THE BEGINNING OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY

The beginnings of anthropology go back to the period of discovery and exploration,

from the nineteenth centuries.
Sources of facts are the accounts of early Western explorers, missionaries, soldiers,
and colonial official regarding the strange behavior and beliefs as well as exotic
appearance of people they had come in contact with.
Discoveries of flint tools and other artefacts in Europe in the early nineteenth century
gave evidence of the existence of human beings a million years ago.
These discoveries happened at a time when advances in physics and chemistry
were made, arousing an interest in scientific inquiry.
In the nineteenth century anthropology began to take shape as a separate field of
study that had its root in the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities.
Edward Tylor was the first professor of anthropology in Oxford, England. In United
States, it was Franz Boas of Clark University, Massachusetts.
From 1980, ethnographers approached the study of local culture as embedded
within regional and tribal forces.
Another change in the approach of ethnographers is their focus on only one topic of
interest avoiding the holistic approach. Still another trend is the expanded interest in
history.
Sociology is a separate field of study has its roots in Europe, particularly in France at
the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Social problems attended these social upheavals.
The pioneers were Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Auguste Comte (17981857).
Comte, a French philosopher, believed that the methods and techniques of the
natural science could be fruitfully applied to the study of society.
He coined the term sociology. Other early sociologists were Herbert Spencer,
Ferdinand Toennies, and Karl Marx.
Marx contributes ideas about class conflict and social change.
After World War II, there were changes in the balance of political power; this led to
comparative and international themes.

Sociology had to adapt to these changes and to those of the globalizing world. The
American sociologists working in Europe and North America were excited about the
fresh possibilities of societies other than their own getting interested in sociology.
Among them were Barrington Moore, Clark Kerr, Talcott Parsons, Andre Gunder
Frank, a German scholar, and Peter Worsley, an English sociologist.

FILIPINO PIONEERS
1. Fr. Valentin Marin introduced sociology in the Philippines in 1896 as a
course on criminology at the University of Santo Tomas.
2. Serafin Macaraig first Filipino to receive a doctorate degree in sociology in
1939.
3. Juan Ruiz offered courses in social work in the University of the Philippines.
4. Prof. Marcelo Tangco succeeded Dr. Macaraig.
5. Flora Diaz Catapusan invited to teach sociology at the Centro Escolar
University in 1946
6. Dr. Benicio Catapusan invited to serve as a professional lecturer in
sociology at the University of the Philippines in 1948

DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Anthropology in the Philippines

It started as a practical activity of colonizers in the service of Christianity and

the Spanish Government.

Ethnographic data were provided by the early chroniclers like Pigafetta,

Loarca, Placencia, Fr. Chirino.

They write the early cultures and society in the rediscovered archipelago
which was named Filipinas in honor of King Philip II of Spain.

Frenchman Alfred Marche led archeological explorations in the 19 th

century.

It was followed by the American government which became interested in the

various ethnic groups in the country.

Ethnological Survey of the Philippines replaced the Bureau of NonChristian tribes.

Otley Beyer (1914) elevated anthropology as an academic discipline at the

University of the Philippines.

It was offered as one of the courses in the department of history, and later on,
merged with sociology.

Anthropology prospered as a distinct course in Philippine schools.

Schools who has doctorate degree in the early years were:

- University of San Carlos (Cebu)
- Ateneo de Manila University
- Xavier University (Cagayan de Oro City)

Sociology in the Philippines

Fr. Valentin Marin introduced sociology in the Philippines in 1896 as a

course on criminology at the University of Santo Tomas.

In 1919, Sociology was introduced at Siliman University and the Theological

Seminary.

Serafin Macaraig first Filipino to receive a doctorate degree in sociology in

1939.

Introduction to Sociology became the first text in the University of the

Philippines written by Serafin Macaraig.

SOCIOLOGISTS after Macaraig were:

Juan Ruiz offered courses in social work in the University of the

Philippines.

Prof. Marcelo Tangco succeeded Dr. Macaraig.

Flora Diaz Catapusan invited to teach sociology at the Centro Escolar

University in 1946

Dr. Benicio Catapusan invited to serve as a professional lecturer in

sociology at the University of the Philippines in 1948

Philippine Sociological Society was organized by a group of Filipino

educators and visiting professors in the different regions.

Its objectives are:

To increase knowledge about social behavior

To gather data on social problems for their possible solutions

To train teachers and researches in the field of sociology

To develop cooperation and unity among social scientists in the Philippines.

1960 the Research Foundation of Philippine Anthropology and

Archeology was established

Philippine Social Science Council in 1968 it was formed to consolidate

the Philippine social science resources whose objectives are:

To promote the quality and relevance of social science researches

To improve teaching skills in social science

To finance researches along the social sciences

To encourage social science publications

Factors and Stages in the development of sociology in the Philippines in the

words of Catapusan and Catapusan:

Considerable efforts have been made to define and to determine the fields of
sociology

There are considerable specializations in subject matter and in approach

Sociological principles are being employed in the analysis of an increasing

number of social situations

The study of various problems led to discovering, refining, and perfecting new
methods of sociological investigations.

Sociology-Anthropology in the Philippines

1960s and 1970s researches were undertaken along different aspects of

social and cultural life

Source: Palispis, Epitacio S., Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology. Manila:

Rex Printing Company, Inc., 1996

SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION
C. Wright Mills
C. Wright Mills coined the famous phrase Sociological Imagination," which is used
throughout sociology today. The Sociological Imagination is the concept of being
able to "think ourselves away" from the familiar routines of our daily lives in order to
look at them anew.
Mills defined Sociological Imagination as "the vivid awareness of the relationship
between experience and the wider society." It is the ability to see things socially and

how they interact and influence each other. To have a Sociological Imagination, a
person must be able to pull away from the situation and think from an alternative
point of view.
The Sociological Imagination
The Sociological Imagination is stimulated by a willingness to view the social world
from the perspective of others.
It involves moving away from thinking in terms of the individual and their problems,
focusing rather on the social circumstances that produce social problems.
Private Issues & Public Issues
There is a strong tendency in liberal democracies towards seeing human behaviour
in terms of individual characteristics, abilities, choices and preferences.
We tend to experience whatever happens in our own lives as unique and private,
and also to interpret what happens to other people as unique and private to them.
These are seen as private troubles.
Sociologists, on the other hand, are more interested in the relationship between what
happens to individuals in their lives and the larges processes of social, economic
and political change that might be said to lie underneath or behind those
happenings.
The discipline of Sociology encourages you to look for the social processes and
structures that give a generalised pattern to those private troubles and thus turn
them into public issues.
Example Unemployment

Private Trouble When 1 person is unemployed, that is a Private Trouble.

Public Issue When 3 million people are unemployed, that is a Public Issue.

Example Fertility

Private Trouble When 1 couple never has a baby, that is a private trouble.

Public Issue When increasing numbers of couples never have a baby, that
is a public issue referred to as the declining fertility rate.

The Thinking of the Sociological Imagination

Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without
understanding both, yet men do not usually define the troubles they endure in terms
of historical change.

Seldom aware of the intricate connection between the patterns of their own lives and
the course of world history, ordinary men do not usually know what this connection
means for the kind of men they are becoming and for the kinds of history making in
which they might take part.
What they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to see what is going on in the
world and what may be happening within themselves.
It is this quality that may be called The Sociological Imagination.
C. Wright MiIls

APPROACHES, PERSPECTIVE, AND METHODS OF SOCIOLOGY

What is a theoretical perspective?
Theoretical perspectives are the basic assumptions about how society functions, the
role of sociology, and the application of specific set theories in studying social life.
Three Major Perspectives

Structural Functionalism-society is an organic being of interrelated parts that

work together in harmony
Conflict society is the competition of a few groups of people for scarce
resources
Symbolic Interactionism-Society is essentially a set of daily interactions that
are guided by symbols

Structural Functionalism

Popularized by American sociologist Talcott Parsons in the 1940s

Society is a stable arrangement of parts that fit together
Social is glued together by shared values Talcott Parsons, 1902-1979
Each part contributes to the overall function
Macro-level focus

The Conflict Perspective

Originated with the German economist/historian Karl Marx, the father of

communism
Social groups (i.e. workers and capitalists, men and women) struggle for
scarce resources and power
Conflict is normal; stability and order is not Karl Marx, 1818-1883
Macro-level focus

Symbolic Interactionism

Micro-level analysis of society

Society is played out through daily interactions between people
People interact through shared symbols (physical ones and intangible ones
like body language) which give meaning in social interactions
All reality is based on shared Herbert Blumer, 1900-1987subjective
agreement

Methods of Sociology
Sociology as a social science has been trying to develop its own method of study.
Sociology has to face greater problems in evolving a satisfactory method in the
comparison with other social sciences. Man' s social life is complex and multifaceted. It is highly a challenging task for sociologists to collect, analyse, synthesis
and finally generalise social data which are too numerous, complex and illusive.
Some of the methods are given below:
1. The Comparative Method: The methods of comparing different societies or
groups within the same society to show whether and why they are similar or different
in certain respects". To tackle the problems of society effectively and to make fruitful
discoveries, sociology has to employ precise and well tested methods of
investigation.
2. Historical Method: A study of events, processes and institutions of past
civilisations, for the purpose of finding the origins of antecedents of contemporary
social life and thus understanding its nature and working". Historical sociology is a
particular kind of comparative study of social groups; their compositions, their
interrelationships and the social conditions which support or undermine them.
3. The Statistical Method: The term 'Statistics' may be used in two ways:

To refer to the application of statistical methods to social or non-social

problems, and
To refer to the actual numerical data collected in relation to these problems.
The term 'social statistics' or 'statistical method' refers to the method that is
used to measure social phenomena mathematically. As Bogardus has pointed
out " Social statistics is mathematics applied to human facts"

4. The Case Study Method: The 'Case Study' is a practice derived from legal studies.
In legal studies a 'case' refers to an event or set of events involving legal acts. In
sociology case study method is a holistic treatment of a subject. The case study may
make use of various techniques such as interview, questionnaires, schedules, life
histories, relevant documents of all kinds and also 'participant observation' for

collecting information about the case under study. Thomas and Znaniecki's Polish
Peasant in Europe and America - (1922) is a classic work in the field of case study.
5. The Functional Method (Functionalism): In functional method or functionalism has
been given greater emphasis during recent times in sociological studies.
Functionalism refers to the study of social phenomena from the point of view of the
functions that particular institutions or social structures, such as class, serve in a
society". Durkheim is the man who first gave a rigorous concept of social function in
his The Division of Labour in Society and in The Rules of Sociological Method".

6. The Scientific Method: The basis of study of any science or discipline is its
methods. Sciences in general and natural science in particular follow the scientific
method. The scientific method is added much to their credibility and objectivity. The
scientific method consists of certain steps or procedures which are to be followed
precisely and they are as given below:
Formulation of the Problem,
# Formulation of Hypothesis,
# Observation of Collection of Data,
# Analysis and Synthesis,
# Generalisation,
# Formulation of Theory and Law.
Scientific method has a few limitations in sociology.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Limitations of the Scientific Methods in Sociology

The Scientific Viewpoint Method
Sociology As A Science
The Sociological Point of View

RULES OF SOCIOLOGICAL METHOD

Rules of Sociological Method

I. Introduction:
Durkheim: Brief bio:

Lived from 1858 - 1917.

Considered one of the founding fathers of sociology.
He wrote The Division of Labor in 1893 as his dissertation, Suicide in 1897, and
the Elementary forms of Religious Life in 1912.

The Rules were written in 1895, and represent Durkheims hope to develop a
systematic sociology. Substantively, Durkheim was interested in that which held
society together, and was writing in response to two types of arguments he
disagreed with. In his conceptualization of a social fact, he is arguing against
social contract theorists, such as Hobbes and Rousseau, who saw all of life in
contractual terms. On their view, individuals were constrained by society, but
deliberately so: people designed the constraints to guide society through the
repression of individual will with a strong state. Social contract theorists posit an
initial agreement among people that binds society together. Thus social life springs
from individual choices. In his work on social facts, Durkheim is also arguing
against thinkers like Spencer who see society in functional terms (more on just
what that is below): such that the social end was the cause of an event.
II. What is a social Fact
Examples:

Duties, Oaths, Habits, customs, norms, rules for relations.

Can be identified with means or rates
In general they are 'ways of acting, thinking, and feeling existing outside the
individual.' The key elements are that they constrain (or can constrain) individuals
who go against them. The type of sanction is usually social: stigmatization, etc. but
can be material (prison, fines, etc.) depending on the formality of the rule in question.

Definitions:
"[social facts] consist of manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the
individual, which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they
exercise control over him."
A social fact is identifiable through the power of external coercion which it exerts
or is capable of exerting upon individuals.
"A social fact is every way of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of exercising
on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is
general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right
independent of its individual manifestations
Durkheim defined two types of social facts:

Constraints coming from social organization:(Legal, and moral constraints)

o (A sub-type of social constraints might be demographic: group heterogeneity,
inequality, etc. That constrain who people can meet thus how they behave.
"Social Currents": Moments of enthusiasm crowd behavior, etc. These consist of
riots, thug activity at sporting events (see Buford, (1991) for a good example), mass
hysteria (was the Y2K event a social fact?), the feeling of spirit in a call-andanswer preaching church, etc.

Why are the characteristics of 'social facts'?

They are external to the individual

They constrain the individual.
They are general throughout the social unit.

In what way are social facts 'external to the individual?

They are immutable to changes by any one (or often a few) individuals.
We don't choose the types of 'social facts' we get to live under
They differ from physical fact in that while slow to change, they DO change. They
are not necessary across all of time and space.

In what way do they constrain and individual?

Normative pressure if broken (everyone knows you dont pick your nose in public, or
talk to strangers in an elevator).
Legal: Societies develop formal rules that correspond to them
Linguistic and cultural: Habits, turns of phrase, aphorisms, expressions of the
common culture
Physical: Opportunity for interaction.

How are they general?

This is a little less clear. They need not be uniform not everyone conforms to a rule
after all, but they must be fairly wide-spread, and the persistence cant depend on a
few people acting in concert. We as a class cant decide to change the set of social
facts on the campus.
Most importantly, they cannot be defined only through universality. If everybody does
something, but each for individual reasons, then it is not social. The classic example
is people putting up umbrellas in the rain. Everyone does it, but it entirely
explainable at the individual level.

Because social facts exist external to and above individuals, they are very slow to
change. Socialization and education are key to the transmission of social facts
(we will see this again in Bourdieus conception of Habitus), as the young of a
society learn the set of acceptable behaviors
Does this mean that people are puppets of the social system?
What are some of the questions this conception of social life raises?

Questions about liberty and democracy?

Questions about human agency?

What types of things are not social facts?

Individual Actions that have no social consequence

General behavior that is explainable at the individual level

III. Rules for the Explanation of Social Facts.

This section of the reading is a little frustrating because he is writing against other
authors (Spencer, Compte, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.). This means that he will walk
through another persons argument, then show why it is wrong (or at least argue
that it is wrong), leading to a series of negative examples.
1) The causes of a social fact cannot be found in the functions of a social fact.

Functionalist arguments (of the type E.D. was arguing against) say that something
exists because it is needed for the greater whole to survive. Common loose talk in

biology is often this way: We have a heart in order to get oxygen to the cells. This
teleology places the END RESULT as the CAUSE of the prior event, and therefore
violates the notion of a one-directional causal sequence.
Thus he says:

"Therefore when one undertakes to explain a social phenomenon the efficient

cause which produces it and the function it fulfils must be investigated separately.
Thus we seek the cause of something in that which precedes it, not in the things
that it does.
BUT --to explain a fact which is vital, it is not enough to show the cause on which it
depends. We must also at least in most cases discover the part that it plays in the
establishment of that general harmony.
E.D. says that function is important for explaining why a certain social
fact survives, but does not explain how it comes into being. To do that, we must
make reference to an earlier social fact. "It is therefore in the nature of society itself
that we must seek the explanation of social life."
2) Social facts are not the result of psychological or individual facts.
Since their essential characteristics is the power they possess to exert outside
pressure on individual consciousnesss, this shows that they do not derive from
these consciousnesss and that consequently sociology is not a corollary of
psychology.

Social facts are larger than individuals: they exist above and beyond a given person
o If they depended on people, then we would expect greater consistency of
society by race. That many different types of societies exist within races, and
similar societies across race, then it is unlikely that an individual
biological/psychosocial function creates society.
If there is something inside of people that drives social facts, it is entirely unclear
what that something could be.
(He also makes an argument against complete historical determinism, in that past
social facts do not necessarily determine future social facts the world changes in
complex ways through interaction with current social activity.)

Two principles for explaining a social fact:

1) The determining cause of a social fact must be sought among antecedent social
facts and not among the stats of the individual consciousness.
2) The function of a social fact ought always to be sought in its relation to some
social end.
Where do we look for social facts that could cause other social facts?
The first origins of all social processes of any importance should be sought in
the internal constitution of the social group. This is what E.D. calls the Social
Milieu
The social milieu consists of THINGS and PERSONS

Things includes material objects, but also laws, customs etc.

However, things contain no volition, no motor; they cant put

something into action (but see Marx on the springs of a given social
system). Thus we have to look toward peoples interaction to find the
motor of social facts.

The principle task of the sociologist ought to be, therefore, to

discover the different aspects of this milieu which can exert some
influence on the course of social phenomena. There are two types:
o The number of social units, the size of society
o the degree of social interaction, what he calls the dynamic
density.
Dynamic density may be defined as the function of the number of individuals
who are actually having not only commercial but also social relations, i.e. who not
only exchange services or compete with one another but also live a common life.

Example:
Patterns of relations in high school we discussed in class. The cultural forms of a
school will vary depending on the structure of friendships in that school.

SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY: RESEARCH METHODS

Sociology and cultural anthropology are interrelated and overlapping yet separate
and distinct academic disciplines. Previously, both disciplines would often be
combined into a single academic department in universities. However, the two fields
have become increasingly divergent from one another in more recent times.
Similarly, both sociology and cultural anthropology often utilize research methods
that are quite similar to each other. Yet the philosophical premises from which these
methodologies proceed are somewhat different. It is therefore interesting to compare
and contrast the philosophical foundations of the fields of sociology and cultural
anthropology, and to examine how these theoretical differences impact the practical
task of applying research methods.

Sociology as Study of Human Behavior

It is first necessary to formulate a proper definition of both sociology and cultural
anthropology. Sociology is normally regarded as the study of human behavior as it
occurs in a social context. By extension, sociologists are concerned with the origin
and development of human behavior within the framework of group dynamics,
interpersonal interaction, and institutional relationships. Sociology is regarded as a
science, rooted in positivist philosophical principles, where empirical methodology
can be applied in a way that produces a better understanding of human social
behavior, and the functions of human groups, organizations, and institutions (Ashley

& Orenstein, 2005). Sociologists are concerned with such matters as systems of
social organizations and social hierarchies, the origins and purposes of behavioral
norms, and the role of society in shaping the behavior and personality of the
individual.

Cultural anthropology is a field of study that is derivative of the wider field of general
anthropology, and is to be contrasted with social anthropology. The principal area of
concern to cultural anthropologists is the diversity to be found among human
cultures. Greater weight is assigned to this variable among cultural anthropologists
than among anthropologists generally. Cultural anthropology emerged as a discipline
in part as a reaction against older ideas in Western thought which tended to contrast
human beings as they were thought to exist in a state of nature, versus civilized
people who had developed culture as a process of their civilization. During the era of
classical European colonialism, many European scholars were able to engage in the
direct observation of cultures previously regarded as primitive, and discovered that
all human societies develop and maintain culture in some particular form. For
instance, all cultures develop language, systems of social organization, and religion
in the sense of differentiating between the sacred and profane or norms and taboos.

The fields of sociology and cultural anthropology both utilize similar research
methods. As branches of social science, both fields are concerned with applying
conventional principles of scientific investigation for the purpose of analyzing and
investigating human social behavior in a vast array of contexts. However, sociology
generally includes a greater role for such efforts as the accumulation of statistical
data, and the pursuit of quantitative as well as qualitative research. By contrast,
cultural anthropology normally emphasizes research of an experiential or
participatory nature. However, neither approach is exclusive to either of the two
disciplines. Researchers in both fields will engage in both the gathering of
quantitative data and in such practices as participant observation.

The two primary types of research in the field of sociology are quantitative and
qualitative research. Quantitative research is data-driven, and emphasizes such
practices as the collection of statistical information and the conduction of
experiments according to preconceived formulaic designs (Martin & Turner, 1986).
However, qualitative research involves research practices that more closely overlap
with those of cultural anthropology. Among these are such methods as direct
participant observation, examination of texts and artifacts, or interpersonal
communication with individuals representing the social groups which are being
studied.

Sociologists differ among themselves concerning the question as to which form of

conducting methodological research should be given the highest priority, and which
approach is most relevant to the field. The majority of sociologists have normally
assigned greater importance to quantitative rather than qualitative research. The
published writings of sociologists in academic journals, and the content of the
curriculum of sociology programs in universities reflect a general emphasis on
quantitative research. Indeed, advanced training in the field of statistics is normally a
significant part of the graduate level education of sociologists (Hunter & Leahey,
2008). The choices sociologists make concerning which type of research methods to
use normally vary according to the specific nature of the research.

A sociologist who wishes to develop a broad understanding of the general

characteristics of a population will normally pursue quantitative research. For
instance, a sociologist who wished to examine the attitudes of middle aged people
concerning such public controversies as same-sex marriage would likely conduct a
survey among a large and varied sample of persons between the ages of thirty-five
and sixty. An approach to research of this kind would be very helpful towards the
task of gathering reliable data concerning the generalized beliefs and values of a
particular age demographic, but the information that would be accumulated
concerning the impact of such beliefs on the lives of individuals would be very
limited.

However, a sociologist who wished to examine the impact of same-sex marriage on

the lives of homosexual couples might well engage in research of a more qualitative
nature. For example, a set of same-sex couples who are legally married might be
chosen as the subjects of study, and the course of their lives and normal day-to-day
interaction might be observed over a lengthy period of time. A group of ten married
same-sex couples might be observed over a period of fifteen years, and information
would be gathered concerning which couples remained married, sought to adopt
children or raised children from prior relationships, or the difficulties each couple
faced pertaining to widely held negative attitudes towards their relationship in the
wider culture.

The field of cultural anthropology normally assigns less importance to the role of
statistical research and the accumulation of quantitative data than sociology. Indeed,
this lack of emphasis on quantitative research originated in part as a movement in
the field of anthropology against the research practices of nineteenth and early
twentieth century anthropologists. As mentioned, cultural anthropology began to

grow as a field during the height of European colonialism. It was a time when
Europeans were coming into ever closer proximity with the native or traditional
cultures of many parts of the world. The diversity of these cultures, frequent intricacy
of their forms of cultural organization, and the sophistication of their cultural
institutions challenged the conventional cultural chauvinism of the Europeans
(DeWalt, DeWalt, & Wayland, 1998). Further, many anthropologists of the era were
criticized as elite, aloof intellectuals who were too far removed from the subjects of
their study, and who relied too heavily on second hand and often unreliable sources
for their information. Consequently, cultural anthropologists began to develop new,
more extensive, and more reliable methods of studying diverse sets of cultural
arrangements.

Cultural anthropology developed as newer generations of anthropologists began to

apply such methods as direct participant observation in ways that were largely
experiential in nature. Anthropologists would often spend time among the actual
communities they were studying. They would become personally acquainted with
individuals from these communities, examine their personal documents and artifacts,
and engage in community life. Out of such efforts emerged the practice of
ethnography. This involves the study of particular groups of people in a specific
environment, and during a particular period of time (Clifford & Marcus, 1986). This
contrasts heavily with the practice of sociologists of gathering generalized
information regarding large population samples utilizing quantitative methods. Out of
the practice of ethnography developed the field of cross-cultural studies, which
involves the comparison of ethnographic information gathered from different
communities. Because of its reliance on the methods used by ethnographers, the
cross-cultural studies pursued by cultural anthropologists continue to contrast with
the general emphasis on the accumulation of quantitative data found among
sociologists.