Whatever one does, feels or is engaged in has a great connection with the environment he has grown up in. The formation of one’s mind; reasoning capacity, understanding, thinking, arguing things depends greatly on what was instilled or impacted in his/her mind from when he/she was still an infant. Understanding this theory has its importance in determining how one is preparing for his tomorrow or that of his child. It as well enables social scientists or any other person to understand that the behavior you see in people is not always a result of one’s abrupt decision but it is a confirmation of a lifelong journey. However, though it is always hard to change the environment to conform to our day’s way, the understanding of this issue will help one to make a decision whether he will deviate from the current occurrences or will compromise with it for the reason of whom to become. (Toby, 1971)
We identify ourselves with what we know, what we see, what we taste or simply what we are introduced to. A blind man will associate nothing with something visual. However, if out of blue his sight is restored, and the first thing in sight is a turkey, that is the very thing he will register and keep in mind and he will use it to contrast with everything visual. In the same way, as one grows up, whatever he comes across will always register in mind and if he is not subjected to any other environment, he will conform to the society’s norms. For instance, if society is full of anomalies, an individual will adapt to this situation. This is brought about by the fact that through socialization, we borrow our behavior from our role models, peers, significant others, as well as set down norms. The question comes in that, who is your role model? Which environment is he based in? What is known to be valuable within society? Answering these questions will enable one to know what not and to expect from one. For instant, if what is known to be successful life is being a teacher in a sampled society, the available role model available will be the teachers, and together with the societal expectation, it will be a phenomenon that the probability of teachers production in that society will be of great significant. According to Talcot parson, in his book; Mind and Self, human being’s role is greatly based on what the society expects of him rather than what he is good at.
Human behavior is based on ones inner self. This is because ones belief from a given society can be deferent from others from another society. An individual from one society may believe that being a lawyer and a Christian at a go is a giant contradiction, as lawyer entails a lot of cheating, while another person from a different society will see nothing bad in it. This is an aspect that will lead to differed undertakings from the two subjects. Self confidence, self esteem and evaluation together with the interaction with other people will as well be greatly based on where one grows in. For instant, a child who grows up in a family whose parents are leaders will have a great influence in outstanding behavioral, which will be greatly backed up by a positive self esteem. This is based on what is impacted in him through what his parents do. This is a phenomenon throughout the societies and in the world, where known leader’s children emerge to replace them. Majority of famous world known leaders have their origin from significant others. For example, the former U.S president George Bush can have his presidency fiber traced from his father, and other many people can be quoted in this bracket (Perry & Perry, 2009).
This is not the case with the other side of the coin. Growing up in a tight family for instant, a family with a drunkard and abusive superior will create a result totally different from the earlier one. Being exposed to torments and abuse in childhood will register in one’s mind and totally create a crust like conformation in ones “self” which will lead to low profile. This is often observed through the indecision, low self esteem, lack of outwardness and low self confidence in an individual something which will hinder one from embracing the world’s requirement of aggressiveness and consistency among others. Some other examples that we can evaluate are: nomadic societies will unlikely produce business oriented people, mining involved societies will likely bring out miners (despite their specialization) from their young ones, business oriented countries will seem to keep maintaining the trend even after a century. This is because that very environment in that society will make people to compromise with its tide (Toby, 1971)
However, three subordinate questions a social scientist will likely deal with are:
- Is the environment itself a result of human behavior or does the human behavior result from the environment?
- Is human behavior and actions based on what is instilled in an individual or is it an individual decision. Does societal expectation play a role on the same?
- Is it possible to know which kind of an environment one has been exposed on and how?
To evaluate these problems they need to be analyzed differently as follows. For the first problem order, to differentiate the two, one needs to analyze how one behaves and what was the environment he grew up in, as well as how is he influencing the current environment. Where do we have a greater impact? In addition identifying the laid down social norm, forms of sanctions, taboos, practices- such as rite of passages, will also enable one to have a conclusion on this problem. Secondly, one will need to compare between what one knows, and what he is doing as well his societies’ believes. Evaluating how the society terms as needed morals and what they impact in their young ones will enable us to know why an individual is doing one thing and not the other. And thirdly, how does a person conduct himself, emotionally, socially and how related are those behaviors associated with ones background. This will be greatly be backed up by what is already known to exist pertaining the same issue. (Toby, 1971)
On natural science perspective, these problems can be argued and answered in various scientific methods. For instance, to solve the first problem, data collection is a crucial base of the research. The collection will involve interviewing the people, mostly the older ones to know how was the society like several years ago in terms of norms, values, what changes they have witnessed and how the society is currently fairing. Together with this information and keen observation of people’s involvement will enable us knowing what causes the others.
On the second problem, direct interviews with sampled people from sampled society will greatly enable one to asses what one believes, knows, and is aware of, while observing his behavior it will enable you to determine why he is doing what he is doing. On the same point, collecting data concerning the occupation of society members using questionnaires will help determining how societal expectations have affected his decision. Similarly, in an attempt to identify the kind of environment one has grown up in, an identified individual can be interviewed orally or through questionnaires with questions based on the hypothesis in question. The results will then be used to test the validity of the hypothesis. Generally, through the collection of data, either using questionnaires or direct interviews, observations or even directly experimenting, one is able to argue the given problems and come into an expected stand. That is, gathering the information carefully, remaining unbiased when evaluating the information, observing phenomena, conducting experiments and accurately recording procedures and results which will help one get first hand information that will enable him to deal with any of the above problems effectively (Perry & Perry, 2009)
In comparison between these two methods, where as social science is based on what is known to judge events, scientific method involves carrying our primary research to prove or disprove a set hypothesis. Unlike scientific method which entails data collection through observation and experimentation, sociological method will compare what has happened before and what is happening now involving only observable phenomenon to come up with a conclusion. Also, social scientific method relies on secondary information to evaluate a given problem whereas scientific method relays on first hand or primary information to do the same. Despite this, both methods will in a great chance lead to a conclusion that is expected or less or more similar.
In conclusion, social scientific perspective will always have its roots from scientific methodology since what is practically happening in the society is not always repetitious. This is as a result of the fact that the society are not static, rather they are dynamic, changing with season and from time to time. What happened during Emile Durkheim era is not practically what is happening now. Due to invention of technology, things have changed and so are the societies. Thus, this creates a need to argue our situations based on time, space, and place, giving raise to important in exercising scientific methods.
References
Perry, J. & Perry E. (2009). Contemporary society: An introduction to social science. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Toby, J. (1971). Contemporary society: an introduction to sociology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publisher.