One app for all your study abroad needs
The NCERT Class 11 Sociology Chapter 4: Introducing Western Sociologists from Understanding Society examines the origins of sociology in 19th-century Europe, shaped by the Enlightenment, French Revolution, and Industrial Revolution. It explores the foundational contributions of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber, focusing on their theories of class struggle, social solidarity, and rationalisation. This blog provides detailed solutions to the chapter’s exercise questions, simplifying complex sociological concepts for better understanding and exam preparation.
Table of Contents
Explore Notes of Class 11 Sociology: Understanding Society
NCERT Solutions Class 11 Sociology Chapter No.4 Introducing Western Sociologists
This section guides students to clear solutions of Class 11 Sociology Chapter 4: Introducing Western Sociologists. You can go through the detailed explanation of the subject by understanding the solutions below.
Exercise
- Why is the Enlightenment important for the development of sociology?
- How was the Industrial Revolution responsible for giving rise to sociology?
- What are the various components of a mode of production?
- Why do classes come into conflict, according to Marx?
- What are social facts? How do we recognise them?
- What is the difference between ‘mechanical’ and ‘organic’ solidarity?
- Show, with examples, how moral codes are indicators of social solidarity.
- What are the basic features of bureaucracy?
- What is special or different about the kind of objectivity needed in social science?
- Can you identify any ideas or theories which have led to the formation of social movements in India in recent times?
- Try to find out what Marx and Weber wrote about India.
- Can you think of reasons why we should study the work of thinkers who died long ago? What could be some reasons to not study them?
Also Read:
- NCERT Class 11 Understanding Society Chapter 2: Social Change and Social Order in Rural and Urban Society Notes (Free PDF)
- NCERT Class 11 Understanding Society Chapter 1: Social Structure, Stratification and Social Processes in Society Notes (Free PDF)
Solutions
- The Enlightenment, occurring in the 17th and 18th centuries in Western Europe, was crucial for the development of sociology because it introduced radically new ways of thinking that prioritised rational thought, secularism, and humanism. The chapter explains that it established the human being as the central producer and user of knowledge, capable of rationally analysing society. By displacing nature, religion, and divine explanations from the core of understanding the world, the Enlightenment fostered a secular and scientific mindset. This made society amenable to rational analysis, viewing it as a human creation that could be studied critically. For instance, the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason enabled thinkers like Durkheim to approach society as a scientific subject, studying social facts empirically. Thus, the Enlightenment provided the intellectual foundation for sociology by promoting the idea that human society could be understood through rational and critical inquiry, laying the groundwork for its emergence as a discipline.
- The Industrial Revolution, starting in late 18th-century Britain, was responsible for giving rise to sociology by transforming social life and creating new social challenges that required scientific analysis. The chapter highlights that it introduced mass manufacture through new machines (e.g., the Spinning Jenny) and power sources (e.g., steam engines), leading to the factory system and global production. This shifted populations from rural to urban areas, where workers, uprooted from villages, lived in slums and worked long hours in hazardous conditions. These changes created dense, unequal urban societies, with the rich and poor coexisting amidst poverty and squalor. The resulting social issues—health, sanitation, crime, and inequality—prompted the state to seek new knowledge for governance, which sociology addressed. For example, the urban working class’s struggles in factories led thinkers like Marx to analyse class conflict. Sociology emerged as the “science of the new industrial society,” using empirical data to study social trends and inform governance, directly responding to the Industrial Revolution’s societal transformations.
- According to Karl Marx, as outlined in the chapter, a mode of production is a broad system of production defining an era’s way of life, comprising a base and a superstructure. The components are:
- Economic Base:
- Productive Forces: These include the means of production, such as land, labour, technology, and energy sources (e.g., coal, electricity). For instance, in primitive communism, productive forces were natural resources like forests and simple stone tools.
- Production Relations: These are the economic and property-based relationships governing production, such as ownership or control of resources. In primitive communism, production relations involved communal property and tribal hunting or gathering.
- Superstructure: This consists of social, cultural, and political institutions built upon the economic base, including religion, law, art, and beliefs. The chapter notes that the base shapes the superstructure, meaning material conditions determine ideas. For example, in capitalism, private ownership (production relations) influences laws and ideologies supporting profit-driven systems.
The mode of production integrates these components to define societal organisation, with the base determining the superstructure’s form and function.
- According to Marx, as explained in the chapter, classes come into conflict due to contradictions inherent in the production process within a mode of production. Classes form based on their position in the production process, with shared interests and objectives. In capitalism, the bourgeoisie (capitalists) own the means of production (e.g., factories, capital), while the working class, stripped of property, must sell their labour to survive. These opposing positions create contradictions: capitalists seek to maximise profit by exploiting workers, while workers aim to improve wages and conditions. The chapter cites The Communist Manifesto, which states, “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle,” with conflicts between oppressors (e.g., capitalists) and the oppressed (e.g., workers) driving change. Conflict emerges when classes develop class consciousness, recognising their rival interests through political mobilisation. For instance, workers may unite to demand better wages, clashing with capitalists’ interests, potentially leading to revolutions. Thus, class conflict arises from economic contradictions and grows through social and political awareness.
- Social facts, as defined by Emile Durkheim in the chapter, are collective representations such as norms, values, beliefs, and institutions (e.g., law, religion, education) that exist externally to individuals but constrain their behaviour. They emerge from the association of people and are general, independent of any single individual. For example, the legal system constrains individual actions regardless of personal beliefs. Social facts are recognised through observable patterns of social behaviour, as they limit the range of individual actions, making behaviour predictable. The chapter notes that by studying these patterns, sociologists can identify underlying norms and social solidarities. A key example is Durkheim’s study of suicide: while individual suicides are unique, the aggregate suicide rate in a community reflects social facts like moral codes or social integration. Thus, social facts are recognised empirically by observing consistent behavioural patterns across a group, revealing the invisible norms and values governing society.
- The chapter explains Emile Durkheim’s distinction between mechanical and organic solidarity, which describes how societies maintain cohesion:
- Mechanical Solidarity: Found in primitive societies with small populations, it is based on the similarity of individuals who perform similar tasks (e.g., farmers in a village). Social ties rely on personal relationships and shared norms, with little tolerance for differences. Laws are repressive, harshly punishing deviations to preserve community unity, as violations threaten disintegration. For example, a tribal community may exile someone for breaking traditional customs.
- Organic Solidarity: Found in modern societies with large, heterogeneous populations, it is based on interdependence among individuals with diverse roles (e.g., teachers, factory workers, doctors). Social relationships are impersonal, and individuals rely on others for basic needs, allowing autonomy and multiple identities. Laws are restitutive, aiming to repair wrongs (e.g., fines or compensation) rather than punish. For instance, a modern city’s residents depend on various professions, fostering interconnectedness.
The key difference lies in the basis of cohesion: mechanical solidarity relies on similarity and repression, while organic solidarity depends on diversity and interdependence, reflecting the complexity of modern societies.
- Moral codes, as per Durkheim in the chapter, are rules of action reflecting a society’s social conditions and are indicators of social solidarity because they reveal the norms and ties binding individuals to the group. In societies with mechanical solidarity, moral codes are rigid, emphasising conformity to shared traditions, indicating strong collective unity based on similarity. For example, in a primitive tribal society, a moral code prohibiting certain foods (e.g., eating specific animals) reinforces group identity, and violations lead to harsh punishments like exile, showing the community’s tight integration. In societies with organic solidarity, moral codes are more flexible, reflecting interdependence and individual roles. For instance, in a modern city, a moral code encouraging professional ethics (e.g., a doctor’s duty to patients) supports cooperation among diverse groups, indicating solidarity through mutual reliance. The chapter notes that moral codes vary by social context, and their study reveals the type of solidarity—repressive in mechanical, restitutive in organic—governing a society’s cohesion.
- Max Weber, as described in the chapter, characterises bureaucracy as a modern mode of organisation based on rational-legal authority, with the following basic features:
- Functioning of Officials: Officials operate within fixed jurisdictions governed by rules, laws, and regulations. Duties are assigned to qualified personnel, and positions exist independently of the incumbent. For example, a tax officer’s role continues beyond their tenure.
- Hierarchical Ordering of Positions: Authority is structured in a graded hierarchy, with higher officials supervising lower ones, allowing appeals to higher authorities. For instance, a clerk’s decision can be reviewed by a senior officer.
- Reliance on Written Documents: Management relies on preserved records (“the files”) in the public domain, ensuring continuity and transparency. For example, government decisions are documented for accountability.
- Office Management: Requires trained, skilled personnel for specialised tasks, reflecting the modern complexity of administration.
- Conduct in Office: Officials’ public behaviour is governed by exhaustive rules, separating it from their private life, with legal accountability. For instance, a bureaucrat must follow protocols, not personal preferences, in decision-making.
These features ensure efficiency, accountability, and rational organisation, distinguishing bureaucracy from traditional or charismatic authority.
- The chapter explains Max Weber’s view that the objectivity needed in social science is distinct because it deals with subjective human meanings, values, and feelings, unlike the natural sciences’ focus on objective laws. Social sciences study social action, which involves subjective motivations, requiring sociologists to practise “empathetic understanding” by imaginatively placing themselves in the actor’s position. This objectivity, termed “value neutrality,” demands that sociologists record these subjective meanings accurately without letting personal beliefs or prejudices influence the process.
For example, a sociologist studying religious practices must describe believers’ motivations neutrally, even if they disagree with the beliefs. This is challenging because sociologists, as members of society, have their own biases, requiring an “iron will” to remain impartial. Unlike natural sciences, where objectivity involves detached measurement, social science objectivity balances empathetic engagement with neutral analysis, ensuring faithful representation of subjective social realities without judgment.
- The chapter does not directly discuss recent Indian social movements but provides a framework through Marx, Durkheim, and Weber’s theories, which can be applied to infer relevant ideas. Since the instruction restricts content to the chapter, I will use its concepts to address the question hypothetically, focusing on ideas that could inspire movements.
- Marx’s Class Struggle: Marx’s idea that class conflict drives social change could inspire movements against economic inequality. For instance, a hypothetical movement of informal workers in India might draw on Marxist ideas to demand fair wages and labour rights, reflecting workers’ consciousness of exploitation by capitalist employers, as described in the chapter.
- Durkheim’s Social Solidarity: Durkheim’s concept of organic solidarity, emphasising interdependence, could motivate movements for social cohesion. For example, a community-based movement in urban India might promote inclusive policies to integrate diverse groups (e.g., migrants and locals), inspired by the need for mutual reliance in modern societies.
These examples align with the chapter’s emphasis on class consciousness and social ties as drivers of collective action, though specific recent movements are not cited due to the text’s limitations.
- The chapter does not provide specific details on what Karl Marx or Max Weber wrote about India, focusing instead on their general theories and contributions to sociology. Since the instruction prohibits using external sources or imaginary content, I must note that the provided text lacks direct references to their writings on India. However, the question’s phrasing (“try to find out”) suggests applying the chapter’s concepts to infer possible perspectives:
- Marx: Given Marx’s focus on modes of production and class struggle, he might have analysed India’s colonial economy as a stage of capitalism, with British rulers and local elites exploiting Indian peasants and workers. The chapter’s discussion of capitalism’s global reach suggests Marx could view India’s integration into world markets (e.g., through colonial trade) as creating a property-less working class, potentially leading to class conflict.
- Weber: Weber’s interest in religion and rationalisation, particularly his study of Protestant ethics and capitalism, might lead him to examine India’s religious traditions (e.g., Hinduism) and their impact on economic behaviour. The chapter notes his use of ideal types to study world religions, so he might explore whether Indian religions fostered or hindered rational economic systems like capitalism.
Without specific textual evidence, these inferences remain speculative, rooted in the chapter’s description of their theoretical frameworks.
- Reasons to Study Thinkers Who Died Long Ago:
The chapter highlights that Marx, Durkheim, and Weber laid the foundation of sociology, and their ideas remain relevant despite modifications. Studying them is valuable because:
- Foundational Insights: Their theories (e.g., Marx’s class struggle, Durkheim’s social facts, Weber’s bureaucracy) provide core concepts for understanding modern society. For example, Marx’s analysis of inequality helps explain contemporary labour movements.
- Historical Context: Their work reflects the social conditions of the 19th century, helping us understand how modernity emerged. The chapter notes sociology as a response to industrial society, making its ideas key to tracing its evolution.
- Enduring Relevance: Their concepts apply to current issues. For instance, Weber’s bureaucracy explains modern governance structures, like India’s administrative system.
Reasons to Not Study Them:
While the chapter does not explicitly critique studying these thinkers, it acknowledges their ideas have been criticised and modified, suggesting potential limitations:
- Outdated Contexts: Their theories were developed for 19th-century Europe, which may not fully apply to non-Western or contemporary societies. For example, Durkheim’s solidarity types may not fully capture India’s diverse social structures.
- Eurocentric Bias: The chapter notes the Enlightenment’s view of non-Western societies as “savage,” suggesting their frameworks may overlook non-European perspectives, limiting their relevance for India.
- Superseded Ideas: Modern sociology has built upon or challenged their work, potentially making newer theories more relevant. For instance, contemporary studies of globalisation might offer more current insights than Marx’s focus on capitalism.
Studying these thinkers balances their foundational contributions with the need to adapt their ideas to modern and diverse contexts.
Download NCERT Solutions Class 11 Sociology Understanding Society Chapter No.4 Introducing Western Sociologists
You can also download the NCERT solutions for Class 11 Sociology Chapter 4: Introducing Western Sociologists. We have given the free PDF for students below.
Also Read:
- NCERT Class 11 Understanding Society Chapter 3: Environment and Society Solutions (Free PDF)
- NCERT Class 11 Understanding Society Chapter 2: Social Change and Social Order in Rural and Urban Society Solutions (Free PDF)
Download NCERT Solutions of all Chapters of Class 11 Sociology Introducing Sociology here:
Related Reads
For more topics, follow LeverageEdu NCERT Study Material today!
