Scope of the subject and comparison with other social sciences

Sociology, as a discipline, has long grappled with questions regarding its scope and relationship with other social sciences. The formalistic or specialistic school, led by thinkers like George Simmel, believed that sociology should focus exclusively on the formal aspects of social behavior rather than its content. Simmel likened sociology to geometry in the physical sciences—just as geometry studies spatial forms, sociology should concentrate on forms of social relationships and activities. He argued that sociology’s task is to describe, classify, and analyze forms of social relationships such as competition, domination, imitation, and subordination. Small echoed this view, asserting that sociology does not concern itself with all societal activities but is limited to genetic forms of social behavior. Similarly, Vierkandt emphasized that sociology should study irreducible categories of behavior like love and hatred, avoiding historical or concrete societal studies. Max Weber expanded the scope slightly, asserting that sociology should interpret social behavior, especially how it is influenced by and oriented towards others. Von Wiese and Tönnies reinforced this formalistic approach, insisting that sociology should limit itself to studying the forms of relationships, especially those differentiating society from community.

However, this school has faced criticism on several grounds. Critics argue that sociology is not unique in studying social forms; disciplines like international law and political science also study conflict, war, and sovereignty. Moreover, the concept of ‘pure sociology’ is impractical. No discipline can be completely isolated, and social sciences inevitably intersect. The analogy between geometry and sociology is also flawed, as social relationships are not spatially defined like geometric figures. Further, abstract forms like love or competition cannot be understood in isolation from their real-world contexts, as the meaning of such forms evolves with changing social conditions. Thus, the formalistic school is criticized for confining sociology within a narrow scope that neglects the dynamic, content-rich nature of real social life.

In contrast, the synthetic school of thought, supported by thinkers like Durkheim, Hobhouse, and Sorokin, advocates for a more comprehensive approach. This school aims to integrate insights from various social sciences, positioning sociology as the “science of sciences.” Its scope is encyclopedic and synoptic, arguing that no aspect of social life can be fully understood without examining its connections to other aspects. By seeking symmetry in the study of social life, synthetic sociologists attempt to build a comprehensive and systematic understanding of society. They criticize narrow perspectives like geographical, biological, or economic determinism and instead propose a holistic view of human life.

Despite differing approaches, all social sciences share society as their subject matter, though they differ in focus. Economics examines the production and distribution of goods and services; political science studies governance and power structures; and social psychology focuses on behavior in group contexts. Sociology, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with social relationships. To analyze any social phenomenon adequately, such as family disorganization, a sociologist must draw on economics, history, psychology, and more. Sociology's interdisciplinary nature allows it to incorporate knowledge from other disciplines while maintaining its unique perspective on social relationships. What distinguishes sociology is its foundational focus on the social aggregation of people, a dimension not equally emphasized in other disciplines.

A comparative analysis with other disciplines further clarifies sociology’s position. Sociology focuses on social institutions and relationships, anthropology on cultural and social diversity, economics on market systems, political science on authority, and history on temporal societal changes. While these disciplines share common concepts and methods—such as power, inequality, and research methodologies—distinctions between them are often arbitrary. Feminist theories emphasize the need for interdisciplinary approaches, showing that issues like gender roles require perspectives from sociology, economics, and political science alike. Interdisciplinary collaboration thus enriches our understanding of complex societal issues.

The relationship between sociology and economics illustrates this point well. Traditional economics focuses on market variables—production, supply, demand, and pricing—within the narrow framework of resource allocation. Political economy, however, introduces a broader context, examining ownership structures and production relations. The sociological approach further broadens this lens by examining economic behavior through the prism of social norms, cultural practices, and institutional contexts. For example, sociology studies how advertising shapes consumer behavior or how gender roles influence economic participation. While economists take pride in the precision and applicability of their theories, sociologists often envy their clarity of terminology and predictive power. Nonetheless, sociology offers a richer, more critical framework by interrogating not only the technical means to achieve goals but also their desirability and social implications.

A number of sociologists, including Pierre Bourdieu, argue for a broader economic science—one that accounts for symbolic, emotional, and cultural costs and benefits, not merely corporate profits. Sociology critiques the predictive limitations of economics, highlighting its neglect of individual behavior and cultural resistance. The resurgence of economic sociology reflects this dissatisfaction. By drawing on sociology’s broader insights, researchers better understand phenomena such as overconsumption of medicine in specific countries or wage policy differences rooted in cultural norms. Marxist sociologists view economics as the base and social institutions as the superstructure, arguing that economics fundamentally shapes society. However, this reductionist view is contested. Scholars like Max Weber and Parsons sought to link economics and sociology in more balanced ways, analyzing economic behavior within broader sociocultural contexts. This integrative approach is now reflected in studies of economic development, dependency theory, and the sociology of inequality.

The connection between sociology and political science reveals a similar evolution. Traditionally, political science focused on political theory and government operations, often ignoring political behavior. Sociology, by contrast, examines political phenomena in relation to societal structures, movements, and values. With growing interaction between the disciplines, political science has increasingly incorporated sociological insights to understand political decision-making and public opinion. Political sociology, especially through Weber’s work, has focused on political behavior, including voting patterns, party affiliations, and bureaucratic dynamics. Marxist perspectives, particularly influential in developing countries, have brought attention to the links between class, power, and governance. Functionalist models, systems theory, and comparative political studies have all benefited from sociological approaches, highlighting the convergence between these once distinct fields.

Sociology and history also share a deep, mutually beneficial relationship. While history traditionally focused on unique events and concrete narratives, sociology aimed at generalizations and theoretical frameworks. However, the boundaries have increasingly blurred. Social historians now examine changes in family life, land relations, and gender roles, often employing sociological concepts. Conversely, sociologists frequently use historical data to study phenomena like the industrial revolution or colonialism. Thinkers like Weber and Sorokin have demonstrated how sociological analysis can draw on historical context without losing its theoretical rigor. Today, both disciplines acknowledge that human society cannot be fully understood without combining temporal narratives with sociological generalizations.

Psychology and sociology, while distinct in focus, often intersect through the field of social psychology. Psychology centers on the individual—motivations, emotions, cognition—while sociology studies collective behavior and institutional influence. Thinkers like Durkheim emphasized the coercive power of social facts and argued for a strict separation between sociology and psychology. J.S. Mill, in contrast, believed that social laws should be grounded in psychological laws. Intermediate perspectives emerged, with scholars like Ginsberg and Nadal suggesting that sociological findings can be enriched by psychological insights. Freudian and post-Freudian thinkers such as Fromm and Horney also acknowledged the influence of social structures on individual behavior, proposing concepts like ‘social character.’ Gerth and Mills sought to bridge the gap through the concept of ‘role’—the intersection between social structure and personality—which enables a better understanding of how individual behavior is shaped by social expectations. Despite these efforts, sociology and psychology often diverge in their explanations of phenomena like conflict, stratification, and political behavior, though they are increasingly seen as complementary rather than competing fields.

The link between sociology and philosophy is both foundational and ongoing. Sociology emerged from philosophical inquiry during times of social crisis in Europe, and although it has since become empirical and specialized, it still engages with philosophical questions—especially in the domains of ethics, epistemology, and the sociology of knowledge. Durkheim believed sociology could renew philosophical debates, while Mannheim argued that philosophy should remain the foundation for sociological inquiry. Philosophy helps sociology clarify concepts, arguments, and values, while sociology brings empirical depth and social context to philosophical reflection. Thinkers like Marx and Beatrice Webb illustrate how philosophical commitments can guide sociological research toward meaningful social reform.

Finally, the relationship between sociology and social anthropology has become increasingly integrated. While anthropology traditionally studied simple, non-Western societies, and sociology focused on modern, complex societies, this division has eroded over time. Anthropologists now acknowledge that even remote tribal societies are shaped by global processes such as colonialism, modernity, and migration. Indian villages, for instance, have been transformed by colonial land reforms and global capitalist systems. Social anthropology emphasizes fieldwork and participant observation, while sociology often relies on surveys and statistical analysis. Yet the two disciplines increasingly borrow from each other. In India, sociologists study both complex urban settings and tribal communities, often using ethnographic methods. Functionalist theories and Marxist frameworks have also crossed disciplinary boundaries. The rise of globalization, the blurring of traditional versus modern societies, and methodological pluralism have all contributed to the convergence of sociology and social anthropology.

In conclusion, sociology's unique emphasis on social relationships positions it at the crossroads of multiple disciplines. While it retains its own focus and methods, its strength lies in its openness to interdisciplinary collaboration. Whether engaging with economics, political science, history, psychology, philosophy, or anthropology, sociology enriches and is enriched by these fields. This comparative and integrative approach allows sociology to remain a vital and evolving discipline capable of addressing the complex, interconnected realities of human society.