Modern sociological knowledge is of a complex inner structure. As any other sciences, historically sociology developed in two basic directions – fundamental and applied. But sociologists, representatives of different paradigms, used different criteria and concepts for defining one and the same event and phenomenon that resulted in confusing. So nowadays, sociological knowledge is structured as follows.
The first structure is macro- and micro-sociology. The point is that for the first decades of its existence sociology developed in Europe as macro-sociology pretending to reveal global laws of the society, and this aim is reflected in its name. But soon micro-sociology appeared to stop philosophizing about the society in general and get down to learning human behaviour in different social conditions, motivations of human deeds, mechanisms of interpersonal interactions etc.
Since then the development of sociology has gone along two parallel directions that were of little correlation with each other. Macro-sociologists operated with the concepts “society”, “social system”, “social institution”, “civilization”, “culture” etc. It means they used abstract categories. Micro-sociologists preferred discussing stimuli of human behaviour and people’s reactions, factors determining their certain deeds, deviant behaviour etc.
Macro-sociology is sociology investigating large-scale social systems and historically long processes taking place in the society. Another area of its interest is tendencies of the society’s development in general. As macro-sociology is often referred to as a fundamental science, most of its attention is paid to social institutions such as the family, religion, education etc. and to political and economic systems of social order It also studies interrelations between different parts of the society and dynamics of their changing.
Micro-sociology is sociology studying small-scale social structures, groups and direct interpersonal relationships. The object of micro-sociological research is a human as a member of the group, association or community.
So a criterion for differentiation between macro- and micro-sociology is basically their contents: macro-sociology is destined to study laws, factors and perspectives of development of the society and its largest parts (civilizations) while micro-sociology studies relationships between groups and individuals.
The second structure is fundamental theoretic and applied empirical sociologies. Fundamentaltheoretic sociology gives answers to questions what is investigated (i.e. it defines the object and subject of research) and how to investigate (i.e. main methods of sociology are meant). Fundamental sociology is to get new knowledge on social development. That’s why it concerns with social and philosophic comprehension of most general problems of the society’s development and functioning and a personality’s place in it. That’s why its concepts are characterized by a high level of abstraction. Fundamental sociology does not investigate such definite units as a social group or social process, and this point presents its most distinctive feature. It is the fundamental level where sociology realizes its interrelations with other sciences such as philosophy, history, psychology etc.
Applied empiric sociology studies and suggests ways of influence on social reality and social communities. It is to give conception about real processes of social development, being engaged in forecasting, projecting and forming a social policy, working out recommendations for social governance. It is also to find out means to achieve socially important goals, implement propositions of fundamental sociology and methods of social planning and forecasting. So the criterion for differentiating between fundamental and applied sociology is the character of sociological knowledge: abstract and practical.
Some researchers thought that development of macro-sociology lead to formation of modern fundamental sociology, so as development of micro-sociology – to applied sociology. The idea has a ration to exist but it can’t be accepted true in full measure. Macro- and micro-sociology have two levels, both fundamental and empiric ones. Macro-sociologists (E. Durkheim, M. Weber, F. Toennis, P.A. Sorokin) were very active in carrying out empiric sociological researches, and micro-sociologists (representatives of the American sociological school G. Mead, G. Homans, P. Blau) became founders of most significant sociological theories. It only means that macro- and micro-sociology developed both as fundamental and applied.
The third structure came to existence not long ago. Sociology is a relatively young science that historically emerged from social philosophy and psychology. First sociological theories were fundamental, being based on observations, conclusions and generalizations of different sides of social life. To work out such a theory a researcher needs exact data of certain social facts which constitute the society’s structure and the process of changing. These data are obtained with methods of empiric research (interviews, observations, experiments etc.). Gathered empiric facts are processed and generalized; after doing it, a researcher can make primary theoretic conclusions about definite phenomena of social life. Fundamental theories and empiric researches should be closely connected as pure theorizing without knowing definite facts of social realm becomes impracticable. At the same time empiric researches which are not supported withfundamental theoretic conclusions cannot explain the nature of most social phenomena.
In the first third of the XX century a sharply increased level of empiric researches demanded a universal theoretic apparatus to explain the results of research. But the apparatus of fundamental sociology couldn’t be applied to studying such various social phenomena as the family, deviant behaviour, social governance etc. In its turn, fundamental sociology was in great need of empiric information as empiric researches were carried out, as a rule, to meet narrow-practical, utilitarian needs and it was hard to make up an entity of them. It resulted in creating a breakout between fundamental sociology and empiric researches that became an obstacle in the way of developing sociology and prevented researchers from uniting their efforts.
However, the way out was found in formation of one more level of sociological knowledge under the name of middle range theories. The term was introduced by an American sociologist Robert Merton who, in his work “Social theory and social structure” published in 1949, stated a number of propositions of middle range theories – concepts of manifest and latent function, social dysfunction, referent group etc. Middle range theories, to R. Merton’s mind, had to unite empiric generalizations and theoretic conceptions to counterbalance T. Parsons’s universal theory.
