So here is the question:
What does sociology have to do with economics? If one were to major in sociology, how much would s/he learn about economics?
I'm asking, because I've seen some people with a degree in sociology called "economists" (mainly liberals who don't understand basic economic concepts). So, basically, I've been thinking about getting a degree in sociology and possibly calling myself an economist as well. :-p
Anyways, I know that sociology deals with economics a little bit, but I'm not sure how much.
Political Atheists Blog
Your question can really be answered on multiple levels. It all depends what you mean when you say 'sociology' and 'economics'. Since you are contemplating majoring in sociology, I will, in this reply, consider both terms in the more mainstream scope. As much as I love Ludwig von Mises work on methodology and, by extension, praxeology, everyone on this site needs to face the fact that the mainstream does not know his works - at all! (However unfortunate that might be.)
With that said I really need to give you a disclaimer before proceeding. First of all I am not studying sociology; my sister is (I'm studying industrial engineering if that has any relevancy). Additionally I am danish; thus I cannot account for any discrepancies between how the study of sociology is structured in the US versus Denmark.
My shortest answer must be that sociology and economics has nothing to do with each other. I base this on the fact that both fields are almost entirely positivistic, thus neither seeing a methodological link. Having used about a year reading literature on this site and read some of my sister's literature I have come to the conclusion that some of the best things that could happen to both fields where if most economists would read some of the classics in sociology and most sociologists read some of the classics in economics. Obviously the best thing would be if both read up on e.g. Mises, Hoppe, Menger, Hayek etc.
Just to give you an example: Ask any sociology student about Émile Durkheim and you will probably get a reply about 'social facts' and 'suicide'. The funny thing is that before his work on suicide was published in 1897 he first needed to establish that 'anomie' (normlessness) was a result of "the division of labour in society" - a work he published in 1893. Now, I do not want to go into a discussion about the correctness of these statements, but just want to stress that something as important as a work on the division of labour not leaving a great imprint on the profession might tell you something. The thing is that if a sociologist knows about the division of labour I am willing to bet that it will only be instrumental in explaining a social phenomena, and not as something fundamental about human relations, i.e. a superficial understanding far removed from practical ricardian examples of absolute and comparative advantages.
Also, a word of warning regarding a sociologist calling himself an economist. Please forget about it at this very instant! Seeing as you ended your remark with a smiley I suppose you were just kidding. If the situation is similar in the US, however, I would think that, if economics is sometimes considered the abysmal science, sociology must at least be something much worse! (No wonder some of them calls themselves economists then.)
This is really an expression of someone who is far from proud of his/her profession. Hardly anything worth mimicking! Oh, and this nonsense about sociology being a collectivistic discipline is just that; nonsense! There is plenty of sociologists both historically and now employing methodological individualism (Ferdinand Tönnies could be worth it to look up). It might not be founded on praxeological terms but then that is just a matter of writing a correcting paper. Indeed I would predict that most sociologist are way better at, and rooted deeper in, methodology, ontology, epistemology. Again I base this on the fact that my sister is strong in this regard. This is quite the opposite of being a proof regarding the general state of sociologist of course, but at least it tells you that the possibility to study these terms extensively is there.
I could really go on and on about how sociology could be utilized within libertarian scope á la Rothbard or used to rebut the idea of 'Homo Oeconomicus' just as the Austrian School of Economics has done, but that is hardly relevant at this point. Instead I will end my reply with my idea of the main difference in mainstream sociology and economics: Model building and Surveys.
Sociologist focus on societal hierarchies, statuses, roles, relations, mores. None of these terms really lends itself well to ideas of e.g. differential equations, supply & demand, although it can sometimes encompass ideas of scarcity. Hence model building and surveys in this field is flavoured by this. Quite the opposite is prevalent in economics where general equilibrium models is all about differential equations and supply & demand as you might know.
I know the position many on this site has regarding model building, but you cannot escape the fact that in order to major in a field and perhaps later on get a ph.d. you need to understand the inner mechanics, the math if you will, underlying these models. Otherwise you will not be taken seriously and thus you cannot effectively rebut the arguments of the mainstream; why does the mainstream allow Robert Murphy and parts of the George Mason faculty to employ austrain terms if not because they understand the present level of math utilized in mainstream economics?
Thus my main point of this reply is the following: Both fields are distinct fields and you cannot study one an suddenly become well versed in both. Quite simple really when you think about it... why didn't I just write that to begin with ;-)
Stephen Forde: Sentinel:Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that sociology is a branch of praxeology just like economics, and that economics and sociology overlap some? Maybe. It depends on what you think the scope of economics and sociology. But I don't think there is anything within the scope of sociology that is not also within the scope of economics.
Sentinel:Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that sociology is a branch of praxeology just like economics, and that economics and sociology overlap some?
Maybe. It depends on what you think the scope of economics and sociology. But I don't think there is anything within the scope of sociology that is not also within the scope of economics.
You are probably correct in that sociology is within the branch of economics. I know very little in regards to sociology, but from what I understand sociology deals with human interaction outside the realm of economic exchange in areas regarding relationships, such as friendship and marriage, and culture.
I believe sociology also examines social stratification, so that may help to explain why so many leftists are in the field. They get a degree which, as far as the media is concerned, gives them authority to complain about economic classes, and advance class warfare without ever having to study economics. Not that contemporary economics teaches anything about the harmonious nature of economic interaction. I am just guessing the sociology degree is easier to obtain.
I could be incorrect, but I believe there are a few differences between sociology and economics, although not many. I need to take a social science elective anyway, so I may end up taking a sociology course to see what sociology is about.
Sentinel:Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that sociology is a branch of praxeology just like economics...?
Probably, since sociology is the study of the structure of society, which is a product of human action. Either that or praxeology could be said to be a tool necessary for properly studying sociology and the other social sciences, the way mathematics is for the physical sciences.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
I think sociology and praxeology are converse aproaches to the sciences of human action.
The wealth capitalism has brought to mankind is not an achievement of a mythical force called progress. Neither is it an achievement of the natural sciences and of the application of their teachings for the perfection of technology and therapeutics. No technological and therapeutical improvements can be practically utilized if the material means for its utilization have not been previously made available by saving and capital accumulation. The reason why not everything about the production and the use of which technology provides information can be made accessible to everybody is the insufficiency of the supply of capital accumulated. What transformed the stagnant conditions of the good old days into the activism of capitalism was not changes in the natural sciences and in technology, but the adoption of the free enterprise principle. The great ideological movement that started with the Renaissance, continued in the Enlightenment, and in the nineteenth century culminated in Liberalism[4] produced both capitalism—the free market economy—and its political corollary or—as the Marxians have to say, its political "superstructure"—representative government and the individuals' civic rights: freedom of conscience, of thought, of speech, and of all other methods of communication. It was in the climate created by this capitalistic system of individualism that all the modern intellectual achievements thrived. Never before had mankind lived under conditions like those of the second part of the nineteenth century, when, in the civilized countries, the most momentous problems of philosophy, religion, and science could be freely discussed without any fear of reprisals on the part of the powers that be. It was an age of productive and salutary dissent.
A countermovement evolved, but not from a regeneration of the discredited sinister forces that in the past had made for conformity. It sprouted from the authoritarian and dictatorial complex deeply inwrought in the souls of the many who were benefited by the fruits of freedom and individualism without having contributed anything to their growing and ripening. The masses do not like those who surpass them in any regard. The average man envies and hates those who are different.
What pushes the masses into the camp of socialism is, even more than the illusion that socialism will make them richer, the expectation that it will curb all those who are better than they themselves are. The characteristic feature of all utopian plans from that of Plato down to that of Marx is the rigid petrification of all human conditions. Once the "perfect" state of social affairs is attained, no further changes ought to be tolerated. There will no longer be any room left for innovators and reformers.
In the intellectual sphere the advocacy of this intolerant tyranny is represented by positivism. Its champion, Auguste Comte, did not contribute anything to the advancement of knowledge. He merely drafted the scheme of a social order under which, in the name of progress, science, and humanity, any deviation from his own ideas was to be prohibited.
The intellectual heirs of Comte are the contemporary positivists. Like Comte himself, these, advocates of "Unified Science," of panphysicalism, of "logical" or "empirical positivism," and of "scientific" philosophy did not themselves contribute to the advancement of the natural sciences. The future historians of physics, chemistry, biology, and physiology will not have to mention their names and their work. All that "Unified Science" brought forward was to recommend the proscription of the methods applied by the sciences of human action and their replacement by the methods of the experimental natural sciences. It is not remarkable for that which it contributed, but only for that which it wants to see prohibited. Its protagonists are the champions of intolerance and of a narrow-minded dogmatism.
Historians have to understand the political, economic, and intellectual conditions that brought about positivism, old and new. But the specific historical understanding of the milieu out of which definite ideas developed can neither justify nor reject the teachings of any school of thought. It is the task of epistemology to unmask the fallacies of positivism and to refute them.
That is from chapter 7 The Epistemological Roots of Monism section 5. The Fallacies of Positivism The book is The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science
Also a helpfull tidbit from chapter11 of Theory and History......
3. The Concept of the Social SciencesThe collectivist philosophy denies that there are such things as individuals and actions of individuals. The individual is merely a phantom without reality, an illusory image invented by the pseudo philosophy of the apologists of capitalism. Consequently collectivism rejects the concept of a science of human action. As it sees it, the only legitimate treatment of those problems that are not dealt with by the traditional natural sciences is provided by what they call the social sciences.The social sciences are supposed to deal with group activities. In their context the individual counts only as a member of a group.[1] But this definition implies that there are actions in which the individual does not act as a member of a group and which therefore do not interest the social sciences. If this is so, it is obvious that the social sciences deal only with an arbitrarily selected fraction of the whole field of human action.In acting, man must necessarily choose between various possible modes of acting. Limiting their analysis to one class of actions only, the social sciences renounce in advance any attempt to investigate the ideas that determine the individuals choice of a definite mode of conduct. They cannot deal with judgments of value which in any actual situation make a man prefer acting as a group member to acting in a different manner. Neither can they deal with the judgments of value that prompt a man to act as a member of group A rather than as a member of any of the non-A groups.Man is not the member of one group only and does not appear on the scene of human affairs solely in the role of a member of one definite group. In speaking of social groups it must be remembered that the members of one group are at the same time members of other groups. The conflict of groups is not a conflict between neatly integrated herds of men. It is a conflict between various concerns in the minds of individuals.What constitutes group membership is the way a man acts in a concrete situation. Hence group membership is not something rigid and unchangeable. It may change from case to case. The same man may in the course of a single day perform actions each of which qualifies him as a member of a different group. He may contribute to the funds of his denomination and cast his ballot for a candidate who antagonizes that denomination in essential problems. He may act at one instant as a member of a labor union, at another as a member of a religious community, at another as a member of a political party, at another as a member of a linguistic or a radical group, and so on. Or he may act as an individual working to earn more income, to get his son into college, to purchase a home, a car, or a refrigerator. In fact he always acts as an individual, always seeks ends of his own. In joining a group and acting as a member of it, he aims no less at the fulfillment of his own wishes than in acting without any reference to a group.He may join a religious community in order to seek the salvation of his soul or to attain peace of mind. He may join a labor union because he believes that this is the best means to get higher pay or to avoid being bodily injured by the members of the union. He may join a political party because he expects that the realization of its program will render conditions more satisfactory for himself and his family.It is vain to deal with "the activities of the individual as a member of a group"[2] while omitting other activities of the individual. Group activities are essentially and necessarily activities of individuals who form groups in order to attain their ends. There are no social phenomena which would not originate from the activities of various individuals. What creates a group activity is a definite end sought by individuals and the belief of these individuals that cooperating in this group is a suitable means to attain the end sought. A group is a product of human wishes and the ideas about the means to realize these wishes. Its roots are in the value judgments of individuals and in the opinions held by individuals about the effects to be expected from definite means.To deal with social groups adequately and completely, one must start from the actions of the individuals. No group activity can be understood without analyzing the ideology that forms the group and makes it live and work. The idea of dealing with group activities without dealing with all aspects of human action is preposterous. There is no field distinct from the field of the sciences of human action that could be investigated by something called the social sciences.What prompted those who suggested the substitution of the social sciences for the sciences of human action was, of course, a definite political program. In their eyes the social sciences were designed to obliterate the social philosophy of individualism. The champions of the social sciences invented and popularized the terminology that characterizes the market economy, in which every individual is intent upon the realization of his own plan, as a planless and therefore chaotic system and reserves the term "plan" for the designs of an agency which, supported by or identical with the government's police power, prevents all citizens from realizing their own plans and designs. One can hardly overrate the role which the association of ideas generated by this terminology plays in shaping the political tenets of our contemporaries.
So, for me sociology is the collectivist study of grouping folks together so that their individuality may be levelled.
I don't dig stereotyping.
Individualism Rocks
Bank Run: So, for me sociology is the collectivist study of grouping folks together so that their individuality may be levelled. I don't dig stereotyping.
It's still the morning, so I will read the rest of your post later (I find BankRun's posts to be quite interesting :) ), but if you put it that way, sociology is a tool that would be invaluable with other disciplines, in evaluating the behaviors of groups. Perhaps in the same way that capitalists distinguish from capitalism & state-capitalism, could one distinguish between sociology & state-sociology?Yes it can be abused, and may have deep rooted history with the state (why wouldn't the state want to evulate the very groups & individuals within those groups it rules over?), but this would still be a valuable thing to use even in a stateless society, if not even more so.For instance, the neo-darwinian theory of Memetics, as well as other theories, specifically Emergence (how complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions; i.e., interactions within the free market, etc.), would be very good tools for not only analyzing said stateless society and/or free market, but for also spreading around the knowledge of said concepts to those of other political affiliations, but whom have an interest in sociology regardless. With regards to the OP, I think future new sciences, more likley those that are hybrids of existing ones (an example being Howard Bloom's Omnology, although not much being a manifesto has been prepared: http://www.bigbangtango.org/website/OmnologistManifesto.htm. A more current example would be memetics, which borrows from numerous sciences & psychological theories...) will probably connect economics & sociology in ways we either cannot imagine or cannot currently prove.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Bank Run:So, for me sociology is the collectivist study of grouping folks together so that their individuality may be levelled. I don't dig stereotyping.
Your quotes don't really explain this statement. I can show examples of economists treating people as collectives, would this be a fair representation of all economists and the field of study known as economics? The strange thing is that you just committed an act you said you don't "dig."
It seems to me that proper sociology is nothing other than a different branch of praxeology separated from economics. One could argue that Hayek began the foray into sociology from an Austrian POV.
That is true Krazy Kaju. It is simply a statement. It is generally the impression of sociology I have received from schools.
I was trying to mainly express that Praxeology, and Sociology are different methods.
I used the above sections of chapters, to express how did we get this science of sociology, what are it's origins? How was this motivated, and what would Mises think of these things?
Well a couple of folks are blamed for this. First Max Weber, second Auguste Compte Though in the origins of philosophy we can see many thinkers talking about a 'social order'. My impression is that Weber, and Compte, wanted to unify this thought into a wider field. What are your impressions?
Catallactics, n. catallactic, adj. The theory of the market economy, i.e., of exchange ratios and prices. It analyzes all actions based on monetary calculation and traces the formation of prices back to the point where acting man makes his choices. It explains market prices as they are and not as they should be. The laws of catallactics are not value judgments, but are exact, objective and of universal validity.
I hope you can see that sociology was and is motivated by levellers. Praxeology offers a more rational alternative.
Oh; Hi and thanks Nitro. The meme thing looks like a utilitarian argument. And the other guy is quite metaphysical, he is too polylogistic for my taste. I like the poetry though.
And now for a irelevent quote by Jimi Hendrix. "When the power of love, overtakes the love for power, the world may finally know peace".
So how are sociology and economics different? What is the scope of economics and what is the scope of sociology?
How very dark of a name Corpus.
Great answer though.
Stephen your question I find to be very good, and well rebuted by our new danish friend.
I would like to take a different approach.
What is sociology? Not an easy awnser. It may depend on how you define it, but I have found a fine definition of it from the american sociological association...
Sociology is the study of social life, social change, and the social causes and consequences of human behavior. Sociologists investigate the structure of groups, organizations, and societies, and how people interact within these contexts. Since human behavior is shaped by social factors, the subject matter of sociology ranges from the intimate family to the hostile mob; from organized crime to religious cults; from the divisions of race, gender and social class to the shared beliefs of a common culture; and from the sociology of work to the sociology of sports. In fact, few fields have such broad scope and relevance for research, theory, and application of knowledge.Sociology provides many distinctive perspectives on the world, generating new ideas and critiquing the old. The field also offers a range of research techniques that can be applied to virtually any aspect of social life: street crime and delinquency, corporate downsizing, how people express emotions, welfare or education reform, how families differ and flourish, or problems of peace and war. Because sociology addresses the most challenging issues of our time, it is a rapidly expanding field whose potential is increasingly tapped by those who craft policies and create programs. Sociologists understand social inequality, patterns of behavior, forces for social change and resistance, and how social systems work.
What is economics?
Both the definition and the precise domain of economics are subjects of controversy within philosophy of economics. At first glance, the difficulties in defining economics may not appear serious. Economics is, after all, concerned with aspects of the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of commodities. But this claim and the terms it contains are vague; and it is arguable that economics is relevant to a great deal more. It helps to approach the question, “What is economics?” historically, before turning to comments on contemporary features of the discipline.
....from this great article The Philosophy of Economics I reccomend reading the whole article.
I hope that we can dispell some of the classic sophisms behind these fields of study.
It may be that we have to disect the specific thinkers involved.
All groups are made of individuals, and all individuals are unique, and are wonderfully diverse and made of several factors.
Some say that if X layman was conditioned like a dog, than X layman must do this or that or be in the group of laymen. Well I say that many of the so called lay, are really just excellent for being themselves. From any given point is an infinite amount of possibilities, and any given individual has choice of his actions. Also, the situations are usually unique themselves.
I don't want to ramble on. I would like to reccomend this nice article on Methodological Individualism.
Again, I favour the misesian method and reccomend both Theory and History, and Epistemological Problems of Economics.
Bank Run:
Just to be clear. My above conclusion, regarding sociology and economics as totally distinct, is drawn within the scope of the mainstream view. When it comes to my personal view I agree with you completely; indeed, Theory and History is the primary piece of literature I have been trying to convince my sister to read - it might be possible to ignore praxeology, but once you do not it becomes futile to resist it!
Regarding my avatar-name; it might be dark, but living in a country where classical liberalists and conservatives are in power only as long as they adopt social democratic policies should allow for a little darkness ;-) In any case it is not the darkness of the name that is important to me, but what it means: The Body of Crime, i.e. if you cannot prove a crime has been comitted you cannot convict someone of the alleged crime. And this very fact becomes important to point out when discussing from a libertarian world view where all you get to hear is alleged crimes of materialism, individualism, capitalism and even thought-crime for uttering the non-aggression theorem. My last defence always seems to be that if they cannot prove it they have no case. Now, obviously they can't be bothered to get the facts about libertarianism straight and, by implication, they have no case against it.
Also 'bank run' might seem a little dark to someone not seeing the connection between fractional reserve banking and possibility of bank runs, so without sounding too antagonistic (that is not my intention at least) I would say; touché :-)
Oh and Thank you for the welcome.