SOCIOLOGY OF INFORMATION SYSTEM AND SERVICE
Information science is especially related to library science, behavioral science, abstracting and indexing, The Development of a Postwar American Sociology. To summarize this concept, we may say that, Sociology is a social science concerned with the study of human social relationships and the ways. Understanding the Relationship Between the Librarian and the Academic This article presents the findings of a small study that examined the Envisioning the Academic Library: A Reflection on Roles, Relevancy and Relationships Politics & International Relations · Social Sciences · Sports and.
Then they have virtually — whether deliberately or not — tried to explain the mean- ing of life by means of their knowledge of these particular interests.
For instance, we may explain the growth of the so-called science of history in this way. For ordinary men it is a prodi- gious feat of the constructive imagination to take notice that the world is full of: Certain high-power tinctures of ordinariness, our Homers and our Virgils, have reflected vulgar interests, and rudimentary stages of generalization, by dressing up in fanciful form real or mythical exploits of heroes divine or human.
They sing of "arms and a man. So far as life appeals to them seriously, it presents itself as at bottom the government of one man by another. The fact of great systems of sovereignty occupies the center of their field of view. The things chiefly worth remember- ing and reflecting on are the fortunes of men who conquer and wield political power, and thus control the destinies of all the rest of men.
From this point of view Herodotus and Thucydides submit their answer as to the meaning of life. They set a model which is adopted, with variations, by the class of thinkers that we call historians down to the present hour.
With a rough approximation to truth, we may say that all these men attempt to interpret life to us as an affair to be understood fundamentally as a function of government and sovereignty. Of course, there has never been utter separation between the speculative and the positive method of approach, in the case of a single individual. Plato could not abstract himself utterly from the real world; while Herodotus and his successors have always seen the facts of history through the medium of a more or less definite philosophy.
I am speaking now of types, without attempting to discuss the mixture of types in specific cases. I must also qualify the statement that the followers of Herodotus and Thucydides pictured life as an affair of government and of sovereignty. One species of their followers has held to that view.
All the rest have more or less departed from it — for instance, the religious historians. Two general propositions, therefore, are in point with refer- ence to the historians: First, the one common element in their pur- poses is search for some part of the meaning of life. Second, the one common article in their methodological faith is that the desired meaning is to be discovered by making out some continuity of human experiences. A moment ago I used the phrase "the so-called science of history.
Sociology is no more unfortunate in this respect than the older divisions of social science. They have simply existed long enough for their vagueness to have been accepted as inevitable. In point of fact, the supposed objectivity and unity of either of these sciences will never be made out, until it is a phase of that very unity which the sociologists are diligently laboring to discover. I am not saying that the sociologists alone are scientific in their methods.
On the contrary, the historians, the economists, and the political scientists are far in advance of the sociologists in perfecting their scientific technique. What I am urging is that the implicit task upon which we are all working is discovery of the meaning of human experience, and that the primary significance of the sociologists is in this message to their fellow-scientists: It may be a millstone around the neck of your science.
We shall never learn the meaning of human experience until we learn the meaning of all human experi- ence. You cut human experience into convenient little abstract sections and thin layers, and when you have applied the micro- scope to them, you think you have found the secret of life. Human experience is not disconnected microscopic sections.
It is a cosmos. Your abstractions will be abortions until you learn the meaning of them in their relations' to the living whole. We have "histories" of church doctrine, and "histories" of military tactics. We have "histories" of language, and of painting, and of prostitution. We have "histories" of the idea of the devil, and "histories" of hymn- ology, and "histories" of the conflict of science and religion.
We have constitutional histories', and political histories, and industrial histories, and military histories, and social histories.
Between historians of any two of these groups of subject-matter it is pos- sible, and even probable, that we should find nothing more in com- mon than the two traits already named: As' a sociologist I put in my word that this is all well so far as it goes, but a world full of workers merely from this point of view would never succeed in making out the meaning of human experience.
The more we unravel these distinct strands of human continuity, and follow them back till they are lost in the mass of undifferentiated experience, the more evident and importunate becomes the demand for explanation of the strands by knowledge of the web of experience from which they have been disentangled.
In other words, when we have divided life up into an indefinite number of series of continuities, we have not found out the meaning of life. We have merely made the enigma of life more perplexing. We thereby only succeed in giving ourselves more convincing evidence of the real task — viz. This brings us' to the cardinal principle that the meaning of experience is not to be discovered in continuity alone, in the his- torical sense.
Social causation is always contemporary as' well as consecutive. Not with conscious attention to this principle, but with instinctive reference to it, political science and political economy have come into existence. We may speak of Macchiavelli as the father of political science. Of course, he drew his observations largely from history ; but he reflected at least as directly upon his' first-hand contact with prince-craft.
The thing worth knowing being how to govern a state, Macchiavelli set himself the task of putting in order what he knew about the way in which this was done by successful princeSi A social science of utility was thus founded. Political science unmixed with any other science, and kept as a pure abstraction, according to the scheme of defini- tion-makers, would be restricted simply to this problem, viz: A certain system of political results being assumed as desirable, what maxims of conduct is it necessary for rulers to observe in order to achieve those results?
What political results are desirable? Here again we raise a question which no academically bounded science can answer even in algebraic form.
The answer is a function of the complete life of man. We must have a tentative solution of the main problem of the essential meaning of life, in order to furnish the answer.
- The Relationship of Sociology with Other Social Sciences
A political science that is moving along in harmony with the whole pro- gressive gain of out-look and in-look about the meaning of life, must consequently be, not a permanent abstraction, but sooner or later a working partner with all the other types of investigation that are together closing in on the total meaning of life. In other words, if our range of reflective interest were bounded by political utility, we should start with a more or less distinctly defined conception of what we meant by political utility.
That conception would have to be either a hard and fast notion, fixed for all time, subject to no change; or it would have to be a pro- visional conception, subject to modification, in consequence of changes in our judgments of life- values.
Assuming the former alternative, let us suppose that political utility, as we understand it, is represented by the utmost absence of friction in operating the present constitution and laws of the United States. But one of the three co-ordinate branches of this' governmental system is the legislative. Not to speak of the other ways in which our con- stitution and laws actually change their content from time to time, several thousand bills are introduced at every session of our national legislature alone.
These bills propose amendment or repeal of old laws, and enactment of new ones. Every bill that becomes a law may alter the standard of political utility that pre- viously prevailed. Here is then our dilemma as political scientists.
To put it in another way, we must either commit ourselves' unalterably to the position that there is nothing in the world greater or better or more desirable than our present machinery of government, that this system bounds our moral world ; or we must concede that our theory, our science, of this system of government is' merely a subordinate term in the equation of life, and that it has always to be held subject to modification by the values of other terms in the same equation.
For instance, suppose the proposition is a constitutional amendment providing for election of senators by direct ballot, instead of by legislatures.
Such a proposition at once challenges the authority of that standard of political utility upon which, for the sake of argument, we are supposing our political science to be based.
It introduces a modified conception of the kind of society we wish our government to secure. By what means shall we decide that the kind of society which would be promoted by popu- larly elected senators would be better or worse than the kind of society of which our present Senate is' a factor?
The type of political science which we are now discussing hypothetically would have prejudiced the case in one way. It would have assumed our present political system as a finality. By this very assumption it would make itself helpless for the present purpose. That is', it would have begged the question of human desirability. On the other hand, whoever proposes to change the present political order of the United States assumes a burden of proof that something else is better.
If it is not a final order, why is it not? Whatever the proposed answer, it would have to rest on some principle broad enough and deep enough to' serve as a com- mon measure of existing standards of political utility, and of each and every other standard that might be brought into competition with it.
No political scientist has ever been heard of who did not, as a matter of fact, entertain some notion of a meaning of life in excess of political utility in the strict sense. The consequence is that no political science has ever been written in which the critical eye could not read between the lines more or less emphatic implications that the political science must after all, at last, be a function of a more inclusive science.
Political utility is only a segment of human utility. This is not a theory of academic partisanship, it is not a professional bias that creates imaginary relations.
It is a fact, which no bias can suc- cessfully ignore. This being the case, scientific progress, so far as political science is concerned, depends upon the degree in which actual political scientists have reconciled their specialization with this larger reality. We may now go back to the other possible alternative in pre- sumptions of political utility, viz.
The moment we take this view we have committed our political science to interminable cycles of struggle with two questions instead of one; viz. It would be easy to show that, whatever steps we consent to take toward answering this latter type of question, these steps leave us no stopping-place till we have arrived at some result which we are willing to accept in answer to the fundamental ques- tion: What is the whole meaning of life?
That is', we either expand our so-called political science into an all-round life- philosophy, or we acknowledge that it is merely fractional in its character, and that it must be supplemented by divisions of science which explore other segments of life-values.
I have no interest in quarreling about names, with men who take this view, and prefer to call it political science. If they are doing all that man can do to push inquiry into the whole meaning of life, God bless them, whatever identification tag they wear!
My interest as a sociologist is in pointing out that men who organize their work from this point of view are on the same quest with the sociologists'. Our business is to understand each other as soon as possible, and to help each other all we can in so perfecting our methods that we may make our utmost contribution to knowledge.
Many German political scientists apparently mean just what I do by sociology when they use the term Staatswissenschaft. Literally translated, the term would be the "science of the state," or "civic science," or simply "civics. The same is much more evi- dently true of another term which is used in much the same way by writers who start rather from the economic point of view, viz.
The chief strategic method for which the sociologists are fighting is interpretation of the parts of life by the whole of life.
Whoever is not against us' in this fight is on our side. The main contention is that no single connected series of human expe- riences can explain itself, because each series' is a function of all the other human experiences that have occurred antecedent to it, and that are contemporary with it.
Neither can any single cross- section of human experience explain itself, because it is merely a passing phase of the myriad series of causes and effects which are making the life of one moment and unmaking it in the next.
The sociologists are attorneys for this latter share of the process of knowledge. In dealing with the relation of sociology to political economy, 'Dietzel, Theoretische Socialokonomikp.
In brief the situation is this: Adam Smith in effect defined the boundaries of a purely technical inquiry when he proposed the problem that may be expressed in this way: What laws must a nation observe in order to amass the largest quantity of wealth? Thereupon political economy became primarily an inquiry into the conditions which govern increase of national wealth.
A logician from 1 Mars, unless Mars is a sophists' colony, would have no dif- ficulty whatever in placing such an inquiry where it belongs in the scale of knowledge. He would see at once that wealth is an incident in human life, and that the ratio of the importance of this incident varies from time to time, from place to place, from civilization to civilization.
He would see that the question, How shall we increase wealth? He would, accordingly, see that, on its merits as a section of science, not according to its capacity tot stir up popular interest, political economy subtends relatively a very small angle of knowledge. It deals with material things and the means of obtaining them.
But life, whether of the individual or of a nation, does not and cannot consist of the things that are pos- sessed. It cannot do without a modicum, of them, and it cannot advance from range to range of achievement without controlling corresponding quantities of them. But things' are merely pre- liminaries to life. They bear the same relation to life that dealing out rations to an army bears to fighting battles. The commissary department is necessary, but supplies are not strategy.
We are simply generalizing that proposition when we repeat that wealth is not life. We can no more solve the problem of life by solving the problem of wealth than we can solve military problems by analyzing foods'. Life consists not in the accumulation of things, but in the experiences of persons.
For this reason, during the better part of a hundred years, political economy has been able to occupy a scientific prominence ridiculously out of proportion to its logical significance in the totality of human knowledge. Economists have gravely assumed that their economic knowledge qualifies them to settle all sorts of questions of public policy. This is as though pure mathematicians should claim the right to dictate the settlement of the financial and engineering and architectural problems involved in rebuilding San Francisco.
The opening paragraph reads' as follows: Political Economy, or Economics, is the name of that body of knowledge which relates to wealth. Political Economy has to do with no other subject whatever, than wealth. Especially should the student take care not to allow any purely political, ethical, or social considerations to influence him in his investigations.
All that he has, as an economist, to do is to find out how wealth is produced, exchanged, distributed, and consumed. It will remain for the social philosopher, the moralist, or the statesman, to decide how far the pursuit of wealth, according to the laws discovered by the economist, should be subordinated to other, let us say higher, considerations.
The more strictly the several branches of inquiry are kept apart, the better it will be for each and for all. The amusing way in which the program works out in practice, however, is the sufficient reason for using this writer to point my moral.
In the last of the pages in this book on Political Economy, as just defined, Gen- eral Walker applies his economic principles to questions of public policy covering a range of social problems which can no more be solved by economics alone than problems' in the treatment of diseases can be solved by anatomy.
The absurdity of the non-sequitur element in this situation is mitigated, but not removed, by the remark with which General Walker concludes the section just quoted, viz: The economist may also be a social philosopher, a moralist, or a states- 3 P.
From the standpoint of the pure logician standing outside of all the social sciences, and criticising them simply and solely as samples of reasoning, the clue to the conflict of claims between economics and sociology is briefly this: The economists have proceeded upon the assumption that being an economist one thereby is at once social philosopher, moralist, and statesman to the extent necessary to furnish an authoritative interpretation of life.
The sociologists maintain, on the contrary, that this is no more necessarily the case than that the mathematician is ipsa facto a chemist or a mechanician. While I was serving a seven years' apprenticeship as a teacher of history and economies', with no thought of another vocation, and while I was trying to use General Walker's book as a basis for instruction in economies', the anomaly of the whole methodological presumption upon which current valuations of economic theory rested compelled me to calculate my bearings for myself.
I would utter not a word or hint in disparagement of economic science. My affair is' to make clear the necessary subordination of econ- omic science in the complex process of interpreting life as a whole. Some of the men of largest mold that have dealt with social questions during the past century have been economists', and the economic basis of their opinions has doubtless' been as secure as any portion of the reasoning upon which our policies have been founded.
With reference to the whole problem of the meaning of life, and the largest view of the conduct of life, we are merely in the kindergarten stage of" social intelligence. Hence Sociology takes the help of political science to understand the changes in society.
Hence both are inter-dependent. Similarly political science also depends on Sociology. To understand the part it is necessary to understand the whole. Almost all political problems has a social cause and for the solution of these political problems political science takes the help of sociology. State frames its rules, regulations and laws on the basis of social customs, tradition and values. Without Sociological background the study of political science will be incomplete.
Political Scientists largely benefited by the researches and research methods of the Sociologist. Some consider political science as a branch of Sociology. State is considered as a social group hence is a subject of Sociology. Besides, there are some common topics which are being studied by both the subjects. These topics are War, Propaganda, authority, communal riots and law. With the help of both political science and sociology a new subject comes into existence which is known as political sociology.
Some political events like war are also significant social events. Thus both political science and sociology contribute to each other.
But inspite of their inter-relationship and inter-dependence both the sciences differ from each other in the following way. As a mother of social sciences sociology has close and intimate relationship with all other social sciences. Accordingly it has close relationship with history. Because present society bears symbols of past.
Relationship between the two is so close and intimate that scholars like G. Von Bulow have refused to acknowledge sociology as a science distinct from history.
Sociology is the science of society. It is a study of systems of social action and their inter-relations. Sociology is a science of social groups and social institutions.
History studies the important past events and incidents. It records men past life and life of societies in a systematic and chronological order. It also tries to find out the causes of past events. It also studies the past political, social and economic events of the world. It not only studies the past but also establishes relations with present and future.
Both study the same human society. Their mutual dependence led G. At the same time one depends on the other for its own comprehension. History helps and enriches Sociology. History is the store house of knowledge from which Sociology gained a lot.
History provides materials sociologists use. History is a record of past social matters, social customs and information about different stages of life. Sociology uses this information. Books written by historians like A. Toynbee are of great use for Sociologists. To know the impact of a particular past event sociology depends on history. Similarly Sociology also provides help to history and enriches it. A historian greatly benefited from the research conducted by Sociologists.
Historians now study caste, class and family by using sociological data. Sociology provides the background for the study of history. Now history is being studied from Sociological angle. Every historical event has a social cause or social background. To understand that historical event history need the help from Sociology and Sociology helps history in this respect. Sociology provides facts on which historians rely on. Thus history and Sociology are mutually dependent on each other.
History is now being studied from Sociological angle and Sociology also now studied from historical point of view.
The Relationship of Sociology with Other Social Sciences
Historical sociology now became a new branch of Sociology which depends on history. Similarly Sociological history is another specialized subject which based on both the Sciences.
But in spite of the above close relationship and inter-dependence both the sciences differ from each other from different angles which are described below. But history deals with the past events and studies the past society.
Sociology includes history within its scope. Sociology is mother of all social sciences. Hence it has close relationship with all social sciences and so also with Economics.
The relationship of sociology with economics is very close, intimate and personal. There exists close relationship between these two because economic relationships bear a close relation to social activities and relationships. Likewise social relationships are also affected by economic relationships. Economic activities to a great extent are social activities. Hence both are mutually related. It is concerned with the association of human beings.Sociology for UPSC : Socio and Anthropology Comparison - Chapter 1 - Paper 1 - Lecture 52
But Economics deals with economic activities of man. It is a science of wealth and choice. It also studies the structure and functions of different economic organizations like banks, markets etc.
It is concerned with the material needs of man as well as his material welfare. However, there exists a great deal of inter-relationship between these two sciences. Both are interdependent and inter-related with each other. Their inter-relationships are as follows: Economics takes the help of Sociology. For its own comprehension economics takes the help of sociology and depends on it. Economics is concerned with material welfare of man which is common welfare. Economic welfare is a part of social welfare.
For the solution of different economic problems such as inflation, poverty, unemployment etc. At the same time society controls the economic activities of man. Economics is greatly benefited by the research conducted by Sociologists like Max-weber, Pareto etc. Some economists also consider economic change as an aspect of social change. Economic draws its generalization basing on the data provided by Sociology.
Thus economics cannot go far or develop without the help of Sociology.
Full text of "The Relation Between Sociology and Other Sciences"
Similarly Sociology also takes the help from economics. Economics greatly enriches sociological knowledge. An economic factor greatly influences each and every aspects of social life. Knowledge and research in the field of economics greatly contributes to sociology. Each and every social problem has an economic cause. For the solution of social problems like dowry, suicide etc.
Sociologists take the help from economics. Marx opines economic relations constitute the foundation of Society. Economic factors play a very important role in every aspect of our social life that is why Sociologists concerned with economic institutions.
For this reason Sociologists like Spencer, Weber, Durkheim and others have taken the help from economics in their analysis of social relationships. Thus both sociology and economics are very closely related with each other.
There are some problems which are being studied by both sociologists and economists. Economic changes results in social changes and vice versa. However, inspite of the above closeness, inter-relationship and inter-dependence both the sciences have certain differences which are described below: Hence it is closely related to other social sciences and so also with psychology. Sociology and Psychology are very closely interlinked interrelated and interdependent.
Relationship between the two is so close and intimate that Psychologist like Karl Pearson refuses to accept both as special science. Both depend on each other for their own comprehension. Their relationship will be clear if we analyze their inter-relationship and mutual dependency.