Table of Contents
- Defining Ontology for Sociologists
- Historical Evolution of Ontological Debates
- Ontology in Key Theoretical Frameworks
- Ontology in Contemporary Sociology: Social Construction vs. Realism
- Practical Implications for Research
- The Role of Ontology in Sociological Theory-Building
- Critiques and Contemporary Debates
- Practical Example: Ontology in Action
- Balancing Multiple Ontological Perspectives
- Conclusion
Ontology is often discussed in philosophy, but it also occupies a central place in sociology. At the most basic level, ontology concerns the nature of being—what exists, what is real, and how such realities are structured. For sociologists, these questions translate into important reflections on social reality: Do societies exist as entities in their own right, or are they merely collections of individuals? Are social institutions real in the same way that physical objects are, or do they depend on shared beliefs? In essence, ontology shapes how sociologists view the world, informing the types of questions they ask and the methods they employ. By exploring ontology from a sociological perspective, we gain insights into the foundations of social life and the frameworks that underpin sociological research.
Defining Ontology for Sociologists
Ontology is the philosophical study of being. In the context of sociology, it focuses on the nature of social entities, social facts, and collective phenomena. This includes: What are groups made of? Do they have an existence independent of individual members, or are they purely conceptual constructs? Some sociologists argue that society is nothing more than a label for the sum of human interactions, while others maintain that social structures and institutions possess their own internal logic that constrains individual behavior.
An example of these debates can be seen in how sociologists treat concepts like ‘class’ or ‘race.’ One perspective might assert that these categories have an objective basis in material conditions or biological traits, whereas another might argue that these categories only exist because individuals collectively agree upon or practice them. Whether class is real in an ontological sense—as something with an existence independent of personal beliefs—or purely a social construction with no ultimate reality outside of discourse can significantly affect how researchers study inequality, power, and social stratification.
Historical Evolution of Ontological Debates
Early Foundations
Sociology emerged in the 19th century through the works of figures who were deeply influenced by philosophical questions, including Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim. Comte envisioned a ‘science of society’ grounded in observable facts, suggesting a form of ontological realism: societies and social dynamics exist in a tangible manner that can be systematically studied. Durkheim, in turn, argued that social facts are “things” that exist independently of individual consciousness, reinforcing the notion that certain elements of social life have an objective existence.
However, not everyone took society to be a discrete entity. Max Weber approached social structures from the vantage point of individual actors and the meanings they attach to their actions. In this sense, his ontological stance leaned toward the idea that society emerges from complex webs of individual motives rather than existing as a monolithic structure. This shift from Durkheim’s emphasis on social facts as external realities to Weber’s focus on subjective meaning illustrates the breadth of ontological debates within early sociology.
Moving into the 20th Century
In the 20th century, the Chicago School shifted attention to micro-level social interactions in urban environments, analyzing how individuals constantly create and recreate their social worlds. This tradition suggested a more fluid and dynamic ontology, where social structures are malleable and contingent, made real through daily interactions in specific cultural contexts.
Meanwhile, structural functionalists like Talcott Parsons emphasized macro-level systems that bind individuals. Within that framework, social institutions were considered distinct entities that shape individual behavior, reflecting a more realist approach. Although these perspectives differ, their underlying ontological assumptions strongly influence how they interpret social phenomena—whether they prioritize structure over agency or vice versa.
Ontology in Key Theoretical Frameworks
Structural Functionalism
Structural functionalism posits that societies can be understood as complex systems composed of parts that work together to maintain stability. The ontological assumption is that these social systems are real entities with interdependent structures, akin to organs in a body. Each institution—family, education, religion, economy—has a function that contributes to the overall functioning of society. Thus, the emphasis lies on society’s reality as a somewhat stable organism, giving priority to collective structures over individual experiences.
Symbolic Interactionism
In contrast, symbolic interactionism holds that society is continuously produced and reproduced through social interaction. Its ontological stance leans heavily on the interpretive processes by which people confer meaning on objects, behaviors, and events. Thus, the emphasis is not on static structures but on the flow of everyday life, where reality is shaped by how individuals interpret and enact their roles. This framework suggests a more constructivist ontology, positing that social realities exist only insofar as individuals bring them to life through shared symbols and interactions.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theorists, inspired by the legacy of Karl Marx, see societies as arenas of power struggles, competition, and inequality. Ontologically, these perspectives can be realist in the sense that they assume large-scale structures—like capitalism and the state—exist independently of individual beliefs. However, conflict theory also recognizes the potential for social change led by collective consciousness and social movements. In this way, it balances the notion of real, objective power structures with the possibility that these structures are vulnerable to transformation, highlighting a dual understanding of reality as both objective and open to reconstruction by collective actors.
Ontology in Contemporary Sociology: Social Construction vs. Realism
The Social Constructionist Perspective
Social constructionists argue that many of the categories we treat as real—from gender roles to national identities—are the products of social interaction and convention. In this view, ontological ‘reality’ is contingent upon the meanings we collectively assign to certain concepts or behaviors. For example, gender categories are not seen as fixed biological givens but as historically and culturally specific constructs that gain their power through social norms, institutions, and repeated performance.
This approach has gained substantial traction in fields like cultural studies, gender studies, and critical race theory, pushing sociologists to question taken-for-granted assumptions about human nature and social institutions. By treating these constructs as mutable, social constructionists open the door for sociological analysis that uncovers how social power, discourse, and historical context shape our understanding of what is real.
The Realist Perspective
On the other side, some sociologists maintain that certain social phenomena have a real, objective existence. They highlight the stubborn, constraining aspects of structures like class inequality or legal systems. No matter how one perceives or labels them, these structures continue to influence life chances, shape institutional rules, and govern social relations. The realist perspective emphasizes that social phenomena have a tangible presence in people’s lives, often irrespective of individual interpretations.
Realists would argue, for instance, that economic inequality is not simply a product of discourse but is manifested in material conditions such as wages, housing, and access to healthcare. Even if people were to change their belief systems or interpretive frameworks, the structural constraints might remain—and thus the phenomenon exists in a significant, measurable form. This view insists upon the importance of understanding the enduring nature of social structures when discussing what is real.
Practical Implications for Research
Methodological Choices
The ontological assumptions held by a researcher influence the methodological decisions they make. A sociologist who believes in an objective social reality, relatively independent of individual interpretation, may prefer quantitative methods such as large-scale surveys or statistical analyses. These methods, from the realist perspective, help capture patterns that exist in a measurable, external world.
Conversely, someone with a more constructivist leaning might prioritize qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews or ethnography. These approaches explore how individuals and groups interpret their worlds, creating and recreating social realities through discourse and practice. Here, the focus is on subjective experience and the processes by which meanings come into being.
Policy and Social Change
Beyond academic research, ontology plays a significant role in shaping how sociologists approach social change. If one adopts a realist stance, policy interventions might target structural factors like economic inequality or institutional discrimination, aiming to transform these enduring systems. If one embraces a constructivist viewpoint, interventions might focus on altering the meanings, narratives, and cultural assumptions that uphold certain inequalities. The choice of approach hinges, in part, on whether one sees social structures as fixed and external or malleable and subject to reinterpretation.
Even within activist contexts, these ontological frameworks guide strategies for social transformation. For some, creating new discourses or shifting collective understandings of identity could be a powerful path to change. For others, building new institutions or redistributing resources is seen as more impactful. Both strategies reflect deeply rooted assumptions about what is real in the social world and how real change occurs.
