Sociology 250

Introduction to Sociological Theory

Notes from September 9, 1999


A. Nature of Sociology and Sociological Theory

1. Introduction

For those who are beginning a study of sociology, sociological theory may represent somewhat of a departure from the study of sociological issues. The study of sociology may provide an interesting and relevant discussion of contemporary issues. In contrast, sociological theory may appear to be overly concerned with historical issues and views of writers which are no longer relevant. Sociological theory provides a set of frameworks within which current issues can be examined. The following notes contain some comments and analysis of the nature of sociological theory.

There are many different and conflicting approaches to the study of society within sociology, and these different approaches are generally part of or derive from different theories of sociology. Hadden provides only a very brief discussion of the nature of sociological theory (p. 11). In contrast, Wallace and Wolf spend all of Chapter 1 providing a more extensive discussion of the variety of ways that sociological theory can be approached.

Hadden (p. 11) notes that all of us employ a framework when discussing the social world. This may be a consciously worked out approach, well developed through extensive reading, discussion, study, and reflection. For example, an individual may consider themselves a neoconservative, a social democrat, a liberal, or a Marxist, and may have carefully worked out an approach that provides a view on social issues consistent with that framework. Others may have have adopted or developed a religion, philosophy, or lifestyle that provides a comprehensive guide to living and examining the social world. At the other end of the spectrum, an individual may have views on many issues, but be relatively unaware of the framework within which these views are expressed. This framework may be developed through socialization, education, interaction with friends or peers, or from other experiences.

When we do examine social issues, regardless of which approach we take, we make use of various concepts and assumptions, and each of us has a methodology that allows us to make certain observations about and comments on the social world. These concepts and methods may be unconscious or implicit, but are nevertheless there. Even the use of ordinary words such as "human nature," "emotions," "who I am" or "my identity" are concepts that can be considered sociological. Just the use of words to express ideas means that the users are adopting commonly and mutually understood symbols. These represent concepts that have meaning for others, so can be used to describe various aspects of social interaction or various social issues.

At one level then, sociological theory is merely a more systematic set of ideas than what is employed in regular life by ordinary people. Hadden (p. 11) notes that sociological theory is the set of "frameworks, accounts, concepts, and arguments of those who initially founded the discipline" of sociology. Presumably the frameworks of these writers have stood the test of time and have been considered to be worthy of continued study. These frameworks generally have a more systematic set of assumptions and arguments than do everyday frameworks that all of us employ. For example, our views need not be consistent with each other in terms of one of the major theories. This does not mean that these views are incorrect or unworthy of consideration, but it may mean that we will be challenged concerning these views and will have reconsider some of them.

What the major sociological theories do is adopt a relatively consistent set of definitions and assumptions, define concepts, develop statements and propositions, and from these build an overall model of the social world. This model may refer to only one portion of the social world (e.g. symbolic interaction approaches deal only with social interaction at the small group level) or they may be comprehensive models that explain the large structures of society as well as interaction among individuals and small groups (e.g. theories of Parsons and Weber). Such a model will lead to hypotheses which, hopefully, can be tested using empirical observation or data concerning the social world. As a result, each theory also has some methodology or some methodological approaches associated with it. If the theory or theoretical model is to prove its worth, it must also help us understand or explain some part of the social world, perhaps leading to development of social policy, or leading to recommendations concerning social practice.

In summary, a sociological theory can be considered to be a framework that leads to a model of the social world. A theory is likely to be more systematic, consistent, and carefully considered than are everyday explanations based on personal experience and observation. This does not make it better than the latter, but a theory may be more generally applicable to a variety of social situations. One criterion of a good theory is that it is at least somewhat universal, being applicable to a variety of issues, situations, places, or times. No theory can be expected to explain all aspects of the social world, and each theory needs to be tested in particular circumstances.

Wallace and Wolf begin in a similar manner to that of Hadden by noting that sociological theories are ways of looking at the world. They then discuss various characteristics of theory in general and social theory in particular, arguing (i) that it should be systematic, having comprehensive discussions of social life, leading to new insights, and allowing for its ideas to be widely disseminated and available to a wide audience; and (ii) that it should show some commonality of different social actions and events, that is, it must have a way of sorting through, organizing, and classifying the myriad aspects of social life.

One way that Wallace and Wolf demonstrate the usefulness of sociological theory is to discuss how it can be applied to two specific issues formal education and the role of women in contemporary society (WW, pp, 14-15). If sociological theory is to be relevant in contemporary society, it has to be useful in developing an understanding of and explanation of social issues. Otherwise it may be only an elaborate set of ideas which have little relevance to the social world and to the people who form the social world. As much as possible, I will attempt to use the same issues as Wallace and Wolf in each section of the course, showing how the different social theories can be applied to concrete issues like education and the role of women and men.

Since there are many different approaches to sociological theory, it might be thought that these different approaches are contradictory or mutually exclusive. The theories of Marx and Weber have sometimes been presented in this form with Weber's ideas formed to counter those of Marx. Most writers now consider them more complementary, with Weber addressing issues that Marx neglected. Similarly, many of the other approaches can also be considered complementary, asking different questions, using different methodologies, and providing different answers. At the same time, some of the approaches are alternatives to each other for example, the consensus model of structural functionalism must be considered to contradict many of the conflict theories.

In order to sort through the maze of sociological theories, Wallace and Wolf provide several guidelines in Chapter 1, and specifically in Table 1-1. This discussion may make more sense once we have covered the various approaches in more detail, but a short discussion of the main differences in sociological approach identified by Wallace and Wolf follows. As we go through the various theoretical approaches, attempt to look for some of these differences and consider the influence of each.

a. Subject Matter. The main distinction here is between macro and micro theories. Macro refers to the large structures such as social class, patriarchy, racism, or nationalism or to the economic, political, legal, and religious structures of long historical standing that develop and change relatively slowly over time. Structural functionalist and conflict theories are generally considered to be macro theories, in that they examine society and the social world as a whole, with models of these societies. In the field of formal education, these approaches would examine the schools, universities, and other institutions that are part of the formal educational system, looking at issues such as finance, access, effect on social mobility, effect on economic growth, etc.

The micro approach is concerned with the social interaction of different individuals in small group settings. Symbolic interaction, phenomenology, and rational choice theories are the main examples of these micro theories. These approaches examine human social interaction in great detail, describing and analyzing how people interact with each other. From this, various concepts and methods of analysis are developed, such as roles and role distance, emotions, and presentation of self. These different approaches may be more complementary than contradictory, since each theoretical approach adopts a different method and asks quite different questions. With respect to the educational system, the focus of these studies might be more concerned with teacher-student interaction, how peer groups are formed and the effects they have, and how particular individuals deal with and negotiate their way through the educational institutions.

In its early days, sociology was primarily macro, but Weber and Simmel laid the basis for a micro sociology but emphasizing social action and interaction. In the United States, George Herbert Mead was one social scientist who examined the connection between mind, self, and society. Together these approaches were developed along several lines in the mid twentieth century. In contemporary sociology, both macro and micro approaches are used, and a major issue is how to reconcile these. This is sometimes called the structure-agency problem.

b. Assumptions. Different social scientists have developed quite different approaches to understanding what is human nature. Human nature is also a matter that is subject to discussion in ordinary conversation, and each of us likely has some opinion concerning what the essence of human nature is. Wallace and Wolf do not consider all aspects of this debate, but focus on one essential aspect of it that is relevant to the manner in which sociological theory is constructed. They focus on whether human behaviour can be considered generally predictable (as functionalism, conflict theory, and rational choice models may assume) or whether human behaviour is primarily creative (as symbolic interaction approaches and phenomenology are more likely to assume).

No social scientist would ever consider human nature as entirely predictable or entirely creative, so that the difference here is one of emphasis. If all behaviour all the time were creative, there would be no regularities to human social interaction, and it would be difficult to develop any models of society. In fact, society would not be possible, since social interaction depends on the existence of commonly understood symbols with common meaning to those entering into social interaction. It was the regularities that Durkheim was so good at identifying, making the functionalist approach appearing to adopt the predictable approach to human behaviour. Marx also tended toward this view, at least in his macro writings, looking at common economic or material interests as creating common experiences and forming the basis for common action. Thus the action of workers and capitalists could be predicted on the basis of their position within the economic structures of society. In the field of formal education, students are expected to learn the subject matter in the formal curriculum and this is to prepare them for entry to the labour force and for life more generally.

At the same time, people are never entirely predictable, so that the exact result of social action and interaction cannot always be predicted in particular situations. The manner in which language is used and evolves provides an good demonstration of this. While we each use the words and much of the formal structure that we are taught in schools, each individual uses words differently, and in different combinations. It is this creativity that some of the micro sociological approaches emphasize. The symbolic interaction approach might examine how different students relate to the classroom and to the instructor looking bored or looking interested, taking or not taking notes, or never missing class or missing class often. While these may tend to fall into some predictable patterns overall, each of these are individual approaches to the classroom, and demonstrate the variety of forms of social interaction.

c. Motivation for Human Action. Marxian and other conflict theoretical approaches tend to assume that it is the economic or other interests (political, military) that are primary in determining the form that human social action will take. As noted the part b. above, those who own capital are assumed to have an interest in maintaining and expanding that capital, and their actions are dictated by this. In contrast, workers have no capital, and it is this common lack of ownership of capital that makes them have common interests in terms of working together to improve their situation. The actions of workers are thus based on these common interests. Rational choice models take this even further, and consider all actions to be based on rational consideration of alternative choices, with the social actor selecting the option that will best allow him or her to achieve the desired ends.

For functionalist and several of the micro sociological theories, values are the decisive factor in motivating or causing particular social actions. The values that exist in any society are developed over a period of time and form part of the culture of the society. These values are part of society as a whole, in that they are common to many people. At the same time, these values become part of individual identity as they are internalized through socialization and education. In fact, some would argue that this is the major thing that educational institutions do. For the functionalists, inculcating society's common values in each new generation is not only functional for maintaining social order, but also necessary for the continuation of society and social order. While the symbolic interaction and phenomenological approach recognize individual creativity, this is within a framework of common values. In fact, it is the common values that make social interaction possible and creative.

d. Scientific Approach. The creativity of individuals, the fact that social scientists are themselves part of the social world they are investigating, and the different assumptions adopted by different sociologists make sociology a somewhat different sort of science from the natural sciences. As noted by Wallace and Wolf, all sciences "are concerned with increasing our comprehension of things" (p. 12). In doing so, to be called a science, study must be systematic, reasonably objective, and reproducible by others. Beyond this, however, there are many different methodological approaches. Wallace and Wolf also note that "sociology does not form a cumulative body of work comparable to physics or even neoclassical economics" (p. 13). Rather, sociology proceeds in many different ways, attempting to explore the social world, in an attempt to develop better understanding of it.

Wallace and Wolf identify a difference between deductive and inductive approaches. These deductive models tend to be well structured, established on strong assumptions, careful definitions and clear concepts, leading to formal propositions and models with testable hypotheses and with predictions. Originally Comte referred to sociology as social physics, and this deductive model of some of the natural sciences is an ideal that some sociologists attempt to achieve. Some of the elaborate sociological models such as Marx's model of capitalism or Parsons' model of society are examples of this. These approaches may tend to be more quantitative in form, since the well identified concepts can often be systematically measured.

A more inductive approach, initially less well defined is associated with symbolic interaction and phenomenological approaches. While sociologists who work with these approaches are also systematic and careful in their studies, they enter situations with fewer assumptions. They may immerse themselves in a situation, perhaps even as a participant-observer, carefully noting the various aspects of experiences and situations that lead to social action and interaction. Such studies may be considered less scientific, in that they do not conform to the model of physics or some of the other natural sciences. These approaches are more likely to be qualitative in nature, with sociologists recording and analyzing conversations, gestures, use of language, etc. An analysis of the formal educational system might mean less concentration on the curriculum of formal subject matter and greater concentration on the "hidden curriculum" associated with the transmission of values and accepted modes of behaviour.

2. Sociology as Science?

There are many different sciences and to say that something is science and scientific can be misleading. In addition, there are many who have misused science, or used it as a screen to hide poor theory and analysis. At the same time, there is something systematic about most of the disciplines that call themselves scientific, something that makes them different from speculation, religion or purely abstract thought.

From Cuff et al. (p. 4) one characteristic of science is:

First, an approach that claims to be scientific ... must demonstrably have empirical relevance to the world. An empirical relevance involves showing that any statements, descriptions and explanations used or derived from this approach can be verified or checked out in the world.  

What types of approaches would not meet this standard? Philosophy, mathematics, humanities and much of religion would not meet these standards. Of course, much of what passes for science might not either. What this shows is not that the other forms of knowledge are illegitimate, but that they are different ways of reasoning.

 The second part of a scientific approach is a set of methods or procedures. 

A scientific approach necessarily involves standards and procedures which not only show how 'results' were achieved, but are also clear enough for other workers in the fields to attempt to repeat them, that is, to check them out with the same of other materials and thereby test the results. A scientific approach necessarily involves standards and procedures for demonstrating the 'empirical warrant' of its findings, showing the match or fit between its statements and what is happening or has happened in the world. (Cuff, p. 4). 

The second part of the criteria rules out visions, divine inspiration, and perhaps even intuition (although the latter seems to be important in the development of new approaches -- part of the feminist critique of "scientific method" as it is usually understood is that intuition is downplayed). If a scientific claim has been made, then a researcher or theorist must allow, and even encourage, others to retest the claims made. Even if the claim is found to be false or partly wrong, the claim may have an important influence on ideas and ways of thinking about and understanding the world. (e.g. continental drift, staples theory).

According to the Cuff et al., the two criteria for a scientific approach are that there be empirical relevance and clear procedures. Forms of knowledge that satisfy these two criteria can be termed scientific. Note though that Cuff et al. do not claim that scientific insights are always superior to other insights. The authors do say though that scientific insights can be "verified by empirical testing." (p. 6). Perhaps somewhat ironically, one of the key aspects of a scientific approach is that it can be negated or disproved. Religious knowledge or artistic expression cannot really be proved incorrect.

The notions of repeated testing, having systematic standards and procedures, having statements and approaches that can be disproved, and having some match or fit between what is theorized and what does happen are important. Note that repeated testing may not mean repeatability. In the social sciences, much research is not repeatable, but other researchers can examine the same issue or problem. In doing this being open to others re-examining the same issues and problems is crucial. Because of the confusion over the meaning of science, and the difference between natural and social science, I sometimes prefer to call sociology systematic investigation and theorizing about human social relationships and interaction.

Note that within this approach to what science is, there is nothing that prevents quite different views and approaches from emerging, and all of them may be considered to be scientific. Empirical tests may negate some approaches, but only after considerable periods of time. No approach is likely to have all of its propositions and statements never being proved incorrect. Even a poor theoretical approach may contain some correct statements and propositions.

B. The Establishment of Sociology

1. General Considerations

a. Intellectual Traditions. Sociology emerged as a system of thought in the early 19th Century with writers such as Saint-Simon and Comte in France and Spencer in England. As a discipline, sociology did not take root in universities and society until much later in the 19th Century when Durkheim and, to a lesser externt, Weber attempted to develop it as an academic discipline. We can now look back and trace the history of sociological thought and see that there were many writers and many developments in society which are important in tracing the history of sociological thought. Those early writers like Comte and Spencer, who could be considered to be sociologists, may be less important in the development of sociological thought than are other intellectual currents such as the enlightenment, liberal thought, and philosophical developments. Some of these writers are Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Wollstonecraft as representatives of the Enlightenment, and Bonald, Maistre, and Burke (Hadden, p. 11) as representatives of a conservative reaction against the Enlightenment.

b. Sociology and the Development of Society. Sociological theories must be seen as not only intellectual in nature, but also closely related to the actual developments that take place in societies. One reason why sociological approaches differ is that they are attempting to describe somewhat different sets of social forces that develop in society. As societies change, it is the nature of these changes that sociologists attempt to explain, and it is the changes themselves that put forward explanations of these changes. For example, Marx's political-economic theory is an explanation of nineteenth century capitalism as it developed in Britain. His theory could not have been developed fifty years earlier because the trends and forces for which he developed explanations were only beginning in the early part of the nineteenth century. Weber's analysis of bureaucracy and rationalization could not have emerged much sooner than they did, because the bureaucratic structures and the forces of rationalization had not developed all that much before Weber's time.

At the same time, if the sociological theory is to be useful at other times and places, it must have some universal aspects to it. The three major classical sociological approaches each have these two aspects to them -- (i) describing the changes that took place or were taking place at the time and (ii) providing ways of explaining society at different times and places. One major gap in classical sociological theory is that it is primarily a Western European male tradition, tending to ignore women and societies outside Europe and North America.

c. Sociological Observation. Sociology as a discipline today is both theoretical and methodological, with theories of the world, but with empirical studies of the social world being as important as, or more important than, the theoretical side. In Sociology 250 we primarily trace the development of theory and look on the major traditions in thought that could be considered sociological in nature.

Another side to sociology is the studies of people and social relationships that were important. While the theorists examined in Sociology 250 did rely on observation and attempted to verify their findings in a rough way, standards for doing this were not always well developed. Early theories were quite general, talking about stages of society or differences among and within societies. Read the description of Comte's analysis in Chapter 1 of Hadden. Detailed analysis of individual and small group behaviour came much later.

Along with the history of sociological theory then, there is a history of social observation. This involves historical studies, travelogues, statistical studies and observations, administrative records of governments and businesses, and studies of economic conditions. Later in the nineteenth century this became more systematic with studies of poverty and working conditions being among the first systematic studies of this type. Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845) stands as one of the first great studies of this type. Others who can be associated with this tradition are William Petty, T. R. Malthus, Benjamin Franklin, and Adolphe Quetelet. Early censuses also took place in France and England and some other European countries. These descriptive and statistical studies formed some of the raw material for sociological analysis. Note that Durkheim used a massive amount of data that had been obtained concerning suicide rates to develop his sociological approach. Each of the major approaches to the study of sociology used these observations of society to help build a theoretical approach. These theoretical approaches use the observations to build a model of the society being described, and they also provide material to help those who analyze other societies at different times and places.

2. Revolutions and Enlightenment

In Western European societies, tradition and religion had governed many aspects of society until 1500 or later. For several centuries, society was organized in a feudal form, with the Roman Catholic church being dominant in many aspects of life and society. Almost everyone lived in rural, agricultural areas, with most people being serfs. Society was organized hierarchically, with lords being landowners and serfs being agricultural workers or servants. The Roman Catholic church was a powerful force in the daily lives of people, it was the wealthiest organization in Europe and was also the largest landowner in Europe. Centred in Rome, it was also the only large scale organization in Europe. Other forms of political power were decentralized and local -- nation states developed much later. Rules and conduct governing daily life were often determined by the church and traditional values, and there was little questioning of these traditions -- or the questioning was not effective at promoting change. Feudal organization and the church had different strengths at different places in Europe, and social and economic change did occur. But in general, this change was very slow, societies were mostly rural, tradition governed and social organization was hierarchical in nature.

At the same time, various developments were taking place -- resulting in dramatic changes that would alter the nature of these societies forever. The power of the Roman Catholic church was challenged by the Reformation, beginning in the 1500s. Philosophers began to write in ways that challenged the traditional religious ideas, and began to develop a more secular basis for systems of thought. Agriculture began to become much more economically productive, basic forms of industry began to develop, trade routes vastly expanded, and commerce and the use of money became much more widespread. These changes first took place in Western and Southern Europe, with Eastern Europe taking many more centuries to change. While Italy was originally in the forefront of these changes, it was in Britain, France and Germany where the major changes took place.

a. Industrialization and Urbanization. Trade, commerce, finance and exploration all developed rapidly after 1500. Changes in the organization of agriculture helped to increase food production so that population could grow, and ultimately also meant that there were more people in rural areas than needed earlier. Cities had begun to develop as isolated centres for trade and commerce in the middle ages. These cities were important for their economic role and also for their political role: as self-governing units free of feudal control (democracy begins to develop) and as centres for the emergence of the new middle classes or the bourgeoisie. These changes took place through much of Europe, and at the end of the 1700s, the stage was set for major developments in European society.

In the economic sphere, the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, changing forever the relative roles of agriculture and industry, and introducing a period when change would become the norm in production of goods and services. Britain was clearly the leader, but other countries also had industrial revolutions, although somewhat later. Britain developed cotton textile production in factories. The nature of production changed dramatically, with more and more production taking place in factories. The way in which this took place changed the social order -- from lords and serfs to capitalists and workers. The Industrial Revolution has never stopped, with continual changes in the nature of production occurring after this. Production of industrial commodities also began to be centred in urban areas, and the population shift from rural to urban began. Over time, the effects of the Industrial Revolution have spread to all areas of the world. In this sense, the effect is universal, and theories describing the new economy of capitalism can also claim a certain universality.

b. Religion and Secular Thought. The teachings of the church in the middle ages have been called the "Christian paternalist or corporate ethic," reflecting the idea of society as a single entity or corporation. Within this traditional form of society the individual was not important, nor the basis for analysis of society. The common person was to take his or her place in society and carry out his or her duties willingly. Society could be compared to a traditional family with the Church or God as father and with the others as willing subjects in this institution. accepting leadership and not questioning authority. These traditional teachings of the Church also were anticapitalist -- prohibiting profit and interest and discouraging innovation, trade and gain. (See Hunt, Ch. 1).

The challenge to the authority of Rome began in the 14th Century, but the Reformation is usually dated as beginning with Martin Luther posting his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg church on October 31, 1517. In most countries of Western Europe, Protestant groups emerged over the next few years. In England, the conflict between Henry VIII and Rome led to the break with Rome in 1534. These developments challenged the authority of traditional thought in various ways. (i) At the minimum, they meant several sources of independent thought, rather than having authoritative ideas coming from Rome. (ii) The notion of a single entity or corporation as an adequate description of society was shattered. (iii) Individualism began to be promoted, since many of the Protestant doctrines emphasized the relationship of the individual to God, without necessarily having the Church involved. (iv) The possibility of the development of secular thought. If the Church is no longer the sole authority, and different forms of relationship with God could exist, this could open the possibility of individual interpretations which do not involve God. By the 1700s, a much more open view of ideas became possible.

The new Protestant churches place less emphasis on the salvation through the church and tended to emphasize personal salvation. Max Weber considered this more individualistic approach to be one of the major forces that gave impetus to the development of capitalism in Western Europe.

c. Science and Technology. The physical sciences had shown tremendous developments in the understanding of the physical world. Galileo (1564-1642, Italian), Kepler (1571-1630, German) and Newton (1642-1727, English) each combined careful observation of the movement of physical bodies with reasoning to obtain laws of motion. These laws could be described mathematically and were universal in their application. In addition, these laws were useful in a practical way -- they could be used to help understand motion and could be adapted to produce new technologies. Zeitlin argues that these developments "had an incalculable impact on the intellectuals of the Enlightenment. Here was a magnificent triumph of reason and observation, the new method that takes observed facts and advances an interpretation that accounts for what is observed, so that if the interpretation is correct, it can guide observers in their quest for new facts." (Zeitlin, p. 3).

d. Political Changes. The old political system began to break down in England by the 1600s. There the parliament became supreme, with the authority of the king being replaced by that of parliament between 1640 and 1688. This can be interpreted as the victory of the bourgeoisie, or middle classes, in the political arena -- replacing the exclusive rule of aristocracy and landowners. In France, change took place more slowly, but when change did occur it was much more spectacular. The French Revolution of 1789 overthrew the old order in a few months and created dramatic changes very quickly. Many of the ideas that had been developed in the Enlightenment were put into practice -- with the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity setting the basis for a completely new social and political order. These changes also represented the victory for the new middle classes in France, and the beginnings of societies based on the individual and individualism. The American Revolution carried many of the same ideas. While democracy was slow to take root, the new slogans and structures began to move in this direction in the political world. Canada had no such successful revolution, but the forces of democracy did have some effect within this country as well. While Canada remained a colony until 1867, with colonial influences continuing until much later, Canada also developed some forms of democratic rule.

Socialism was another political current that was influential. In the English and in the French Revolution there were those who wanted to take equality seriously and create equality for all, not just for the middle classes. Ideas of communal ownership or ownership by all emerged with the Levellers in England. In the French Revolution, Babeuf argued for an egalitarian society and said that the existing government would have to be toppled by force. There had been a long history of peasant revolts, but these did not create permanent organizations. With the development of industry, workers began to form trade unions. While it took considerable time for these to develop, they did show the effectiveness of the organization of ordinary working people. Robert Owen (1771-1858) was a successful British industrialist who had a vision of a better society. He established a model workers' community in New Lanark, Scotland where workers had decent wages and children were educated. He argued for creation of a society of equals and for social reforms. What is important about these is that there were socialist ideas of equality and improvement of society during the early nineteenth century. These were to have a strong influence on the writings and activities of Marx.


Cuff, E. C., W. W. Sharrock and D. W. Francis, Perspectives in Sociology, thrid edition, London, Routledge, 1992. HM.6 P37 1984.

Hadden, R. W., Sociological Theory: An Introduction to the Classical Tradition, Peterborough, Broadview Press, 1997.

Hunt, E. K., Property and Prophets: the Evolution of Economic Institutions and Ideologies, sixth edition, New York, Harper and Row, 1990.

Ritzer, G., Sociological, Theory, third edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1992. HM24 R4938

Rosenau, P. M., Post-modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1992.

Wallace, R. A. and A. Wolf, Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the Classical Tradition, fifth edition, Upper Saddle River, N. J., Prentice-Hall, 1999.

Zeitlin, Irving M., Ideology and the Development of Sociological Thought, fourth edition, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall, 1990. HM19 Z4


Last edited on September 9, 1999.

Return to Sociology 250.