Any science that is 'born' usually has difficulty maturing. Hardly does it grow free of uncertainties, it is usually vague and precarious of that sector of reality toward which it is oriented; if it devoid of a clearer self-image and a general guiding rule. Such was the case of Sociology, not until Durkheim came up with his splendid classical writings.
However, since the inception of Sociology by Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the struggle has being to give Sociology a self-image and a general guiding rule that would make it stand as a field of social science. Over the years, critics have leveled criticisms towards Sociology as a new science which has no direction. They had reproached Sociology for not knowing precisely what, in the first place, its field of concern is. Like we earlier said, no new science can be free of ups and downs. Yet, Sociology as a field of study remained unruffled at all the various criticisms. We should not be in a hurry to forget that criticisms enhance growth after all.
Clearly, Auguste Comte had really persevered in studying the French society of his time, and eventually came up with the idea of putting up a science, a field of study that would typically be concern with the social milieu, social institutions, and social organization as it affects man. Comte had assembled other sciences and placed Sociology above them all -"Hierarchy of the Sciences".…
