Positivism and its critique[1]

Early theorists' approach to sociology, led by Comte, was to treat it in much the same manner as natural science, applying the same methods and methodology used in the natural sciences to study social phenomena. This methodological approach, called positivism assumes that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method.

In it original meaning, positivism is trying to understand or describe the world as a sequence of cause and effect between objects that one can observe. Positivism is frequently confused with empiricism and inductivism. Empiricism argues that the only foundation of knowledge is experience (observation) and inductivism that true knowledge is induced from observations. John Locke, an English philosopher, was both an empiricist and an inductivist.

Positivism in sociology, however, was originally a French tradition, and the early positivists (Saint Simon, Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim, for example) were neither empiricists nor inductivists. For them, positivism was not a theory about what methods  are scientific, but a belief that true knowledge is based on thinking about the physical and social world as systems of causal relationships between realities that we can (in some sense) observe. This is very different from arguing that we can only derive knowledge from observation.

Positivism is closely related to the development of a science of society. Saint Simon developed the ideas that Auguste Comte was later to call “positivism”. We can identify four beliefs that characterize Saint Simon’s positivist ideas:

• A unification of sciences is needed to create a new world view.
• A science of society is needed - analogous to the natural sciences like physics and biology.
• Science should replace religion (‘theology’) as coordinator of the moral order.
• Scientists should become the new leaders of society.

Auguste Comte published his Cours de Philosophie Positive in six volumes between 1830 and 1842. In volume four (1838) he coined the word Sociology for the science of society.

Comte argues that human thought necessarily goes through three stages. The first stage (theology) looks for the original cause of everything and thinks it is a supernatural being (God). In the next, philosophical stage of thought, the mind supposes abstract forces inherent in all beings which explain what they are. Finally, in the positive stage, the mind gives up looking for ultimate causes or abstract forces and seeks, instead, to discover the laws that link the things we observe.

This search for laws uses reason as well as observation, so it is neither inductivist nor empiricist. An early English translation of Comte’s work said:

“Reasoning and observation, duly combined, are the means of knowledge. What is now understood when we speak of an explanation of facts is simply the establishment of a connection between single phenomena and some general facts, the number of which continually diminishes with the progress of science.”

“...the ultimate perfection of the Positive system would be (if such perfection could be hoped for) to represent all phenomena as particular aspects of a single general fact; - such as Gravitation, for instance.”

Emile Durkheim, in his books ‘Montesquieu and Rousseau, 1891 and Rules of sociological methods” emphasized on establishment of a science of society, following the tradition of Comte. He argues that, in order to make a scientific study of society, we must think about society and its parts as real things. We should “Consider social facts as things”. This is a position in opposition to theorists like John Stuart Mill and Max Weber, who emphasized on the considering individual will as real and the study of meanings attached by the actor to his action. Durkheim thinks about society as having a real substance, and social realities act as forces that will move us with as much reality as gravity moves us when we jump of a wall.

To study this social reality, Durkheim combines reason and observation. He examines theories that are based on a belief in real individuals, but unreal societies, and argues that they are rationally deficient. He develops theories based on the reality of society and argues that they make better sense. He also relates his theories to empirical observations to shows that they are consistent with the world as we observe it. And he argues that the alternative, individualistic, theories are not consistent with the empirical material he produces.

However, durkheim did not believe that social facts consisted only of those things that could be directly observed or measured. Belief systems are not directly measurable or observable since they exist in the consciousness of humans. Nevertheless, durkheim saw them as existing over and above individual consciousness. Durkheim’s definition and use of the term ‘social facts’ distinguish him from positivists such as Comte. In may other respects, though, he followed the logic and methods of positivism.

From the above discussion Positivists in sociologists seems to have following elements:

• Scientific study of society should be confined to collecting information about phenomena that can be objectively observed and classified. Comte argued that sociologists should not be concerned with the internal meanings, motives, feelings and emotions of individuals.
• Use of scientific methods, which was initially proposed to be similar to natural sciences but later on moremethods particular to social sciences emerged. Durkheim’s classic study Suicide (first published 1897) is often seen as a model of positivist research and it does indeed follow many of the methodological procedures of positivism. In general positivists favour the use of quantitative methods like statistical techniques , correlation, multivariate analysis , experimental etc.
• Positivist methodology entails looking for correlations between different observable social facts. If there is a strong correlation between two or more types of social phenomena, then a positivist sociologist might suspect that on of these phenomena was causing the other to take place. In order to overcome the problem of spurious correlation, Durkheim devised a technique known as multivariate analysis. This involves trying to isolate the effect of a particular independent variable upon the dependent variables. With the aid of computers and sophisticated statistical techniques, quantitative researchers can analyse the relative importance of many different variables. Durkheim had to make do with less sophisticated research procedures, but he used the same logic in his study of suicide.
• The goal of inquiry is to explain and predict. Most positivists would also say that the ultimate goal is to develop the law of general understanding. Durkheim claimed to have discovered laws of human behaviour that governed the suicide rate. Comte believed he had discovered a law that all human societies passed through three stages: the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive.
• Positivism is based upon an understanding of science that sees science as using a mainly inductive methodology. An inductive methodology starts by collecting the data. The data are then analysed, and out of this analysis theories are developed. Once the theory has been developed it can then be tested against other sets of data to see if it is confirmed or not. If it is repeatedly confirmed, then Durkheim and positivists such as Comte assume they have discovered a law of human behaviour.
• Scientific knowledge is testable.
• science should be as value-free as possible, and the ultimate goal of science is to produce knowledge, regardless of politics, morals, values, etc. involved in the research. Science investigation should be done objectively.

critique of positivism

Firstly, Many scientists now advocate and use an alternative, deductive approach. Although the logic of the deductive approach is similar in many ways to positivism, the differences have important implications. This alternative methodology in both natural science and sociology is supported by Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959). The deductive approach reverses the process of induction. It starts with a theory and tests it against the evidence, rather than developing a theory as a result of examining the data.

According to Popper it matters little how a scientific theory originates. It does not, as positivists suggest, have to come from prior observation and analysis of data. Popper differs from positivists in that he denies that it is ever possible to produce laws that will necessarily be found to be true for all time. He argues that, logically, however many times a theory is apparently proved correct because predictions made on the basis of that theory come true, there is always the possibility that at some future data the theory will be proved wrong, or ‘falsified’. 

Laws, whether of natural science or of human behaviour, do not, from this point of view, necessarily have the permanence attributed to them by positivists. Popper suggests that scientists have a duty to be objective, and to test their theories as rigorously as possible. Therefore, once they have formulated hypotheses, and made predictions, it is necessary to try constantly to find evidence that disproves or falsifies their theories.

Secondly, Positivism has been considered by few, as a fundamental misunderstanding of social reality, that it is ahistorical, depoliticized, and an inappropriate application of theoretical concepts. Positivism is restricted to phenomena that can be constrained within an analytical and verifiable fragment of the reality, i.e., that it is impossible to study freedom, irrationality and various unpredictable actions that are common in individual human behaviour.

Thirdly, Positivism has been criticized for its emphasis on universalism. Universal laws developed by positivists have seldom found to universal in reality.

Fourthly, Positivism ignored the role of the 'observer' in the constitution of social reality and thereby failed to consider the historical and social conditions affecting the representation of social.

Fifthly, A criticism is that from the hermeneutical sciences[2] which notes that human imagination and human interpretation are important parts of the social process not recorded nor recordable quantitatively. This view is also understood as Non-positivism.

Some argue that, even if positivism were correct, it would be dangerous. Science aims at understanding causality so that control can be exerted. If this succeeded in sociology, those with knowledge would be able to control the ignorant and this could lead to social engineering. This critique is common amongst postmodernists like Derrida

Many sociologists today operate somewhere between positivism and antipositivism, arguing that human behavior is complex.