Sociology as a form of consciousness
At the beginning of the text that has been proposed in P class. Berger entitled Sociology As a form of consciousness, the author explains in detail that some thoughts have been aimed at solving economic, legal or even philosophical problems for many years in most cultures. But when making a definition of sociology, he defines it as a modern science or reflection and with western characters, because it is formed in a different way based on current knowledge.
I consider that to understand what the author indicates in the text, it is very important to understand that sociology is present in many social fields and in all activities with human interaction, despite the fact that not all aspects of these activities are present in theSociology perspective. The sociologist who analyzes sociology must be very observant, thus observing all kinds of phenomena that occur day by day and have already been studied by other people, such as an economist in the field of economy, a lawyer in the fieldof law, a political scientist in the field of politics even some philosopher in the field of philosophy. I should even study social facts;And now they could ask: What is a social fact? Berger gives the example of falling in love with another individual as a social fact, who has not ever fallen in love? These social facts are studied from the sociological point of view so that, later, the factors of this social fact can be understood, such as the social class to which it belongs, the education it has had, its age and even religioninstilled. But as I say, the sociologist must observe differently from all others, that is, with a new and different perspective.
One of the peculiar issues that arise in the text is the object of the discipline that we are analyzing: society. It is said that it is a term frequently used by sociologists, but that it is a derivation of a much more common language in which different nuances are achieved by its meaning. You want to make clear the difference between the term "society" and the term "social", since they share many differences. The first, from a sociological perspective, is considered a term with a great complex of human relations. On the other hand, the second term must be used by sociologists in a more limited way, although it also has denotations in this common language that I have previously indicated. That is why two people having a casual conversation in any corner do not constitute a society, but the fact of conversing is already something social. Although, three people lost on a remote island, as the author indicates, if it would constitute a society.
Within a philosophical thought, it can be considered something peculiar and extravagant what in the text is called the "tendency to unmasking", which consists in the search for totally different levels of reality and opposite to some interpretations, such as the interpretation of somefeeling (loneliness, sadness, happiness …) or discover what a specific subject thinks. The author exposes several authors to raise the so -called "trend to unmasking", as is the example of Durkheim or Robert Merton. According to Robert Merton, sociologists speak of "ideology" as different points of view when seeking a justifiable and rational explanation for the interests of a given group;And he would express this approach to the terms of "manifest" functions (those made consciously) and "latent" functions (those performed unconsciously, are involuntary). This term has a lot of relationship with the tendency to unmask that I have mentioned above. Durkheim instead comments that we live under a logical domain of our society and therefore, to discover how society works, the sociologist looks in the need to investigate and discover explanations that are hidden.
Referring to the term "ideology" that had previously mentioned, the author states in the text that the sociological perspective is not consistent with revolutionary ideologies;It would be the death of sociology, since he would not respect the global form of thought. In fact, the way of seeing sociology in general is usually potentially dangerous for public order forces.
To be able to answer the question that has been raised … what are, according to the author, the peculiarities of the sociological perspective and his subject of study?”) First I want to differentiate the sociological problem with the social problem, since sometimes it generates a lot of confusion and there are usually difficulties to define them correctly. The sociological problem tries to understand how the system works and so that you can draw conclusions or reflect on it. On the other hand, what society in general considers a problem, we would call it social problem. To be more easily understood, the sociologist does not care at all for the fact that society is racist and discriminates to a certain group of people, what matters is what this racism and discrimination is based on. Berger indicates that what for a specific social system is a “problem” for another system can be normal, that is, the sociologist’s work is to understand the ways of acting of each and every one of the social systems.
To conclude, I think everything can be relative, according to what fact can be considered a problem for which individual, and that is why it is impossible to obtain full and absolute knowledge in this modern world in which we live. According to what point of view this individual has, you will see things in one way or another, that is, you will see the things that surround it in a different way.
Leave feedback