Can Sociology Be Scientific? An Evaluation of Two Anti-Positivist Arguments

The question of whether sociology can be considered a science has been a subject of ongoing debate within the field. While positivist sociologists, inspired by the natural sciences, believe that objective social laws can be discovered through empirical research, anti-positivists challenge this notion, arguing that the complexities of human behavior and social phenomena defy scientific methods. This essay will outline and explain two key arguments against the positivist view of sociology.

The Interpretivist Critique: Subjectivity vs. Objectivity

One of the most compelling arguments against a scientific sociology stems from the interpretivist perspective. Unlike positivists, who seek objective social facts, interpretivists emphasize the subjective meanings individuals attach to their actions and social interactions. They contend that human behavior cannot be understood solely through the observation of external factors, as advocated by positivists. Instead, understanding the internal meanings, motivations, and interpretations of individuals is crucial.

Interpretivists like Weber argue for a method of verstehen, which emphasizes understanding social action from the actor's point of view. This involves interpreting the meanings, motives, and values individuals ascribe to their actions. This interpretive understanding, they argue, is fundamentally different from the causal explanations sought by natural sciences. Sociologists like Douglas further highlight the role of individual interpretation in their studies of suicide, deviating from Durkheim's positivist approach.

The Problem of Paradigm Shift: Sociology's Lack of a Unified Framework

Another significant challenge to the scientific claim of sociology comes from the concept of paradigms, introduced by Kuhn. He argued that scientific progress is not linear but occurs through revolutionary paradigm shifts. A paradigm, in this context, refers to a shared framework of assumptions, concepts, and methods within a scientific discipline. Kuhn argued that natural sciences, at any given time, operate under a dominant paradigm that guides research and interpretation of findings. However, when anomalies and contradictions accumulate, a crisis ensues, leading to a paradigm shift and a new framework for scientific inquiry.

Critics like Friedrichs argue that sociology, unlike the natural sciences, lacks this unified paradigm. Instead, it is characterized by competing theoretical perspectives, such as Marxism, functionalism, and feminism, each offering different interpretations of social phenomena. This lack of a shared paradigm, according to anti-positivists, undermines the claim of sociology to be scientific. Without a common framework for understanding and interpreting social phenomena, it becomes difficult to establish universally accepted findings or laws.

Conclusion

While positivist sociologists strive to apply scientific methods to the study of society, the complexities of human behavior and social phenomena present significant challenges to this approach. The interpretivist emphasis on subjective meaning and the lack of a unified paradigm in sociology, as highlighted by Kuhn's work, offer compelling arguments against viewing sociology as a science in the same vein as physics or chemistry. These arguments suggest that a purely objective and scientific approach to understanding society remains elusive. Recognizing the subjective nature of human experience and the diverse perspectives within sociology itself may lead to a richer, albeit more complex, understanding of the social world.