Positivism

Although it has many variations (which it's not necessary to discuss in this context), the basic philosophy of positivism (at least as it was initially developed by Comte in the early 19th century) can be noted as follows:

1. The social world is similar to the natural world in terms of the idea that both are governed by particular laws. An obvious and broad example here might be the "law of cause and effect".

2. In a similar way to the natural world, laws governing human behaviour exist independently of the hopes, fears, aspirations, etc. of human beings. Whether we like it or not, our behaviour is governed by the action of social laws, just as our behaviour is governed by the action of natural laws.

The basic argument, therefore, is that:

- Patterns of behaviour exist in the social world just as they do in the natural world.

- Since these are patterns (and not random variations), they must have causes.

- Therefore, if we identify these causes we can explain the reasons for these patterns (that is, we can explain why people behave in certain ways).

Positivist science, therefore, takes its inspiration from natural sciences such as physics and chemistry. Although clearly different, the social and natural worlds have some basic similarities. Just as natural scientists can establish cause and effect relationships, the same is also true, it is argued, of social scientists when studying social behaviour.

As you will be aware, one of the main differences between the social and natural worlds is that the subject matter of sociology (people or thinking subjects) is very different to the subject matter of the natural world (unthinking objects such as rocks, plants, insects and so forth).

In basic terms, people have consciousness; they are aware of themselves and their surroundings in a way that rocks, for example, are not. This, clearly, is a potential problem for positivist sociology.

However, this problem is resolved, in positivist science, by arguing that the self-consciousness of human beings (the ability to think and act) is not a significant factor in our ability to understand social behaviour. This is because, it is argued, people's behaviour is, at root, always a reaction to some form of stimulation, whether this be their socialisation (the values and norms they have learnt), something more direct like the need to earn a living or whatever. Thus, just as a rock reacts to external stimulation, so too is social behaviour considered in this way.

If this is the case, then, for positivist sociologists, we have to study the cause of a reaction (the stimuli) rather than the action itself.

Return