Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
When you're tested on the founders of sociology, you're really being tested on the core theoretical perspectives that still drive the discipline today. Each thinker represents a distinct lens for analyzing society—whether that's examining social cohesion, economic conflict, cultural meaning, or structural inequality. Understanding who developed which concept isn't just trivia; it's the foundation for every theory you'll encounter in this course.
These founders weren't working in a vacuum—they were responding to the massive upheavals of industrialization, urbanization, and political revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. Their questions about what holds society together, why inequality persists, and how modernity changes us remain central to sociology today. Don't just memorize names and dates—know what theoretical tradition each thinker launched and how their ideas connect to contemporary debates.
These thinkers fought to legitimize sociology as a distinct academic discipline, arguing that society could be studied with the same rigor as the natural sciences. Their methodological contributions established the rules of evidence and analysis that sociologists still follow.
Compare: Comte vs. Durkheim—both championed scientific sociology, but Comte focused on theoretical frameworks while Durkheim actually conducted empirical research. If an FRQ asks about sociology's emergence as a science, Durkheim's suicide study is your strongest evidence.
These theorists placed power, inequality, and material conditions at the center of social analysis. They argued that understanding who controls resources is essential to understanding how society functions.
Compare: Marx vs. Du Bois—both analyzed systems of oppression, but Marx focused on class while Du Bois centered race. Du Bois showed that economic analysis alone couldn't explain the Black experience in America. This distinction is crucial for questions about intersectionality.
These thinkers emphasized that society isn't just about structures and economics—it's about how people interpret their world and how ideas shape behavior. They developed interpretive methods that complement structural analysis.
Compare: Weber vs. Simmel—both emphasized meaning and interpretation, but Weber focused on large-scale cultural forces (religion, bureaucracy) while Simmel examined micro-level interactions (small groups, urban encounters). Use Weber for macro questions, Simmel for micro.
This approach applied biological metaphors to society, viewing social institutions as interconnected parts of a living system. While influential historically, these ideas also produced problematic applications.
Compare: Spencer vs. Durkheim—both used organic metaphors, but Durkheim emphasized social solidarity and collective support while Spencer argued for laissez-faire competition. Know this distinction for questions about functionalism's origins and its critics.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Scientific methodology | Comte (positivism), Durkheim (empirical research) |
| Social cohesion/order | Durkheim (collective consciousness, anomie) |
| Economic/class analysis | Marx (historical materialism, class struggle) |
| Race and inequality | Du Bois (double consciousness, empirical race studies) |
| Interpretive sociology | Weber (verstehen), Simmel (formal sociology) |
| Culture and ideas | Weber (Protestant Ethic, rationalization) |
| Micro-level interaction | Simmel (dyads/triads, urban life) |
| Evolutionary/organic models | Spencer (social Darwinism, organic analogy) |
Which two founders both emphasized scientific approaches to sociology, and how did their methods differ?
If an FRQ asks you to explain how ideas and culture shape economic behavior, which theorist provides the strongest example, and what concept would you use?
Compare Marx and Du Bois: What type of inequality did each prioritize, and why might Du Bois argue that Marx's framework was incomplete?
How would Durkheim and Spencer differ in their explanations for why some people in society struggle or fail?
You're asked to analyze a small group's dynamics—which founder's concepts would you apply, and what would you look for when the group grows from two to three members?