netheless concepts were linked in terms of a model of the motivation of a hypothetical actor in the situation. The behaviour observed in these circumstances is given significance in terms of the model. For convenience we might refer to the sort of model used there as a subjective model, because behaviour is understood in terms of its subjective meaning for a hypothetical actThe empirical study of social facts is a methodologically complex process. We do not observe societies or other social facts directly. All that we can observe is human behaviour, including, of course, linguistic behaviour. But sociology does not claim to be simply the science of human behaviour. It is concerned as Durkheim suggested with a reality exterior to the individual. Hence the question arises of how the gap is to be bridged between the phenomena which we observe and this reality exterior to the individual. It should be noted that this problem is not peculiar to the sociologist. It might be said that all the physicist observes are 'coloured shapes that move'. Yet he is quite prepared to talk in terms of 'electrons' and 'protons'. That is to say, he employs models even at the lowest level to enable him to draw inferences from one observed fact to another, or to explain the coexistence of observed phenomena. Thus if we are prepared to follow the example of the physicist, there is a way out of the sociologist's dilemma.

Moreover, since what the physicist does is similar to what we all do all day and everyday, one wonders why sociologists have been so deeply disturbed by behaviourist scruples. The important question for the sociologist is not whether he should interpret observed human behaviour in terms of models, but what sort of model he should employ. In the previous chapter, although throughout we insisted upon some sort of operational definition of theoretical concepts, nonetheless concepts were linked in terms of a model of the motivation of a hypothetical actor in the situation. The behaviour observed in these circumstances is given significance in terms of the model. For convenience we might refer to the sort of model used there as a subjective model, because behaviour is understood in terms of its subjective meaning for a hypothetical acto

Hence the question arises of how the gap is to be bridged between the phenomena which we observe and this reality exterior to the individual. It should be noted that this problem is not peculiar to the sociologist. It might be said that all the physicist observes are 'coloured shapes that move'. Yet he is quite prepared to talk in terms of 'electrons' and 'protons'. That is to say, he employs models even at the lowest level to enable him to draw inferences from one observed fact to another, or to explain the coexistence of observed phenomena. Thus if we are prepared to follow the example of the physicist, there is a way out of the sociologist's dilemma.

Moreover, since what the physicist does is similar to what we all do all day and everyday, one wonders why sociologists have been so deeply disturbed by behaviourist scruples. The important question for the sociologist is not whether he should interpret observed human behaviour in terms of models, but what sort of model he should employ. In the previous chapter, although throughout we insisted upon some sort of operational definition of theoretical concepts, nonetheless concepts were linked in terms of a model of the motivation of a hypothetical actor in the situation. The behaviour observed in these circumstances is given significance in terms of the model. For convenience we might refer to the sort of model used there as a subjective model, because behaviour is understood in terms of its subjective meaning for a hypothetical act

to say, he employs models even at the lowest level to enable him to draw inferences from one observed fact to another, or to explain the coexistence of observed phenomena. Thus if we are prepared to follow the example of the physicist, there is a way out of the sociologist's dilemma.

Moreover, since what the physicist does is similar to what we all do all day and everyday, one wonders why sociologists have been so deeply disturbed by behaviourist scruples. The important question for the sociologist is not whether he should interpret observed human behaviour in terms of models, but what sort of model he should employ. In the previous chapter, although throughout we insisted upon some sort of operational definition of theoretical concepts, nonetheless concepts were linked in terms of a model of the motivation of a hypothetical actor in the situation. The behaviour observed in these circumstances is given significance in terms of the model. For convenience we might refer to the sort of model used there as a subjective model, because behaviour is understood in terms of its subjective meaning for a hypothetical act

ay, one wonders why sociologists have been so deeply disturbed by behaviourist scruples. The important question for the sociologist is not whether he should interpret observed human behaviour in terms of models, but what sort of model he should employ. In the previous chapter, although throughout we insisted upon some sort of operational definition of theoretical concepts, nonetheless concepts were linked in terms of a model of the motivation of a hypothetical actor in the situation. The behaviour observed in these circumstances is given significance in terms of the model. For convenience we might refer to the sort of model used there as a subjective model, because behaviour is understood in terms of its subjective meaning for a hypothetical actnetheless concepts were linked in terms of a model of the motivation of a hypothetical actor in the situation. The behaviour observed in these circumstances is given significance in terms of the model. For convenience we might refer to the sort of model used there as a subjective model, because behaviour is understood in terms of its subjective meaning for a hypothetical actor in the situation. Or we may speak, following Parsons, of such studies employing an action frame of reference. The other sort of model which has been widely employed in sociology is that derived from the analogy between societies and organisms. We must now look in greater detail at the assumptions made when this sort of organic model is used, and at the possibility of statements derived from this model being verified.