Developed by Donald Black as an alternative to individualistic and social-psychological theories, pure sociology was initially used to explain variation in legal behavior.
[1] Since then, Black and other pure sociologists have used the strategy to explain terrorism,[2] genocide,[3] lynching,[4] and other forms of conflict management[5] as well as science,[6] art,[7] and religion.
Virtually all sociology explains the behavior of people—whether groups or individuals—with some reference to their mental constructs (psychology) or the purposes of their action (teleology).
But pure sociology reconceptualizes human behavior as social life—something that does not exist in the mind, is not explainable by the aims of actions, and is supraindividual.
A conflict is a situation where one person has a grievance against another, such as where an assault has occurred or a contract has been broken, and the offended parties may or may not appeal to the police or to the civil courts to resolve it.
Relational distance refers to the amount and intensity of interaction between the parties, so the theory predicts that there is more law in conflicts between strangers than in those between intimates.
[5] Most conflicts are handled without appealing to the legal system, and the theory thus explains not just law but avoidance, gossip, therapy, feuding, and numerous other forms of non-governmental social control.
The subject may also be high or low in social status: People have ideas about senators and businessmen as well as skid row vagrants.
Black's explanation of voluntarism and determinism, for example, states that ideas about high status subjects are more likely to be voluntaristic (to invoke free will).
Baumgartner,[19] Marian Borg,[20] Bradley Campbell,[21] Mark Cooney, Ellis Godard, Allan Horwitz, Scott Jacques, Marcus Kondkar, Jason Manning, Joseph Michalski, Calvin Morrill, Scott Phillips, Roberta Senechal de la Roche, and James Tucker.
While prominent sociologists such as Randall Collins,[22] Karen A. Cerulo,[23] David Sciulli,[24] and Jonathan H. Turner[25] have praised aspects of pure sociology, the approach has also been criticized.
Kam C. Wong[26] criticizes pure sociology's scientism, David F. Greenberg[27] its use of covering-law explanations, and Thomas J. Scheff[28] its attempt at disciplinary purity.
While it is unconventional sociology, it is conventional science, striving to provide simple, general, testable, valid, and original explanations of reality.