Sociology and common sense
Sociological knowledge stands apart from theological beliefs and philosophical musings by grounding its insights in systematic study and verifiable evidence. Unlike theological assertions, which are often based on sacred texts or divine revelation, or philosophical reasoning, which may rely on abstract logic, sociology derives its claims from empirical observations and critical inquiry. It also contrasts sharply with common-sense knowledge, which is largely shaped by unexamined traditions, biases, and everyday experiences. Common sense may consist of accumulated wisdom, but it often includes prejudices, myths, and inconsistencies that lack empirical support. While common-sense statements might resonate with experience, they are rarely tested or challenged and can be riddled with contradiction.
Sociological inquiry, by contrast, is based on scientific observations that can be tested and verified. This distinction becomes evident when comparing common-sense beliefs with sociological findings. For instance, it is a widespread belief that men are more intelligent than women, yet scientific studies reveal no such gender-based difference in intelligence. Similarly, while common sense might claim that marriage brings happiness, sociological research shows that happiness levels are not necessarily correlated with marital status. Another pervasive belief—that upper-caste individuals are more talented or efficient than those from lower castes—is refuted by studies demonstrating that talent and efficiency are not determined by caste.
Because common sense pervades everyday thinking, it often leads to ignorance and even the rejection of sociology. Most people are more comfortable with common-sense or moralistic explanations for human behavior than with scientific analyses. As a result, they may explain family structures or gender roles through biology—assuming, for example, that women are innately nurturing due to maternal instincts. Suicide may be attributed to personal weakness or mental imbalance, and crime may be seen as a failure of conscience. These explanations, though intuitive, are simplistic and overlook the broader social forces at play.
Moreover, the belief in individual uniqueness adds to the resistance against sociological interpretations. People tend to believe that they are autonomous, exceptional beings, rather than shaped by larger social patterns. Sociologists challenge this notion by emphasizing that behavior is often guided by social roles, norms, and institutions rather than purely individual choices. Sociology encourages a departure from this taken-for-granted worldview, asking deeper questions and rejecting superficial answers.
Peter L. Berger famously noted that the first wisdom of sociology is that “things are not what they seem.” Sociology provides a lens to critically examine the familiar and expose the deeper social dynamics beneath surface appearances. It highlights the relativity of what we consider “natural” or “normal,” emphasizing that these are not universal truths but cultural constructions. Margaret Mead’s anthropological studies in New Guinea, for instance, revealed how gender roles vary widely across societies. Among the Tchambuli, women were assertive and economically dominant, while men adorned themselves and gossiped—completely reversing Western gender stereotypes. Similarly, among the Munduruku and Apache, both sexes engaged in aggressive behavior or shared parenting roles. These variations demonstrate that behaviors attributed to biology are often socially constructed.
Common sense often relies on naturalistic and individualistic explanations. Naturalistic explanations attribute behavior to divine will or biological determinism, while individualistic explanations blame personal choices or morality. Sociologists reject both, insisting that behavior must be understood within the context of social structures and cultural norms. For example, attributing poverty to laziness or lack of intelligence overlooks the systemic inequality and class-based disadvantages that contribute to economic hardship.
Sociology’s divergence from both common sense and philosophical abstraction lies in its methodological rigor and critical stance. While it may not always yield dramatic conclusions, it gradually uncovers meaningful and unexpected connections through sustained inquiry. Sociological knowledge grows incrementally, supported by a loosely connected body of theories, methods, and data. In contrast to common sense, which rarely examines its own assumptions, sociology is rooted in reflection and skepticism. Its practitioners continuously ask, “Is this really so?”—a question that drives the discipline’s scientific tradition and commitment to challenging comfortable certainties.
The difference between sociological knowledge and common sense becomes especially evident in how each approaches the world. Common people often develop their own “theories” based on lived experience, but this does not equate to professional sociology. Just as gazing at the stars doesn’t make one an astronomer, casual observations of social life do not make one a sociologist. While there may be overlap—for example, the folk adage “give a dog a bad name and it will be blamed for everything” resembles Howard Becker’s labelling theory—such similarities are superficial. Sociology goes deeper, offering systematic and analytical perspectives grounded in data and critical theory.
A central feature of sociology is its focus on “man-in-society,” highlighting the duality of individuals being both products and producers of their social world. People occupy roles within society that are governed by expectations and norms. These roles are not merely individual choices but are shaped by societal values and maintained through symbolic interaction. Through processes like socialization, individuals internalize cultural beliefs, norms, and expectations. Society, therefore, plays a crucial role in shaping individuals, implanting cultural patterns that guide behavior.
Yet, individuals are not merely passive recipients of social influences; they also act upon and change society. Figures such as Jesus Christ, Vladimir Lenin, and Mahatma Gandhi exemplify how individuals can challenge prevailing norms and reshape their social worlds. This reciprocal relationship between the individual and society is a cornerstone of sociological analysis.
Sociology also adopts what Berger calls a “debunking attitude.” It questions what is taken for granted, exposing the hidden patterns and structures beneath the visible facade of social life. This curiosity drives sociologists to peer into everyday life with the same intensity that adolescents explore forbidden topics—but with a scholarly and ethical framework. For example, the sociological study of religion, a deeply personal and respected domain, is approached critically. Emile Durkheim viewed religion as a source of social cohesion rather than divine truth, while Karl Marx regarded it as an opiate that pacifies the oppressed. Both perspectives challenge the dominant common-sense and theological views on religion.
Durkheim provocatively suggested that society created God in its own image, inverting the traditional Christian belief that God created man. Marx saw religion as a tool used by ruling classes to maintain the status quo by offering illusory comfort to the poor. Sociology’s role, therefore, is not to accept these beliefs at face value but to analyze their social origins, functions, and implications.
Sociologists aim to look beyond surface appearances, delving into the underlying causes and unintended consequences of social phenomena. This investigative drive is what distinguishes sociology from mere opinion or conventional wisdom. It developed during a time of great upheaval in Europe, when old social structures were being dismantled and new ones were emerging. Amid the chaos of the transition from monarchy to industrial capitalism, early sociologists sought to understand why human-made institutions seemed beyond individual control. This gave rise to the spirit of organized skepticism that defines the field.
Sociology employs definite methods of inquiry—both quantitative and qualitative—adapted from other disciplines but tailored to understand human behavior, the most complex of all phenomena. It is this methodological rigor that allows sociology to challenge common-sense assumptions and offer deeper insights into human society.
In conclusion, while common sense may reflect accumulated folk wisdom, it is often speculative, biased, and uncritical. Sociology, by contrast, employs scientific methods and a critical attitude to investigate social realities. Peter Berger emphasized that sociology questions the “world taken for granted,” while Emile Durkheim viewed common sense as a collection of prejudices. Thinkers like Alfred Schutz and Harold Garfinkel noted how common-sense knowledge is organized through implicit, typified assumptions, learned through socialization. Sociology deconstructs these assumptions, exposing their social underpinnings and limitations.
Culture, too, is analyzed through multiple lenses in sociology. Its cognitive dimension explains how people make sense of the world; its normative aspect governs acceptable behavior; and its material element reflects the use of tools and resources in social life. For example, common sense might attribute poverty to laziness or poor budgeting, but sociology identifies deeper causes rooted in structural inequalities, such as class, employment insecurity, and systemic exclusion.
Ultimately, sociology provides a disciplined, analytical, and critical approach to understanding society—one that questions surface impressions and probes the hidden mechanisms that shape human life.