Phenomelogical perspective in sociology offers a radical alternative to positivist methodology. From a phenomenological perspective there is a fundamental difference between the subject matter of the natural and social sciences. The natural science deals with matter. Since matter lacks consciousness its behavior can be explained simply as a reaction to external stimuli. Unlike matter man has consciousness. He sees, interprets and experiences world in terms of meanings, he actively constructs his own social reality. Meanings do not have an independent existence a reality of their own which is some how separate from social actors. They are not imposed by external society which constrains members to act in certain ways. Instead they are constructed and reconstructed by actors in the course of social interaction.
To treat social reality as anything other than a construction of meaning is to distort it. This has serious implications for much of the work done in sociology. For example to see official statistics on crime and suicide as reforming to activities which have an objective reality of their own is to misunderstand their nature. Such statistics are simply meanings given by social actors to events which they have perceived and interpreted as crime and suicide. Those events have no existence outside of the meanings and interpretive procedures which created them. We can study the implications of this view in the study of suicide.
The British sociologist J Maxwell Atkinson rejects the logic and procedures of positivist methodology in a series of writings on suicide. He maintains that social world is a construction of actor's perception and subjective interpretations. Thus an act of suicide is simply actors. Sociologists who adopt a positivist approach assume that it is possible to determine objectivity whether or not an act is a suicide. From this observation it follows that real suicide rate is discoverable. Atkinson rejects this contention arguing that suicide is not an objective fact that can some how be separated from the perceptions of social actors. Hence it does not make any sense for sociologist to treat suicide as social facts and attempt to explain their cause. Instead Atkinson suggests that the right question before sociologist is how deaths get categorize as suicide. An answer to this question involves an investigation of the meanings employed by these concerned with interpreting the cause of what is seen as unnatural death. Distortion is least likely in such an approach of the social world since it seeks to explore and understand the procedures used by its members to construct their social reality.
Let us see the problems involved in using official statistics for research purpose from a positivist perspective. In theory at least a real finite absolute equicide rate for a given population exists. But official statistics don't provide an accurate date of this rate. For this reason Durkheim is criticized for he fails to recognize the possibility of inaccuracy in official statistics, it is well recognized that family and friends of the deceased try to disguise an apparent suicide. There is a religious censure of suicide particularly stronger among Catholics than Protestants. Hence Catholics may disguise an apparent case of suicide. Probably due to this reason Durkheim discovers differences in suicide rates between Catholic and Protestant population. Another source of error from official statistics results from the actions of those intending to commit suicide. Apart from this there is societal variation in the procedure of investigating and recording of unnatural death. Despite these well known accuracies researchers contend that it is possible to find out true suicide rate with improvement in research techniques.
Atkinson rejects this view. For him, no real rate of suicide exists as an objective reality. Sociologists who proceed with this assumption may end up with facts on suicide which have little to do with social reality they seek to understand .By constructing set criteria to categorize and measure suicide -in scientific language by operationalizing the concept of suicide they will merely be imposing their reality on the social world. This will definitely distort that world.
Atkinson's research concentrates on the methods employed by coroners and their officers to categorize death. Coroners have a commonsense theory of suicide. If information about the deceased fits the theory they are likely to categorize his or her death as suicide. Normally they employ the following criteria in categorizing a case as suicide-
- Prior threat of committing suicide
- Particular mode of dying
- Location and circumstances of death
Suicide can therefore be seen as an interpretation placed on as event an interpretation which stems from a set of taken for granted assumptions. Undoubtedly this kind of view has serious implications for research which treats official statistics on suicide as social facts and seeks to explain their cause. Thus social scientists who look for the causes of suicide in the social situation or mental condition of those officially classified as suicide may simply be revealing the common sense theories of coroners.
From a phenomenological perspective the social world is a world of meaning. There is no objective reality which lies behind the meaning. Thus the social world is not made up of entities which are external to the subjective experience of its members. To treat its aspects as social facts as things is to distort and misinterpret social reality. Thus sociologists who treat crime and suicide as anything other than construction of meaning are imposing their own reality on the social world and so distorting the very reality they seek to understand.
Clearly positivist and phenomenological perspectives employ very different research methodologies. They proceed from diametrically opposite assumptions about the nature of social reality. This lead on the one hand to an acceptance of the logic and methods of the natural science as appropriate for the study of man and on the other to an outright rejection of this research strategy. This result is conflicting views on the nature of evidence and explanation in particular there is a basic disagreement about the essential qualities and characteristics of the data of sociological research. This leads to a very different explanations and understandings of human action.
