It is often argued that sociological thinking is just a branch out of commonsense. People associate it with analysing the obvious and providing circular reasoning that never seem to have an empirical way of validation. However, further comparison of the two can show the distinctions that can be illustrated by a simple reflection on our own lives. Everything around us exists in a commonsensical dimension – the size of clothes we’re wearing, the brand of car we drive, or even the manner this essay is presented. It is commonsense that we choose the clothes that fit us whether we’re an S or L size, we choose a certain type of car just because it allows us to be perceived in a certain way, and this essay is written in formal English and passed up on time because it contributes to our first year evaluation. These facts may seem unquestionably simple and straightforward, but there is a deeper sociological value in them. Who gets to decide which body shapes get to be a small size or a large size? Why do we feel much better driving a Mercedes than a Hyundai? What is so important about a degree? These are the questions sociological thought would implicate that commonsense would not able to.
First, the difference of the two is that commonsense is a collective body of observed knowledge based on personal experiences, but sociological thinking is not. Nonetheless, it is understood that a part of sociological thought is derived from commonsense and everyday observation. As Bergeronce claimed,
“To ask sociological questions, then, presupposes that one is interested in looking some distance beyond the commonly accepted or officially defined goals of human actions. It presupposes a certain awareness that human events have different levels of meaning, some of which are hidden from the consciousness of everyday life.” (Berger, 1963)
Sociological thinking tries to view the society not as a group of isolated individuals or separate institutions, but as a whole . According to Brown, the society is an abstract concept that cannot be seen physically. It is a conceptual web of relations between people and the social institutions. While commonsense is extracted and slowly built up by practical knowledge of the everyday life, sociological thinking differs as it encourages thoughts and ideas that are levels higher than individuals’ personal experiences; it sprouts thoughts on society as a whole.
Second, sociological thinking allows challenges to the presumed commonsense and urges a more radical and provoking approach to the social facts. According to Bauman and May, the relationship between commonsense and sociological thinking is a rather dependent one where sociological thinking is interpreting and investigating the meanings of social actions and facts that have been branded by commonsense. Commonsense has already labeled meanings and responses to most of the social facts that are collectively known by the members of society. (2001, p. 7). The repitition of the actions become habitual, there are no more questionings for the meaning behind commonsense and they are somehow categorised as true and standing ways of life. (Bauman and May, 2001, p. 10)
Brown argues that the collection of the facts derived from collective comon sense are not equivalent to sociological thinking and research. It can only be fully understood with sociological theories(1979, p. 6-7) with are formed with the sociological thought and imagination.
Third, sociological thought can be categorised as scientific while commonsense cannot. Ananalytical comparison between commonsense and science by Nagel shows that science cannot be leveled with commonsense (1974, p. 21). In his rebuttal to Nagel’s claim, Elliot strived to prove that commonsense is a part of science in the most basic ways, such as the conduct of experiment requires observation that is mainly an action that requires engagement and interpretation of the researcher himself (1974, p. 24). To further assert the claim, Emile Durkheim explored the positivist methodology in social science with his research on suicide. He thus affirms that sociology can be a science, alongside biology and psychology (2004, p. 31). Sociological thinking tries to view and analyse the social world from an objective standpoint while commonsense is a product of an individual’s subjective experiences and therefore, the latter cannot be considered science.
Commonsense is culturally angled knowledge that is subjectively varied between individuals and societies. However, sociological thinking attempts to postulate a higher level of consciousness and objectiveness to the macro social trends and happenings in relation to the society as a whole. C. Wright Mills once wrote, “The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals.”(1959, p. 5). So, with the points above, it can be concluded that sociological thinking is commonsense further evolved and probed to allow a greater understanding of society.
—————————-
**Common sense knowledge is based on beliefs, experiences and assumptions. Sociological knowledge is based on rigorous qualitative or quantitative research. Common sense reflects the generally accepted notions of a phenomenon and reinforces the status quo; whereas sociology, especially conflict theorists, challenge the status quo and argues for a change in the system. Common sense view is not reliable and valid, while the sociological view is highly reliable and valid.
————————
Sociology and Common Sense
Sociology is criticized for being merely common sense and stating the obvious but in more detail than what we already know. Read and be informed…
Sociology and other social sciences focus on the study of certain aspects of human behavior. Yet human behavior is something with which we all have experience and about which we have at least a bit of knowledge. In our daily lives, we rely on common sense to get us through many unfamiliar situations. However, this knowledge while sometimes accurate is not always reliable because it rests on commonly held beliefs rather than systematic analysis of facts.
Common sense is knowledge and awareness that is held communally (shared by majority of people). It does not depend on specialist education and in some respects states the obvious. Sociology is study of society and of people and their behavior. Positivists claim that it produces scientific knowledge.
Many people argue that sociology merely state the obvious by reporting what common sense already tells us. In other words, sociology is criticized for being merely common sense and stating the obvious but in more detail than what we already know. Many sociologists have responded that common sense is wrong and obvious truths are not so obvious.
Common sense ideas and explanations represent a form of social perspective since they claim to represent the things that everyone knows about the social world and / or human behavior. These ideas are not necessarily incorrect but they seem to be different from sociological forms of knowledge.
Durkheim led us to our first sociological understanding of the relationships between individuals and society, in that he contradicted common sense notions or perspectives.
From common sense, we feel that society is made up of and controlled by individuals, whereas Durkheim showed us that individuals are products of society, and that society has various characteristics that go beyond the individual, and can not be explained by individual behaviour.
marxism : False class consciousness from a common sensical view of society or class relations.
Common sense serves as a source of hypothesis.
Differences between sociology and common sense:
1. Common sense views are based on people’s immediate and often limited experiences. This leads to a distorted view of reality. Hence common sense knowledge is statement of the obvious which is simply based of assumption.
Sociological views are based on rigorous research and therefore evidence based. This can either be based on large scale quantitative research or in-depth qualitative research. Sociology knowledge is, therefore, the product of theory development and testing.
2. ****Common sense views tend to reflect social traditions and conventions and therefore tend to reinforce the status quo and resist social change.
Conflict approaches in sociology raise serious questions about the status quo and call for social change.
3. Common sense views tend to be historically and culturally specific and are often based on stereotypical images.
Interactionist / social action theories recognize that social life is socially constructed and relative to time and place. It actively challenges stereotypes.
4. Common sense views lack validity and reliability.
Sociological knowledge has relatively greater reliability and validity. Sociological views based on quantitative data are high in reliability and those based on qualitative data are high in validity.
Social science give more attention to the underlying causality rather than to superficial resemblances or lack of resemblances.
Whether sociological knowledge is superior to common sense forms is a matter of debate. Some postmodernists would claim that sociological knowledge is not superior to common sense knowledge. This is because they claim that there is no such thing as the truth and therefore all knowledge is uncertain. Sociologists of course stand up for sociology over common sense. Sociology is more important than common sense as it is evidence based and challenges common sense views of the world and enhances human life and freedom. Giddens claims that sociological knowledge often becomes common sense knowledge.
Most sociologists describe common sense in very negative terms. They see it as biased, subjective and incomplete. Common sense is shown to be not only wrong but also contradictory. E.g. out of sight out of mind and absence makes the heart grow fonder. But there are also many cases in sociological writings where beliefs long held as factual have proven to be wrong or unsubstantiated. On most important issues in sociology there are two or more theories and statements often contradicting each other.
Common sense – knowledge and understanding of social life – must be correct some of the time otherwise people who are not sociologists could not survive. Some people possess more valid and empirical knowledge than others and this knowledge is indispensable for social life. As sociology becomes a profession, practitioners have more time to study individuals, groups and societies thereby having more advantages over most other people. However, there are instances where people have profound understanding of the social world gained through careful, repeated and varying observations of the world. Common sense is often wrong but that does not prove that all common sense wrong.
Like other social scientists, sociologists do not accept something as fact because ‘everyone knows it’. Instead, each piece of information must be tested and recorded, then analyzed in relationship to other data. However, this method is also partial and limited.
*********Sometimes sociological findings confirm the common sense view; sometimes they do not. The only way to test common sense assumptions about society is to do it scientifically. Sociology relies on scientific studies in order to describe and understand a social environment. At times, the findings of sociologists may seem like common sense because they deal with facets of everyday life.
This does not mean that there is no place for intuition or common sense in sociology. These approaches are rich sources of insights. But they can provide only hunches. The hunch must be tested by the methods of science.