Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

IOO P. F. Lazarsfeld
not concerned here with the question of whether there are two brands of empiri-
cal social research - the bourgeois and the Marxist; Szczepariski correctly says
that this is something which interests on17 ideologists. The main issue, and the
one which guides us throughout this report, is whether the Marxist tradition
can, by its very nature, lead to new research ideas. G. Andrkeva approaches the
problem by comparing positivism, functionalism and Marxi~m.5~
The three systems are considered in an ascending order of merit. It is claimed
that the so-called neo-positivist does little more than nose-counting and is proud
of it.
Functionalism is considered somewhat better because it introduces the notion
of reference groups. This, she writes, is at least an effort to interpret individual
conduct beyond describing it only. But this is not enough.
Concrete sociological analysis consists in examining all observed conduct, neither in
isolationnor in connection withthe groups to which a person belongs, but in explaining it
in terms of real social relations. It is not enough to put behaviour in a system of objective
categories [like Parsons’ pattern variables] and to establish their functional relations.
One has to find the deepest causes which have their roots in the totality of the social
fabric of a society. [Condensed translation from p. 60.1
I have emphasized some words in the paragraph. In all such discussions, one
finds words like ‘the true’, ‘the essential’, ‘the objective’ basic factors which
alone can account for any manifest data. For a moment these sound like
metaphysical statements which can neither be proved nor rejected and which
therefore should not be discussed. But if onepersists,looking carfully andsympa-
thetically into the context of such statements, a clearer picture emerges. There is,
indeed, a basic but undiscussed position involved: all that happens in society is
determined by its technology of work and the social relations connected with
it -markets, division of labour, ownership of means of production. This proposi-
tion has a century-old literature and the extent to which it may be right or wrong
need not be discussed here. What matters is that every empirical Marxist sociolo-
gist accepts it. Once this position is taken, one arrives quite naturally at a
specific definition of the sociologist’s task; he should relate all empirical
observations and all integrating concepts back to the mode of production as it
exists at a certain time in a given society.
Because it is important to clarify this crucial point, an analogy with a
Western problem may help. No reasonable social scientist doubts that human
conduct is determined partly by psychological forces and partly by what are
sometimes called ‘structural’ elements : a person’s position in an institutional
and cultural system. Some social scientists try to weigh the relative influence of
the various elements ; others prefer to concentrate on particular ones. Sociol-
ogists of the Durkheimian school, who try to establish sociology as an endeav-
our in its own right, are especially likely to bypass psychological factors, not
because they naively overlook them but because they concentrate their atten-
tion on societal factors. The Durkheimian school follows the directive of the
master to build up a sociological realm. In so doing, they do not pretend to offer
a full-fledged analysis of individual conduct.
I propose to interpret the position of Marxist concrete sociology in the same