Comte and Tönnies: foundational sociology theories

Comte and Tonnies

Compare and contrast Comte and Tonnies on their view of the social structure of society. Which had the more accurate view? Explain and justify with specific points from their theories.

August Comte, the founder of the theory of positivism, viewed all of society was an integrated whole. He believed that all society stemmed from the basic, three-part construction of the human mind, whereby individuals seek theological, metaphysical, and abstract explanations, from which they finally extrapolate an abstract or metaphysical conception of the world, an explanation that is the only truly objective view of any phenomena. Comte believed that students should concern themselves only with phenomena that have an objective, "positive," existence.

In contrast, the German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies based his sociological arguments not so much upon ideas about the structure of the mind, but on the idea that the human will forms the impetus for societal development. Tonnies argued that there exist two basic forms of the human will. The essential will is the underlying or primal instinctive driving force for survival. Then, there is the arbitrary will, which is deliberative, purposive, and very specific and goal- oriented.

It is interesting to contrast these two philosophers, because Comte views society as moving forward in terms of a quest for understanding. Although materialistic in its emphasis upon phenomenon that has an objective existence, as noted by both Ritzer in his comparative work on sociological theories, Comte's stress is upon the mind's ability to focus and comprehend, and the limits and reasons for human mental structures to have evolved as they have. Comte's stress upon human understanding in the individual is quite different from Tonnies' focus on human existence as the exercising of a variety of drives in the context of groups, rather than individual minds. Tonnies stresses the impact the human drives and human goals have upon the world. He does not see the quest for understanding as the basic human framework through which societal relationships are created. Given the broader view of society taken in recent years that tends to de-emphasize theology and the intellect as a cultural product of philosophy's location in the academy, the German philosopher's explanation ultimately emerges as more persuasive.