Why Sociology's Diversity of Perspectives Is Inherent

Introduction: The Origins of Sociological Inquiry

Philosophers, scientists, and artists have collectively sought, throughout the course of human history, to understand, characterize, and empirically determine the mechanisms that drive human society. In terms of systems both large and small, in terms of interactions both measurable and observable, and within scientific and speculative contexts, scholarly examination of the interaction between human beings — as well as the interaction between human beings and elements of the world around them — has been a major preoccupation. The sheer complexity and variability of this discussion would produce the modern discipline known as sociology. Troubled at its very core by the complexity of humankind and human societies, the study's multitude of perspectives has arisen out of necessity.

The ambition of sociology is itself already aimed at a multitude of goals. Accordingly, "sociology tries to concern itself with the nature of the human being, the meaning and basis of social order, and the causes and consequences of social inequality. It focuses on society, social organization, social institutions, social interactions, and social problems" (BI, 1).

Functionalism and the Formalization of Sociology

Over the course of history, these ambitions have not only demanded an extremely flexible way of querying certain human or cultural phenomena, but have also demanded a greater formalism in the way that such questions are approached. So indicates McClelland (2000), who refers to functionalism as answering to this demand. McClelland indicates that "functionalism is the oldest, and still the dominant, theoretical perspective in sociology and many other social sciences. This perspective is built upon twin emphases: application of the scientific method to the objective social world and use of an analogy between the individual organism and society" (McClelland, 1).

This imperative is echoed in a seminal text by Giddings (1984), which argues that "no science is at this moment in greater need of theoretical organization than sociology. A rapidly growing body of coordinated knowledge is called by this name" (p. 7). This simple proclamation reflects the challenge that has invoked so many divergent opinions on how to address very complex questions.

Durkheim and Marx: Founding Sociological Theory

As societies have changed, human beings have changed as well. Such thinkers as Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx took particular care to investigate the implications of such changes. Durkheim's accomplishments are tantamount to founding sociological theory from an academic standpoint. His advocacy of socially guided philosophical education — in lieu of the incidental reinforcement of clerical authority or other false power structures — made him a controversial figure in France. Yet his determination to supplement the humanistic disciplines that had heretofore ruled French philosophical academe with more socially inclined perspectives on the human condition moved sociology onto much more salient ground. Durkheim's efforts introduced the first social science classes ever taught, and he soon became an influential professor in Paris.

Marx's ideas were also immensely important to the refinement of sociological theory. He applied what he perceived as evident impulses in interdependent human matrices toward semantic advocacies of collective progress, emphasis on labor contribution, and state funding for clear, demonstrable public needs. His observations became — and continue to stand as — a cornerstone not just in political thought, but in the application of critical theory. His work sprang directly from the notion that the needs and impulses of the people would be the prime determinant for social-function mechanisms such as government and labor unions.

For both Durkheim and Marx, as well as many of their respective contemporaries, there was an understanding that views on these matters carried great weight in terms of how decisions are made at a governmental level, at an organizational level, at a corporate level, and even within communities and families. Therefore, they held the view that it was of great necessity to formalize the otherwise highly arbitrary discussions on these matters so as to refine, reform, or predict negative patterns in social organization.

As humanity has gained greater scientific, medical, technological, and ideological diffusiveness, theorists from every discipline concerned with human matters have required their own lens for examination. For instance, the text by Conrad & Gabe (1999) focuses its entire discussion on the relationship between social systems and an ever-growing body of knowledge specific to the physical makeup of the human being. The authors provide an extremely compelling impetus for the continually expanding and splintering discourse under the sociology umbrella, demonstrating that fundamental changes in our knowledge of human anatomy, genetics, and evolutionary processes must bring changes in the way we interpret the social systems related to these dimensions of the species. Conrad & Gabe point out that "sociologists have researched other areas of genetics, including the social construction of genetic knowledge, the emergence and implications of genetic testing, the social control potential of genetic information and the commercialization of genetic biotechnology" (p. 5).

Conclusion: The Necessity of Theoretical Pluralism

Quite to the point, this seems to reinforce the assumption at the start of this account, which is that the infinitude of perspectives driving the discipline of sociology is inherent and necessary. Only a scholastic framework with this type of pragmatic applicability could be considered valuable as a way of understanding or interpreting human systems. Indeed, it may even be argued that anything less in terms of flexibility would be dangerous — promontory of dogmatic certainty as to how human beings inherently "are" — attended by all the vagaries of governmental oppression, ethnic bias, classism, and resource depletion that might therefore be rationalized. Therefore, the constant splintering of the sociological discipline seems very much to be the reason for the field's existence, such that we may attempt to better understand humankind in all of its enormity, minutiae, universality, and diversity.