Comparative method refers to the study of different types of groups and societies in order to determine analytically the factors that lead to similarities and differences in specified patterns of behaviour. Comparative method is an integral component of the positivist tradition in sociology. The founding fathers of sociology like Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim laid great emphasis on the use of ‘comparative method’ in any sociological enquiry. In the 19 th century, when sociology as a discipline was still in its infancy stage, the principle attraction of the comparative method lay in the belief that it could be used for discovering scientific laws about human society and culture.
The strong advocates of the comparative method believed in the possibility of a natural science of society that would establish regularities of coexistence and succession among the forms of social life by means of systematic comparisons. Unlike natural sciences, sociology cannot make proper use of experimental method in the study of any particular social phenomena in a laboratory due to certain moral and ethical reasons. But a sociologist can surely experiment in the laboratory of the world by employing the comparative method.
Not only was the early use of the comparative method tied to
the idea of a natural science of society, it was, more specifically, tied to
the theory of evolution. A large part of nineteenth-century anthropology was
concerned with the origins of phenomena and the reconstruction of the stages
through which they had evolved from simplest to their most complex forms. The
classification and comparison of the forms of social life became an indispensable
part of this process of reconstruction.
The central place assigned to comparison was signalled by
Durkheim when he wrote: ‘Comparative sociology is not a special branch of sociology;
it is sociology itself’. Durkheim regarded the comparative method as the counterpart
in the social sciences of the experimental method pursued in natural sciences.
He recognized that social fact could only be observed, not artificially
produced under experimental conditions. Therefore, Durkheim favoured a
comparative-historical approach because sociologists could not carry out
experiments and had to rely on the method of indirect experiment, that is, the comparison
of similar cases in a systematic way. In this regard it is important to note
that
Durkheim, following J.S. Mill’s System of Logic, refers appreciatively
to the ‘method of concomitant variations’ as the procedure of the comparative
method. He calls it ‘instrument par excellence of sociological research’.
Please note that concomitant variation simply refers to the method of
establishing statistical correlation between two variables. For example,
Durkheim in his study of suicide found that Germany, a Protestant-dominated
country, reported high suicide rate whereas Spain, a Catholic- dominated
country reported low suicide rate. Hence, he arrived at a conclusion that the rate
of suicide is correlated with the religious faith in a society.
However, in this regard, S.F. Nadel in his work ‘The
Foundations of Social Anthropology’ argues that the notion of concomitant variations
do not mean the same thing in J.S. Mill’s System of Logic and in Durkheim’s
sociological treatise. Nadel argues that while for Mill, concomitant variations
imply quantitative correlation, but Durkheim makes as well as advocates the use
of comparative method with concomitant variations to arrive at qualitative
correlations. For instance, after having arrived at a statistical correlation
between the suicide rate and a particular religion, he further explores what makes
people of a particular religious faith more or less prone to suicide. The
answer he arrived was solidarity. The lower degree of solidarity or social
integration among the Protestants prone them to greater suicidal tendencies while
higher solidarity among the Catholics, affirmed by the age old institution of
Church, resulted in relatively fewer suicides. Hence, Durkheim concluded that
‘the rate of suicide is inversely proportional to the degree of solidarity’.
A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955), in Britain, was another
strong advocate of the comparative method. Radcliffe-Brown borrowed a great
deal from Durkheim, including the idea that societies were governed by laws
that could be discovered by the application of the proper method. That method
was the comparative method based on observation, description and comparison of
societies as they actually existed. He often used the term ‘comparative
sociology’ as a synonym for social anthropology. He argued that in comparative
sociology or social anthropology, the purpose of comparison is to explore the
varieties of forms of social life as a basis for the theoretical study of human
social phenomena.
In his essay, ‘The Comparative Method in Social
Anthropology’, Radcliffe-Brown further extended the argument of Durkheim to
explain why a particular totem is chosen by a society or group as its totem. In
a comparative analysis of various tribes of Australia and north-west America,
he found various instances whereby a tribe was divided into two exogamous
moieties and each moiety represented by particular natural specie as its totem.
For example, in case of Australian aborigines in New South Wales, the two moieties
were represented by eaglehawk and crow. On the basis of his comparative study, he
concluded that the selection of a particular set of natural species as the
totem by the two exogamous moieties of a tribe is also associated with their
inter-group social relations. He found it common that natural species were placed
in pairs of opposites, with certain degree of resemblances as well as
differences. He interpreted the resemblances and differences of animal species
in terms of social relationships of friendship and antagonism in human society.
Thus on the basis of his comparative study he arrived at a higher order generalization
that relationships of mutual alliance and antagonism are universal to human
society. However, the manner in which these relationships of alliance and opposition
get reflected may vary from society to society. For example, in his comparative
study of the institution of marriage, he found that the expression of relationships
of alliance and opposition may take the form of joking and avoidance relationship.
In joking relationship, members of opposite divisions are permitted or expected
to indulge in teasing each other, in verbal abuse or in exchange of insults.
Joking relationships serve to protect the delicate
relationships between persons who are bound together in one set of ties and yet
separated by other ties. For example, the members of different lineages are
socially separated from each other, but, if they marry each other, they are
also allied. Joking, thus, is one way of defusing the tensions of certain
delicate relationships. Another response is avoidance or extreme respect. It prevents
conflict that might arise through divergence of interest. In many societies, a
man is required to avoid any close social contact with the mother of his wife,
etc.
However, Andre Beteille in his essay ‘Some Observations on
the Comparative Method’ argues that the great wave of enthusiasm for the
comparative method belongs to the past, and today there are probably more
sceptics than enthusiasts. Among the sceptics, Franz Boas, Goldenweiser and
Evans-Pritchard are some of the important names. For example, Franz Boas
objected to the sweeping generalizations made through the use of comparative
method, and recommended studies on a more limited geographical scale. He clearly
stated his preference for ‘historical method’ over and above the comparative method.
Similarly, Evans-Pritchard recommended intensive comparative investigation in a
limited area rather than going for universal generalisations. Similarly, scholars
belonging to the phenomenological tradition argue that the application of this
method is not as simple as it may appear because social units have different
meanings in different societies. For instance, the institution of marriage
among Hindus is regarded as an indissoluble and sacred bond between husband and
wife. But, Muslim marriage, on the other hand, is not a religious sacrament but
a secular bond. It is a social or civil contract, which can be terminated.
However, despite these criticisms and limitations of
comparative method, its significance in sociology cannot be undermined. For example,
Durkheim and Weber, in their respective works have clearly highlighted the
importance of comparative method as a scientific for sociological enquiry for a
comprehensive understanding of social reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment