History of Sociology

History of the Sociology

As a discipline, or body of systematized knowledge, sociology is of relatively recent origin. The concept of civil society as a realm distinct from the state was expressed in the writings of the 17th century English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and of the later thinkers of the French and Scottish enlightenments. (see Age of Enlightenment). Their works anticipated the subsequent focus of sociology, as did the later philosophies of history of the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico and the German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel with regard to the study of social change. Relating to this discipline resarch, see about research methods employed by sociologists here.

Origins

The first definition of sociology was advanced by the French philosopher Auguste Comte. In 1838 Comte coined the term sociology to describe his vision of a new science that would discover laws of human society resembling the laws of nature by applying the methods of factual investigation that had proved so successful in the physical sciences. The British philosopher Herbert Spencer adopted both Comte’s term and his mission.

Several 19th century social philosophers who never called themselves sociologists, are today also counted among the founders of the discipline. The most important among them is Karl Marx, but their number also includes the French aristocrat Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon, the writer and statesman Alexis de Tocqueville and, to a lesser extent, the British philosopher-economist John Stuart Mill. These people were largely speculative thinkers, as were Comte and Spencer and their predecessors in the 17th and 18th centuries. A quite different tradition of empirical reporting of statistics also developed in the 19th century and later became incorporated into academic sociology, especially in the United States.

Developments in Europe

Not until the 1880s and 1890s did sociology begin to be recognized as an academic discipline. In France, à‰mile Durkheim, the intellectual heir of Saint-Simon and Comte, began teaching sociology at the universities of Bordeaux and Paris. Durkheim founded the first true school of sociological thought. He emphasized the independent reality of social facts (as distinct from the psychological attributes of individuals) and sought to discover interconnections among them. Durkheim and his followers made extensive studies of primitive societies similar to those that were later carried out by social anthropologists.

In Germany, sociology was finally recognized as an academic discipline in the first decade of the 20th century, largely because of the efforts of the German economist and historian Max Weber. In contrast with the attempts to model the field after the physical sciences that were dominant in France and in English-speaking countries, German sociology was largely the outgrowth of far-ranging historical scholarship, combined with the influence of Marxism, both of which were central to Weber’s work. The influential efforts of the German philosopher Georg Simmel to define sociology as a distinctive discipline emphasized the human-centered focus of German philosophical idealism.

In Britain, sociology was slow to develop; until the 1960s the field was mostly centered in a single institution, the London School of Economics. British sociology combined an interest in large-scale evolutionary social change with a practical concern for problems relevant to the administration of the welfare state.

Developments of Sociology in the United States

Despite its European origins, sociology during the first half of the 20th century became primarily an American subject. After the early interest in the broad evolutionist theories of Comte and Spencer had declined, American sociology emphasized the study of particular social problems such as crime, marital discord, and the acculturation of immigrants.

The center of U.S. sociological study before World War II (1939-1945) was the University of Chicago. There, the American philosopher George Herbert Mead, who had studied in Germany, stressed in his writings the origins of the mind, the self, and society in the actions and interactions of people. This approach, later known as symbolic interactionism, was largely microsociological and social psychological (see Social Psychology) in emphasis. In 1937, the American sociologist Talcott Parsons introduced the ideas of Durkheim, Weber, and the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto in his major work The Structure of Social Action, which eventually overcame the narrow, limited outlook of American sociology. Leadership in the field passed for a time from Chicago to Harvard University and then to Columbia University, where the American social scientist Robert Merton attempted to unite theory with rigorous empirical (data-gathering) research.

After 1945 both American scholarship and a resurgence of Marxist thought increasingly penetrated European sociology, which expanded considerably. To a growing extent in both the United States and Western Europe, the three dominating figures of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber were recognized as the preeminent classical thinkers of the sociological tradition. Their work continues to influence contemporary sociologists.

Source: “Sociology,”Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia. Contributed By Dennis Hume Wrong, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology, New York University. Author of Class Fertility Trends in Western Nations and other books.

Resources

See Also

• Foreign Policy
• Foreign Affairs
• International Relations

Schools of Jurisprudence
Theory of Law
Sociological School
Analytical School
Historical School
Legal topics
Natural-law School
Development of Criminology
History of Social Darwinism
Jurispruedence
Comparative School

Further Reading

• Arrighi, G., & Silver, B. J. (1999). Chaos and governance in the modern world system. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Ashley, R. (1986). The poverty of meorealism. In R. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 255–300). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Ashley, R. (1989). Living on borderlines: Man, poststructuralism and war. In J. Der Derian & M. J. Shapiro (Eds.), International/intertextual relations (pp. 259–321). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• Bacevich, A. (Ed.). (2002). The imperial tense: Prospects and problems of American empire. New York: Ivan Dee.
• Bacevich, A. (2005). The New American militarism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bain, W. (2014). The pluralist-solidarist debate in the English school. In C. Navari & D. Green (Eds.), Guide to the English School in international studies (pp. 159–170). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
• Barfield, T. J. (1989). The perilous frontier. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Barkey, K. (2008). Empire of difference: The Ottomans in comparative perspective. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Barnett, M. (2002). Historical sociology and constructivism. In S. Hobden & J. Hobson (Eds.), Historical sociology of international relations (pp. 99–119). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Bartelson, J. (1995). A genealogy of sovereignty. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N., & Szanton Blanc, C. (Eds.). (1993). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments and deterritorialized nation-states. London: Routledge.
• Behr, H. (2007). The European Union in the legacies of imperial rule? EU accession politics viewed from a historical comparative rerspective. European Journal of International Relations, 13(2), 240–291.
• Behr, H., & Stivachtis, Y. (Eds.). (2015). Revisiting the idea of the European Union as empire. London: Routledge.
• Bendix, R. (1977). Nation-building and citizenship. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2010). Historical sociology, international relations and connected histories. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(1), 127–143.
• Biernacki, R. (1995). The fabrication of labor: Germany and Britain, 1640–1941. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Biersteker, T., & Weber, C. (Eds.). (1996). State sovereignty as social construct. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Boeroecz, J. (2001). Empire and coloniality in the “eastern enlargement” of the European Union. In Jozsef Boeroecz and Melinda Kovacs (Eds.), Empire’s new clothes: Unveiling EU enlargement (pp. 4–50). Holly Cottage, U.K.: Central Europe Review e-books.
• Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1997). World culture in the world polity. American Sociological Review, 62(2), 172–188.
• Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (Eds.). (1999). Constructing world Culture: International nongovernmental organizations since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Bonnell, V., & Hunt, L. (1999). Beyond the cultural turn: New directions in the study of society and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Bowden, B. (2004). In the name of progress and peace: The standard of civilization and the universalizing project. Alternatives, 29(1), 26–43.
• Bowden, B. (2009). The empire of civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Bowden, B., & Seebrooke, L. (Eds.). (2006). Global standards of market civilization. London: Routledge.
• Bozeman, A. (1960). Politics and culture in international history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Bozeman, A. (1971). The future of law in a multicultural world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Brenner, R. (1977). The origins of capitalist development: A critique of neo-Smithian Marxism. New Left Review, 104, 25–92.
• Broz, J. L. (1997). The domestic politics of international monetary order: The gold standard. In D. Skidmore (Ed.), Contested social orders and international politics. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
• Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society. London: Macmillan.
• Bull, H., & Watson, A. (Eds.). (1984). The expansion of international society. Oxford: Clarendon.
• Butterfield, H., & Wight, M. (Eds.). (1966). Diplomatic investigations. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society? Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Buzan, B. (2014). An introduction to the English school of international relations. Oxford: Polity.
• Buzan, B., & Zhang, Y. (Eds.). (2014). International society and the contest over ‘east Asia’. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Buzan, B., & Lawson, G. (2014). The great transformation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Buzan, B, & Gonzalez-Pelaez, A. (Eds.). (2009). International society in the Middle East: English school theory at the regional level. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave.
• Buzan, B., Jones, C., & Little, R. (1993). The logic of anarchy. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2000). International systems in world history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Calhoun, C. (1996). The rise and domestication of historical sociology. In T. McDonald (Ed.), The historic turn in the human sciences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Calhoun, C. (Ed.). (2007). Sociology in America: A history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Calhoun, C., Cooper, F., & Moore, K. W. (Eds.). (2006). Lessons of empire: Imperial histories and American power. New York: New Press.
• Campbell, D. (1992). Writing security. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society, the information age: Economy, society and culture. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• Chase-Dunn, C. (1985). The system of world cities, A.D. 800–1975. In M. Timberlake (Ed.), Urbanization in the world-economy (pp. 269–292). New York: Blackwell.
• Chase-Dunn, C. (1998). Global formations: Structures of the world economy. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Chernilo, D. (2011). The critique of methodological nationalism: Theory and history. Thesis Eleven, 106(1), 98–117.
• Clark, I. (2007). International Legitimacy and world society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Clemens, E. S. (1997). The people’s lobby: Organizational innovation and the rise of interest group politics in the United States, 1890–1925. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Cohen, B. J. (2007). The transatlantic divide: Why are American and British Ipe so different?. Review of International Political Economy, 14(2), 197–219.
• Collins, R. (1999). Macrohistory: Essays in sociology of the long run. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Connolly, W. E. (1991). Identity/difference. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Cutler, A. C. (2001). Critical reflections on Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization. Review of International Studies, 27(2), 133–155.
• Cutler, A. C. (2002). Critical historical materialism and international law. In S. Hobden & J. Hobson (Eds.), Historical sociology of international relations (pp. 181–199). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Cox, R. (1986). Social forces, states and world order. In R. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 204–254). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Der Derian, J. (1987). On diplomacy. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Diez, T., & Whitman, R. (2002). Analysing European integration—Reflecting on the English school. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(1), 43–67.
• Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging industrial policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the railway age. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Donnelly, J. (1998). Human rights: A new standard of civilization? International Affairs, 74(1), 1–24.
• Doyle, M. W. (1986). Empires. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing international society. London: Macmillan.
• Eisenstadt, S. N. (1963). The political systems of empires. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press of Glencoe.
• Elias, N. (1994). The civilising process. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Emmanuel, A. (1972). Unequal exchange: A study of the imperialism of rrade. Trans. B. Pearce. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Evans, P. (1979). Dependent development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Ferguson, N. (2005). Colossus: The rise and fall of the American empire. New York: Penguin Books.
• Ferguson, Y., & Mansbach, R. (1996). Polities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
• Fidler, D. (2001). The return of the standard of civilization. Journal of International Law, 2(1), 137–157.
• Fidler, D. (2002). A kinder, gentler system of capitulations? International law, structural adjustment policies, and the standard of liberal, globalized civilization. Texas International Law Journal, 35(3), 387–413.
• Finnemore, M. (2003). The purpose of intervention. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Frank, A. G. (1998). Reorient: Global economy in the Asian age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Frank, A. G., & Gills, B. K. (1996). The world system: Five hundred years or five thousand? New York: Routledge.
• Frieden, J. (2006). Global capitalism: Its fall and rise in the twentieth century. New York: W. W. Norton.
• Gellner, E. (1988). Plough, sword and book: The structure of human history. London: Collins Harvill.
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
• Giddens, A. (1985). The nation-state and violence. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.
• Gills, B. (1996). The continuity thesis in world development. In S. C. Chew & R. A. Denemark (Eds.), The underdevelopment of development (pp. 226–245). London: SAGE.
• Gills, B. (1989). International relations theory and the processes of world history. In H. C. Dyer & L. Mangasarian (Eds.), The study of international relations (pp. 103–154). London: Macmillan.
• Gills, B. (2002). World systems analysis, historical sociology and international relations. In S. Hobden & J. Hobson (Eds.), Historical sociology of international relations (pp. 141–161). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Gills, B., & Frank, A. G. (1990). The cummulation of accumulation: Theses and research agenda for 5000 years of world system history. Dialectical Anthropology, 15(1), 19–42.
• Gills, B., & Thompson, W. (Eds.). (2006). Globalization and global history. London: Routledge.
• Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Go, J. (2011). Patterns of empire: The British and American empires, 1688 to the present. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Gong, G. (1984). The standard of “civilisation” in international society. Oxford: Clarendon.
• Gorski, P. (2003). The disciplinary revolution: Calvinism and the rise of the state in early modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Gould, R. V. (1995). Insurgent identities: Class, community, and protest in Paris from 1848 to the commune. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Gourevitch, P. (1986). Politics in hard times: Comparative responses to international economic Crises. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Hall, J. A., & Malesevic, S. (Eds.). (2013). Nationalism and war. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Hall, M., & Jackson, P. T. (Eds.). (2007). Civilizational identity: The production and reproduction of “civilizations” in international relations. New York: Palgrave.
• Hall, R. (1999). National collective identity. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Hall, R., & Kratochwil, F. (1993). Medieval tales: Neorealist “science” and the abuse of history. International Organization, 47(3), 479–491.
• Halliday, F. (1987). State and society in international relations: A second agenda. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16(2), 215–229.
• Halliday, F. (1994). Rethinking international relations. London: Macmillan.
• Halliday, F. (1999). Revolution in world politics. London: Macmillan.
• Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. London: Routledge.
• Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hobden, S. (1998). International relations and historical sociology. New York: Routledge.
• Hobden, S. (1999). Theorising the international system: Perspectives from historical sociology. Review of International Studies, 25(2), 257–271.
• Hobden, S., & Hobson, J. (Eds.). (2002). Historical sociology of international relations. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, J. (1997). The wealth of states. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, J. (1998). The historical sociology of the state and the state of historical sociology in international relations. Review of International Political Economy, 5(2), 284–320.
• Hobson, J. (2002). The two waves of Weberian historical sociology in international relations. In S. Hobden & J. Hobson (Eds.), Historical sociology of international relations (pp. 63–81). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, J. (2002). What’s at stake in ‘bringing historical sociology back into international relations? In S. Hobden & J. Hobson (Eds.), Historical sociology of international relations (pp. 3–41). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, J. (2006). Eurocentrism and neorealism in the “fall of Mann”: Will the real Mann please stand up? Millennium: Journal of International Studies 34(2):517–527.
• Holsti, K. (2004). Taming the sovereigns. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Hopkins, T. K., & I. Wallerstein (Eds.). (1982). World-systems analysis: Theory and methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Ikegami, E. (1995). The taming of the Samurai: Honorific individualism and the making of modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Irish, A., Ku, C., & Diehl, P. F. (2013). Bridging the international law–international relations divide: Taking stock of progress. International and Comparative Law, 41, 357–388.
• Jarvis, A. (1989). Societies, states and geopolitics: Challenges from historical sociology. Review of International Studies, 15(3), 281–293.
• Johnson, C. (2000). Blowback: The costs and consequences of American empire. London: Little, Brown.
• Johnson, C. (2004). The sorrows of empire. New York: Holt.
• Kaplan, R. (2005). Imperial grunts: The American military on the ground. New York: Random House.
• Kasaba, R. (1987). Incorporation of the Ottoman Empire, 1750–1820. Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center, 10(5/6), 805–849.
• Kasaba, R. (Ed.). (1991). Cities in the world-system. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
• Katzenstein, P. J. (1976). International relations and domestic structures: Foreign economic policies of advanced industrial states. International Organization, 30(1), 1–45.
• Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Cultural norms and national security. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Katzenstein, P. J. (Ed.). (2010). Civilizations in world politics. London: Routledge.
• Keal, P. (2003). European conquest and the rights of indigenous peoples. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Keene, E. (2002). Beyond the anarchical society. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Kentor, J. (1998). The long‐term effects of foreign investment dependence on economic growth, 1940–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 1024–1046.
• Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Keohane, R. (Ed.) (1986). Neorealism and its critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Keohane, R., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown.