Sociology of Arts

Dhiyanesh Ravichandran.

Being a student of Sociology, I habitually tend to disagree with people speaking about some specific subject commonsensically. I don't say that the commonsense is absolutely not sociological, but many of the everyday common ideas are biased and unscientific. A recent discussion with one of my friend about 'Arts' and paintings gave me some space to retrospect my understanding about them and induced me to look for sociological side to the arts and its relation to cultures.

A dictionary defines  'Art' as "the quality, procustion, expression, or realm of what is beautiful or of more than ordinary significance; the class of object subject to aesthetic criteria" (The Random House College Dictionary, 1982, p.76). Drawing on the same dictionary, 'Aesthetics' involves "...the qualities perceived in the works of art...; the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty" (p.22). However, it is possible for a work of art to attract our attention, direct our thoughts, and have more than ordinary significance with out being judged as beautiful by most people who experience that creation. Pablo Picasso's "Guernica", a famous painting of the Spanish civil war, comes to our mind as a scene, while not beautiful, is indisputably moving, thus work of art. 

Is art like religion a 'cultural universal'?  

Many cultures even lack a word for art. Yet even without such a word, people everywhere do associate an aesthetic experience -  sense of beauty, appreciation, harmony, and pleasure with objects and events having certain quality. The Bamana people of Mali have a word (like ‘art’) for something that attracts your attention, catches your eye and directs your thoughts (Ezra 1986). Among the Yoruba of Nigeria, the word for art, ona, encompasses the design made on objects, the art objects themselves and the profession of the creators of such works. For two Yoruba lineages of leather workers, Otunisona and Osiisona, the suffix-ona in their names denotes art (Adepegba 1991).

 

People in all cultures do seem to associate an aesthetic experience with certain objects and events. Experiencing art involves feelings as well as appreciation of the form. The 'arts' include the visual arts, literature (both oral and writings), music and theatre arts. These manifestations of human creativity are called as 'expressive culture'. People express themselves creatively in dance, music, song, painting, sculpture, pottery, cloth, story telling, verse, prose, drama, comedy, etc. Folk art, music and lore refers to the expressive cult of the ordinary, usually the poor and the rural people.

The arts are part of culture and aesthetic judgements depend, at least to an extent, on cultural background. The aesthetic value, which distinguishes forms of art, is defined only by culture. Sociological and anthropological definition of culture broadens the study of humanities from fine arts and elite arts to popular and folk arts and the creative expressions of the masses. Community standards judge the completeness and mastery displayed in a work of art. Standards may be maintained informally in society or by specialists such as art critics. Myths, legends, tales and storytelling play important roles in transmitting culture and preserving traditions. 

Here comes an another grasp too. That which is aesthetically pleasing is perceived with the senses. Usually, we restrict the scope of art to something that can be either seen or heard. But many others might define art more broadly to include things that can be smelled (scents, fragrances), tasted (recipes), or touched (cloth textures).  

Is art and life the same?

Initially, the patronage of rich enabled people to become professional musicians, composers, sculptors and artists. Later, the specialist institutions such as art schools were developed to train future generations of cultural specialists. Other institutions such as theatres, art galleries, and concert halls were established to make cultural products more widely available. Culture was therefore separated or differentiated from other aspects of life. It was produced by specialists, trained in particular institutions and was consumed in specific places. This formed the basis for distinguishing between folk culture (which could be found among ordinary people) and high culture, which was the product of these specialist individuals and institutions. Culture was, thus, always differentiated from other areas of life.

There have been attempts to break down the division between high culture and everyday life. Avant-garde artists have tried to shock people out of their cultural complacency by portraying everyday objects as art. Mascel Duchamp (1917) displayed a urinal as a work of art with the title ‘Fountain’. He attributed the work to the sanitary engineer who designed the urinal. As modernity progressed, a new ‘Popular culture’ developed, which tried to integrate the aspects of everyday life into high culture arts but nothing notable here too.

Ruling Class art

May it be any society or period, the art tend to serve the ideological interest of the ruling class. The classic example would be the oil painting, the dominant medium for painters between 1500 to 1900AD. John Berger in his book ‘Ways of Seeing’ (1972) says that it came to reflect the world view of the ruling class. That period which was ultimately determined by new attitudes to property and exchange, found its visual expression in the oil painting. Oil has special characteristics that made them particularly suitable for portraying ruling class ideology. Berger says oil painting has a special ability to render the tangibility, texture, the lustre, the solidity of what it depicts. It defines the real as that which you can put your hands on. This was important because oil panting came to be primarily concerned with the depiction of wealth or property. Because of the sense of tangibility that oil painting can produce, it gave substance to the sense of ownership that the ruling class wanted to portray in their paintings. As capitalistic society developed, painting focussed more on wealth and power of the ruling class. They were able to impose their own view of the world, simply because it was very largely they who commissioned the paintings. It was more important to the buyers of the paintings that they portrayed them and their wealth in the way they wanted. 

‘Mr. and Mrs. Andrews’ by Thomas Gainsborough

Still life paintings were more obvious about possessions. They tended to portray such things as table laden with luxurious food as testament to the high living of those who commissioned them. Paintings of animals were also popular. However, they were not usual animals in the wild but livestock whose pedigree is emphasised as a proof of their value. Landscapes were used to celebrate the property of rich. Consider the case of this nineteenth century painting ‘Mr. and Mrs. Andrews’ by Gainsborough. Andrews insisted on being included in the landscape which featured land owned by them. They are land owners and their proprietary attitude towards what surrounds them is visible in their stance and their expression.

Not all the oil paintings portrayed only rich. Some that portrayed poor reflect the ruling class ideology too. Pictures of ‘low life’ such as paintings of debauched groups in taverns were popular with the growing bourgeoisie in the 16^th to 19^th century.  The point of such pictures, was to tell a moral tale about how the rich deserved their success while the poor had only themselves to blame for their misfortunes. Berger says that the paintings lent plausibility to a sentimental lie – namely that it was the honest and hard working who prospered and that the good-for-nothings deservedly had nothing. Some paintings were able to transcend the narrow concerns of the bourgeoisie too.

The art go on changing, although certain art forms have survived test of time for years. In today's world, a huge 'arts and leisure' industry links western and non-western art forms (selectively) in an integral network with both aesthetic and commercial dimensions. And sociological study of arts is an enchanting endeavor, charmed by the diversity for forms and aesthetic sense you find in different cultures across times. An endless journey indeed!

Ideological Bias

Dhiyanesh Ravichandran.
  
     As a student of Sociology, I always wonder how my personal world views affect my perspective of looking at the same world, or for that matter, anything of social importance. When I study the increasing trend of product twins in our Indian car market, I invariably landed-up thinking that it is nothing but a cunning strategy of auto-makers to increase revenue by reducing the cost-per-unit due to common production. My notion that the corporates exploit people to amass profits applies here clearly. But I’m not sure of my causation and reasoning, because there are several other factors that I may have ignored. Though we like or not, we tend to use our ideologies or preconceived notions to comprehend things while studying them, which ultimately bias our study. The world views of individuals certainly affect their own perspectives of looking at the world.

We may have different perceptions about people around us

     While analysing the ideological bias, to which every researcher is guilt of, it is imperative for us to unravel what an ideology is, what constitutes it and how it is formed. An Ideology is usually taken to mean, a prescriptive doctrine that is not supported by rational argument (D.D. Raphael: 1970). The word ‘prescriptive’ in the definition makes ideologies customary, which is based on or authorised by long-standing custom. It is a consistent set of ideas related to every aspects of society that is manifested by different sources of knowledge. Earl Babbie lists out some ten types non-scientific thinking – Knowledge based on tradition, authority, casual observation, over generalisation, selective observation, qualification, illogical reasoning, ego-defense, premature closure of enquiry, and mystification. Such a variety of sources help us formulate something called an ideology or ideologies, which differs from individuals ostensibly.

     Let us examine briefly how such manifestation of ideas that takes place every day within us, influence our understanding of the society. Experiences prevent us from seeing things, based on our assumption and confidence that we have a clear understanding of things. But reality is not just a thing ‘out there’, so that we can learn to perceive that objectively. All that’s “real” are the images that we got through our points of view. Put differently, there’s nothing “out there”; it’s all “in here” (Earl Babbie). Experiences and our ideas helps determine how we perceive reality – what patterns we see in analysis society and whether we are able to see patterns at all. Such experiences filter our perceptions of reality which, according to me, is one of the major problems of sociological research. How?

     Real life experiences and passion of sociologists motivate much research – defining the research problem, what are all the units to be analysed, what are all the evidences to be reviewed, formulating causal hypothesis, etc. Merton believes that the very choice of topic is influenced by personal preferences and ideological biases of the researcher. It is nothing but his values that help him decide which problems are worth investigating. “We choose to study only those segments of reality which have become significant to us because of their value relevance” says Max Weber. What is one’s outlook towards class, caste, race, gender, religion, etc.? Is he dogmatic or more liberal? Such values lead Sociologists and researchers to formulate and adopt favoured theories for interpreting and explaining causation and conclusion. Does he subscribe to the Functionalist school of thought or any other? Every sociological theory is produced by and limited to a particular group whose viewpoints and interests they represent. Thus formulation of hypotheses will automatically introduce a bias in the sociological research.

    Interpretations are also highly influenced by previous researches or theories on the same area. Sociologists consult earlier researches in order to find out what we already know and what is ought to be analysed? Sometime researchers adopt similar strategies or approach partly because of its familiarity. This sort of bias is prominent in physical sciences too. In astrophysical debates on the ‘Theory of everything’ in understanding the driving force of the universe, some scientists believe in the existence of some enigmatic dominant cosmic force called ‘dark energy’. Another school of scientists including world-renowned theorists Stephen Hawkins have spent years in disproving such forces. But there have been compelling evidences and findings which reveal the working of such enigmatic energy. This is a huge embarrassment for astronomers, who have long believed that the most important force in the cosmos is the same one that Isaac Newton supposedly saw pull an apple from a tree some 350 years ago – but no longer. Until this new breakthrough, researches and theories were based on the gravitational force hypothesis, but now it is a very different story.

     The methods that researchers use to gather data mold their perceptions – shape of their research tool often help to determine which bits of reality they dig up. Those methods influence the researcher’s accessibility to various aspects of reality. In case of interview as a technique the data may be influenced by context of the interview, the interaction of the participants, and participant's definition of the situation and if adequate rapport does not extend between them there might be communication barriers. Thus according to P.V Young, interviews sometimes carry subjectivity. Finally, it can also affect the field limitations as reported by Andre Beteille’s study of Sripuram village in Tanjore, where the Brahmins did not allow him to visit the untouchable locality and ask their point of view.

     The impact of ideological biases on sociological research can be very far-reaching as seen from the study of Tepostalan village in Mexico. Robert Redfield studied it with functionalist perspective and concluded that there exists total harmony between various groups in the village while Oscar Lewis studied this village at almost the same time from Marxist perspective and found that the society was conflict ridden. Subjectivity creeps in at different stages of their studies. It is impossible to ignore that their observations as unreal.

     Both objectivity and subjectivity play an important role in science and scientific research. The primary goal of a scientific investigation is objectivity. Since Sociology is a scientific endeavour, this applies in sociological research as well. Objectivity is a reality check or a frame of mind so that personal prejudices, preferences or predilections of the social scientists do not contaminate the collection of analysis of data. Thus scientific investigations should be free from prejudices of race, colour, religion, sex or ideological biases. Whereas, subjectivity leads us to define which aspects of reality are worth checking on in the first place. Emile Durkheim, in his ‘Rules of the Sociological Method’ states that “social facts must be treated as things and all preconceived notions about social facts must be abandoned”. According to Radcliff Brown, “social scientists must abandon or transcend his ethnocentric and egocentric biases while carrying out researches”. Similarly Malinowski advocated cultural relativism while anthropological field work in order to ensure objectivity.

     However, objectivity remains to be an elusive goal practically. It is important to recognise that almost all sociologists and their theories have an ideological bias. Anti-marxists reject Karl Marx as a sociologist because of his ideological orientation. This is as true for Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Durkheim, Weber, and Simmel as it for Marx. George Ritzer clarifies that there is nothing called as a “value-free” sociological theory. In theorising about social phenomena, sociologists find it impossible to be completely neutral, and this remains true whether or not they are willing to recognise it or to admit it (Ritzer:1983). Marx simply made no effort to conceal the ideological character of his work, and is built into a the very structure of his theorising.

    In fact, a school of thought represented by Gunnar Myrdal asserts that “total objectivity is an illusion which can never be achieved”. All researches are guided by certain viewpoint, which involves subjectivity. Myrdal suggests that the basic viewpoints must be made clear. Further he feels that subjectivity creeps in at various stages in the course of sociological research.

     We can never perceive society in a pure or objective form. But what we can do is to minimise such bias by the use of certain techniques of data collection. Researcher can make their value preferences clear in research monograph. Various methods of data collection can be used and the results obtained from one can be cross-checked. Field limitations can be clearly stated in the research monograph. At the end of the day, the end results are more accurate perceptions of reality than relying exclusively on blind prejudices or common sense.

The Sociological Study of Religion

     Religion has been part and parcel of almost all the cultures. This hold of religion in almost all aspects of an individual and a social life has stuck sociologists. As usual there have been many different approaches towards the study of religion. One of the first studies of religion in sociology was by Emile Durkheim. He studied the aborigines of Australia who practised totemism. He believed that totemism was the most primitive form of all religions. He made this assumption viewing that totemism is purely independent of any other form of belief. He said that by studying the primitive religion we will be able to find the reason for the existence of religion (in sociological sense). In his work “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” he does not study much about the present day religions. This is just one way in which religions were studied by sociologists.

     I, in this article would just highlight the important conditions in my view to be followed by a sociologist in his or her study of religion. A sociologist’s work is not to argue the presence or absence of god (the so called unseen supernatural power).It would be more appropriate if sociologists stop to study religion based on their beliefs or preconceived notion so that their work would not become futile. Religion had turned into something that is an integral part of all societies and in recent past has started to lose its earlier sort of dominance over all aspects of society (secularisation). A sociologist should remember that he or she is not a theologian but a sociologist. “Has religion been the binding force of the people” was the question that drove throughout Durkheim in his study. Such has to be the goal of a sociologist while trying to learn sociology of religion. He or she must try to study the reasons, effects and consequences of religious beliefs, practices and rituals. To be more precise a sociologist should alienate himself from his belief. As in any research work, he got to make sure that all his claims are supported by evidence. Durkheim once said “religion is thee projection of the society”. Such are the statements that are supposed to come from a sociological study.  I write this article as a tribute to those who think sociology of religion is equivalent to study of religion itself. This article is not intended at anyone.

The Social Evolution (2)

                                                            

The term survival of the fittest in the Darwinian evolution refers only to the survival of the species as a whole and never to the individual.to be broader it more likely refers to the next generation that would be more adaptive in nature to its surroundings.I did not try to establish the similarities between social evolution and biological evolution,but tried to say that they are both overlapping and highly interdependent.

In today's society individuals have become highly interdependent in such a way that an individual survival is highly impossible.The division of labor is on is something that is taking place in all aspects of society.And is something that is inevitable.In my view social evolution will take place proportional to the division of labor.As the division of labor increases the interdependence will increase to such an level that individual survival will impossible.So I would say that division of labor is inversely proportional to the survival of the individual.Evolution will always be aiming at the betterment of the ways of survival of the individual.And we got to know that there might be negative steps that may be taking place in the society or the surrounding in the process of evolution.For example though humanity has been marching towards an better future wars were and are inevitable.they have caused millions of death within the species and by the species.Evolution can be just referred to as change taking place(in a positive direction but may take a negative path).

Now we have to think of the consequences.The industrial revolution which was one of the greatest changes that took place int he society has led to various consequences like pollution and many more.It has put the whole of earth's population in threat.What has the evolution caused in this case?That is a disaster coming up!These will be referred to by me as the unexpected end undesirable consequences that come by during the process of evolution.We have to tackle these problems or we will perish like those beautiful looking creatures which have become valuable fossils today.      

Social Evolution (In a Broader Perspective)

Venki in his article, Social Evolution, has established a good relationship between the social and biological evolution. The route that he has taken to make these observations is similar to that of Herbert Spencer’s “Utilitarian Approach” and “Individualistic Approach” in the sense that the crux of his article lies in the thought that individuals come together for the ease of their survival.

One should know that there are enough evidences to prove that the social behaviour of man is innate and not just based on the utility aspect of such interactions. To prove this on an individual level one has to observe the relationship of a child with its mother. A child's brain is too immature to understand the benefits or limitations of this relationship but he/she still indulges into this primary relationship of a mother and child. This observation of mine even if paralleled to animals stands firm as this relationship exists in most of the mammals.

The primary difference which is overlooked in the article of social evolution is that it is related to society and not individual. A society grows diverse in its means of livelihood and becomes increasingly interdependent as a result of the burden of the surplus population on the limited means of livelihood also not to forget it leads to specialization among individual groups, focused on a particular sector. This can be given a utilitarian cover but only on a primary level of thought.

If the evolution of society is to be viewed from the stand point of an individual it will take the cover of a utilitarian approach. To overthrow this very stream of thought only did Auguste Comte insist on viewing the society to be based on the primary level of family and not individual. The society and its evolution if viewed from the perspective of an individual do not give us the basic characteristics features of it instead, miss leads us to a very narrow perspective about it and if viewed from the perspective of family alone does it give us the basic characteristics of it like curbing our natural instinct in a manner which is socially accepted.

Social Evolution as I have mentioned earlier is made along with the progress of its size. As a Sociologist it is essential to be aware of the surroundings but the manner or method of observation is of higher importance.

 The Social Evolution

  Evolution in both biological and social sense did not start with Charles Darwin and Auguste Comte.It came into the minds of humans as soon as man started to think of his origin.Darwin was the first one to write about it in the biological sense.But we have to remember that the father of sociology,Auguste Comte himself looked at the society as a result of evolution. Herbert Spencer who lived in the time of Darwin in 1852 coined the term "survival of the fittest " seven years before the release of The Origin Of Species. 

 Is social evolution some thing different from biological evolution? I think this topic has to be given importance in the modern time.This study will surely bring sociology out of the "abstract" tag.

  The first question here is "Is the social behavior only related to man?".This can be answered by observation of other species.If you have watched Animal planet or Discovery you would not doubt what I say.The process of living in society did not evolve after the human evolution .It was practiced for millions of years by various species of animals.This was because it was the most important process of survival for many organisms.

  Then was man the first one to live in a social group? It is clearly evident from our surroundings that even ant lives in a social group.So it is evident that living in socially interacting groups was a primarily necessary for the survival of the animal.The process of group hunting in many species is a great example that it was necessary for its survival.

   

  The question "Is social evolution related to biological evolution?" is weird to me.It is clearly evident from our surrounding that we are products of evolution.The difference lies in that social evolution does not take place over a long period of time when compared with biological evolution.The process of social evolution should not be considered something far apart from biological evolution.

  The relation is clear because the relation within herds of other species of animals are patterned.The proofs as I said are around us.So I think its time to study sociology with biology(the closest relative for sociology in Comte's hierarchy of sciences).

Links and Differences

In my article of the law of three stages I have mentioned that the organic and the critical phases are those through which society pass in every stage alternatively discerning from the view that they are subordinate to the Metaphysical stage. Organic stages is the one in which the body social is said to be in equilibrium or simply put is stable and critical phase is one in which the body social is in a fundamental disequilibrium. The critical phase lasts for a few decades. It is the most turbulent transitional phase of the society. During this phase a new social order emerges from the death throes of the old social order.

The study of social statics and dynamics is considered to be the one that studies the progress and stability of the society. Now the confusion arises that if both the studies do the same task then why they are named different. As Lewis A. Coser puts it, “Comte attempted to formulate the conditions that account for social stability at any given historical moment. The study of social dynamics and social statics – of progress and order, of change and stability – are the twin pillars of his system.” It simply means that the study of social statics and dynamics is subordinate to the organic phase of the society considering it to be described as a phase of stability.

Social statics and dynamics are considered two separate studies. As one is the study of conditions and pre-conditions of social order and other is the study of human progress and evolution. It is essential to understand that both the disciplines go hand in hand. The study of social dynamics is of evolution or progress which as we know is a slow and steady process unlike the revolutions of critical phase. With the attributes of being slow and steady this study can only fit into the organic phase. The study of social statics is that of order which is in abundance in the organic phase.

Social Statics and Dynamics

The study of social statics and dynamics are the twin pillars of Comte’s study of social stability or the organic phase. The study of social statics and dynamics are not two distinct classes of facts but are two aspects of a theory. These studies are not separate but are complementary to each other as static is the study when society is in equilibrium and dynamics is the study of evolution which is a slow and steady process. This slow and steady process can only occur during the phase in which the society is in equilibrium and not disequilibrium or critical phase. Despite the fact that it seemed desirable for methodological and heuristic purposes to separate the study of statics and dynamics, in empirical reality they were correlative.

Auguste Comte refuses to place individuals as the base of the society. It is erroneous to derive man’s social tendencies out of his utilitarian considerations as it makes the existence of social state impossible. He places family at the base of society and allows resizing it if necessary to a couple. Family curbs the egoistic nature of a person to make him adaptable to the society this makes it the base of a social feeling causing stability. According to his thought of collective organism he places families at the level of an element, classes and caste of a tissue and cities and towns of an organ. Aware of the limitations of such analogy Comte concluded them by stating language, religion and division of labour as the unifying or binding forces of society.

He finds language, religion and division of labour as the three key factors for the stability of the body social. Firstly, language is the “easiest and common way of communication”, making it an essential tool for binding people closely to each other in a community. Language is a common mode of communication between generations. It helps impart the future generations with the knowledge and skills of the older generation, providing it with a base to progress on. Secondly, religion compensates the weaknesses of language by binding the society on the basis of a few common beliefs, acting as a “positive guide”. It ties the society by morality not letting it fall apart because of the disparities among people. Finally, division of labour binds the society together on basis of “similarity of classes” but is feared of distancing men from a larger mass as they are more driven towards their personal interests over the societies. Men in this stage become more conscious of their personal needs and feebly relate them to the needs of society.

Yet he hoped that both temporal and spiritual powers will come together in the future for unifying the society.

Hierarchy of Sciences

The law of three stages and hierarchy of sciences are intimately related. The sciences also pass through similar stages in their development. The rate of development depends upon the proportion of its generality, simplicity and independence of the rest. Thus, Astronomy was the most simple and most general of all sciences as it developed first. It was followed by the development of physics, chemistry, biology, and finally, sociology. Each science in this order depends on its predecessors for its development as the hierarchy is marked by the law of increasing complexity and decreasing generality.

August Comte relates Sociology as closest to Biology. The reason for this is that just as biology studies the body parts in relation to the whole organism it also studies the social institutions in light of the whole social order. It differs from other sciences in the sense that unlike Physics, Chemistry and Astronomy it does not study its subject in abstractions as only inorganic elements are better understood that way.

The Law of Three Stages

This law was developed by the father of Sociology, August Comte, by his method of scientific comparison through time. Comte began his search for the law as a young apprentice to Saint-Simon in 1822.

The law as the title suggests is divided into three broad stages namely Theological Stage, Metaphysical Stage and Positive Stage. This law was developed by the analogy of the progress of an individual human mind through the ages with the progress of societies through time. At the first level, known as the Theological stage or Fictitious Stage, the society is considered to be a devout believer just as a child. It relates the first and final cause of all phenomenons to God. As it progresses to the next level, the Metaphysical Stage or Abstract Stage, the society is just like that of adolescents. In this stage the society is no longer a devout believer of god instead it starts to question and begins its search for the ultimate cause and effect of events. In the third and final level of the law, the Positive or Scientific Stage, the society is like an adult. It gives up the vain quest for the ultimate cause and effect instead applies itself to the study of their law- the invariable relation of succession and resemblance. To understand the law it is unnecessary to understand its sub-divisions.

To expect a new social order from the death throes of an old social order in a smooth manner would be a mistake. Thus, the society as it progresses through these stages passes through alternative “organic” and “critical” phases. In the organic phase the various parts of the social body are in equilibrium and in the critical phase the various parts of the social body are in disequilibrium. When a society remains in a particular stage for a while without turbulences that phase is an organic phase. When societies go through a lot of unrest and turbulences that phase is critical phase. The various revolutions and revolts against a particular social order in world history exist for a few generations and are good example of a critical phase. August Comte lived through a critical phase.