Philosophy of Society

Social Philosophy (Theory of Society)

Sociological Positivism

The emergence of positivism as a philosophical approach, which posited that the natural sciences are the most refined means of knowledge and that knowledge derived from the natural sciences is the most reliable, had a profound impact across all fields of study. In each discipline, adherents of positivism sought to apply the methods of natural sciences to their own areas of research and to implement scientific theories. Among sociologists and social philosophers, there were numerous proponents of positivism. Thus, sociological positivism is a collective term for various schools of sociological thought, each presenting its own original theory. What unites all these schools is the application of natural science methods and the attempt to construct a theory of society based on some natural science theory.

• Social Darwinism is a branch of social positivism founded by the Polish thinker Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909), who was the first in sociological thought to address the issue of social conflict. Charles Darwin asserted that all living organisms evolve by adapting to their environments and engaging in a constant struggle for survival. This theory of survival struggle was further developed by economist Robert Malthus. Gumplowicz adopted the concept of survival struggle and elevated it to a universal principle. According to him, mutual hatred is inherent in humans, which generates a constant struggle between individuals. Each person tries to dominate and exploit others. Thus, the entire history of human society is characterized by persistent social conflicts. Since social conflicts bring harm to people, they need to be eradicated. The only way to neutralize conflict is through coercion and violence.
• The American Albion Woodbury Small (1854-1926) continued Gumplowicz’s concept of social Darwinism but introduced significant modifications. Unlike Gumplowicz, Small did not believe that coercion and violence were effective solutions to social conflicts. Coercion can only suppress conflict but not resolve it. To address social conflicts, social technologies are needed to help educate people and reduce levels of hatred. Sociology should play a key role in the process of education and conflict resolution.
• The Racial-Anthropological School played a significant role in 19th and 20th-century sociological thought. Its founder was the French count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882). Gobineau sought to identify the reasons for the differing rates of social development among various peoples. His answer was based on racial differences. Gobineau claimed that different races have varying capacities for development. The white race, he argued, possesses the inherent abilities to build high culture, advance in science, art, politics, economics, and law. Other races lack these abilities and can only adopt the achievements of the white race. A problem for humanity is that due to constant migrations and too-close interactions between peoples, races are mixing. The more foreign blood that enters the white race, the more talents it loses. Racial mixing benefits non-white races, as it endows them with traits they do not inherently possess, but it harms the white race by diminishing its creative potential. Gobineau predicted a very pessimistic future: the white race would mix with others, and humanity would lose its guiding force, ceasing to have a catalyst for high development.
• The Geographical School in sociology attracted the attention of many researchers. The French Enlightenment philosopher Charles-Louis de Montesquieu (1689-1755) was the first to utilize geographical insights to explain social phenomena, and the Englishman Henry Thomas Buckle (1821-1862) developed this school further. Adherents of this school believe that geography is the defining factor that shapes social processes, and thus, understanding social processes can only be achieved through geography. Nature endows different peoples with varying gifts: some enjoy favorable climates and advantageous locations, while others receive nothing. The more a people receives from nature, the worse it is for them. Peoples with abundance are prone to laziness, which leads to poverty and weak social institutions. Conversely, those who have received little or nothing from nature are forced to work hard. Their natural poverty stimulates intellectual and physical labor essential for survival. Having learned to survive in extreme conditions, these peoples have developed high culture, effective politics, and robust economies. This is why European peoples, who received no natural advantages, are wealthier and more successful than African peoples, who have been given everything except the necessity to work.