
A social network is a social structure composed of individuals (or organizations) called
"nodes", which are tied (connected) by one or more specific types of interdependency,
such as friendship, kinship, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or
relationships of beliefs, knowledge or prestige. Social networks operate on many levels,
from families up to the level of nations, and play a critical role in determining the way
problems are solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed
in achieving their goals. An underlying theoretical assumption of social network analysis
is that groups are not necessarily the building blocks of society: the approach is open to
studying less-bounded social systems, from non-local communities to networks of
exchange. Drawing theoretically from relational sociology, social network analysis avoids
treating individuals (persons, organizations, states) as discrete units of analysis, it
focuses instead on how the structure of ties affects and constitutes individuals and their
relationships. In contrast to analyses that assume that socialization into norms
determines behaviour, network analysis looks to see the extent to which the structure
and composition of ties affect norms. On the other hand, recent research by Omar
Lizardo also demonstrates that network ties are shaped and created by previously
existing cultural tastes.[163] Social network theory is usually defined in formal
mathematics and may include integration of geographical data into Sociomapping.

Social psychology[edit]
Main articles: Social psychology (sociology) and Psychoanalytic sociology
Sociological social psychology focuses on micro-scale social actions. This area may be
described as adhering to "sociological miniaturism", examining whole societies through
the study of individual thoughts and emotions as well as behaviour of small groups. [164] Of
special concern to psychological sociologists is how to explain a variety of demographic,
social, and cultural facts in terms of human social interaction. Some of the major topics
in this field are social inequality, group dynamics, prejudice, aggression, social
perception, group behaviour, social change, non-verbal behaviour, socialization,
conformity, leadership, and social identity. Social psychology may be taught
with psychological emphasis.[165]In sociology, researchers in this field are the most
prominent users of the experimental method (however, unlike their psychological
counterparts, they also frequently employ other methodologies). Social psychology looks
at social influences, as well as social perception and social interaction. [165]

Stratification, poverty and inequality[edit]

Main articles: Social stratification, Social inequality, Social mobility, and Social class
Social stratification is the hierarchical arrangement of individuals into social
classes, castes, and divisions within a society.[166] Modern Western societies stratification
traditionally relates to cultural and economic classes arranged in three main layers:
upper class, middle class, and lower class, but each class may be further subdivided into
smaller classes (e.g. occupational).[167] Social stratification is interpreted in radically
different ways within sociology. Proponents of structural functionalism suggest that,
since the stratification of classes and castes is evident in all societies, hierarchy must be
beneficial in stabilizing their existence. Conflict theorists, by contrast, critique the
inaccessibility of resources and lack of social mobility in stratified societies.
Karl Marx distinguished social classes by their connection to the means of production in
the capitalist system: the bourgeoisie own the means, but this effectively includes
theproletariat itself as the workers can only sell their own labour power (forming
the material base of the cultural superstructure). Max Weber critiqued Marxist economic

determinism, arguing that social stratification is not based purely on economic

inequalities, but on other status and power differentials (e.g. patriarchy). According to
Weber, stratification may occur among at least three complex variables: (1) Property
(class): A person's economic position in a society, based on birth and individual
achievement.[168]Weber differs from Marx in that he does not see this as the supreme
factor in stratification. Weber noted how managers of corporations or industries control
firms they do not own; Marx would have placed such a person in the proletariat. (2)
Prestige (status): A person's prestige, or popularity in a society. This could be
determined by the kind of job this person does or wealth. and (3) Power (political party):
A person's ability to get their way despite the resistance of others. For example,
individuals in state jobs, such as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or
a member of the United States Congress, may hold little property or status but they still
hold immense power[169] Pierre Bourdieu provides a modern example in the concepts
of cultural and symbolic capital. Theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf have noted the
tendency towards an enlarged middle-class in modern Western societies, particularly in
relation to the necessity of an educated work force in technological or service-based
economies.[170] Perspectives concerning globalization, such as dependency theory,
suggest this effect owes to the shift of workers to the developing countries.[171]

Urban and rural sociology[edit]

Main articles: Urban sociology and Rural sociology
Urban sociology involves the analysis of social life and human interaction in metropolitan
areas. It is a discipline seeking to provide advice for planning and policy making. After
the industrial revolution, works such as Georg Simmel's The Metropolis and Mental
Life (1903) focused on urbanization and the effect it had on alienation and anonymity. In
the 1920s and 1930s The Chicago School produced a major body of theory on the
nature of the city, important to both urban sociology and criminology, utilizing symbolic
interactionism as a method of field research. Contemporary research is commonly
placed in a context of globalization, for instance, in Saskia Sassen's study of the "Global
city".[172] Rural sociology, by contrast, is the analysis of non-metropolitan areas. As
agriculture and wilderness tend to be a more prominent social fact in rural regions, rural
sociologists often overlap with environmental sociologists.
Community sociology[edit]
Often grouped with urban and rural sociology is that of community sociology or the
sociology of community.[173] Taking various communitiesincluding online communities
as the unit of analysis, community sociologists study the origin and effects of different
associations of people. For instance, German sociologist Ferdinand
Tnnies distinguished between two types of human association: Gemeinschaft (usually
translated as "community") and Gesellschaft ("society" or "association"). In his 1887
work, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, Tnnies argued that Gemeinschaft is perceived to
be a tighter and more cohesive social entity, due to the presence of a "unity of will".
[174]
The 'development' or 'health' of a community is also a central concern of community
sociologists also engage in development sociology, exemplified by the literature
surrounding the concept of social capital.

Violence[edit]
The late political theorist Hannah Arendt wrote widely on the connection between power
and violence, in particular her book On Violence.[175]

Other academic disciplines[edit]

Sociology overlaps with a variety of disciplines that study society, in

particular anthropology, political science, economics, social work and social philosophy.
Many comparatively new fields such as communication studies, cultural
studies, demography and literary theory, draw upon methods that originated in sociology.
The terms "social science" and "social research" have both gained a degree of
autonomy since their origination in classical sociology. The distinct field of social
psychology emerged from the many intersections of sociological and psychological
interests, and is further distinguished in terms of sociological or psychological emphasis.
[176]

Sociology and applied sociology are connected to the professional and academic
discipline of social work.[177] Both disciplines study social interactions, community and the
effect of various systems (i.e. family, school, community, laws, political sphere) on the
individual.[178] However, social work is generally more focused on practical strategies to
alleviate social dysfunctions; sociology in general provides a thorough examination of
the root causes of these problems.[179] For example, a sociologist might study why a
community is plagued with poverty. The applied sociologist would be more focused on
practical strategies on what needs to be done to alleviate this burden. The social worker
would be focused on action; implementing theses strategies "directly" or "indirectly" by
means of mental health therapy, counselling, advocacy, community
organization or community mobilization.[178]
Social anthropology is the branch of anthropology that studies how contemporary living
human beings behave in social groups. Practitioners of social anthropology, like
sociologists, investigate various facets of social organization. Traditionally, social
anthropologists analysed non-industrial and non-Western societies, whereas sociologists
focused on industrialized societies in the Western world. In recent years, however, social
anthropology has expanded its focus to modern Western societies, meaning that the two
disciplines increasingly converge.[180][181]
Sociobiology is the study of how social behaviour and organization have been influenced
by evolution and other biological process. The field blends sociology with a number of
other sciences, such as anthropology, biology, and zoology. Sociobiology has generated
controversy within the sociological academy for allegedly giving too much attention to
gene expression over socialization and environmental factors in general (see 'nature
versus nurture'). Entomologist E. O. Wilson is credited as having originally developed
and described Sociobiology.[182] Besides Sociobiology the bio-communication theory
investigates interactions between non-human organisms such as animal communication,
plant communication, fungal communication and communication in micro-organisms on
the basis of rule-governed sign-use. In this respect any coordination of behaviour
between at least two organisms is sign-mediated that underlies combinatorial (syntactic),
context-dependent (pragmatic) and content-relevant (semantic) rules. [183]
Irving Louis Horowitz, in his The Decomposition of Sociology (1994), has argued that the
discipline, while arriving from a "distinguished lineage and tradition", is in decline due to
deeply ideological theory and a lack of relevance to policy making: "The decomposition
of sociology began when this great tradition became subject to ideological thinking, and
an inferior tradition surfaced in the wake of totalitarian triumphs." [184] Furthermore: "A
problem yet unmentioned is that sociology's malaise has left all the social sciences
vulnerable to pure positivismto an empiricism lacking any theoretical basis. Talented
individuals who might, in an earlier time, have gone into sociology are seeking
intellectual stimulation in business, law, the natural sciences, and even creative writing;
this drains sociology of much needed potential." [184] Horowitz cites the lack of a 'core
discipline' as exacerbating the problem. Randall Collins, the Dorothy Swaine
Thomas Professor in Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the

Advisory Editors Council of the Social Evolution & History journal, has voiced similar
sentiments: "we have lost all coherence as a discipline, we are breaking up into a
conglomerate of specialities, each going on its own way and with none too high regard
for each other."[185]
In 2007, The Times Higher Education Guide published a list of 'The most cited authors
of books in the Humanities' (including philosophy and psychology). Seven of the top ten
are listed as sociologists: Michel Foucault (1), Pierre Bourdieu (2), Anthony
Giddens (5), Erving Goffman (6), Jrgen Habermas (7), Max Weber (8), and Bruno
Latour (10).[186]

Journals[edit]