An attempt to understand what it actually means to look at a social issue or evaluate it from a sociological perspective has been carried out by various thinkers. These perspectives guide sociological thinking about different social problems, as they look at the same social problem but in different ways. Certain things that individuals have come to know as facts or principles are now called into question, where each element of the same fact is weighed against what it is to think sociologically. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayBy studying what it means to think sociologically, we come to realize and reevaluate some things in life that otherwise would not have come across as unusual or in some cases contradictory. Prevailing ideas about the social organization of society are often what is highlighted by the majority and makes people believe that it is actually the truth, this strong influence has become known as dominant discourse. Therefore, it shapes what we are capable of thinking and knowing at any given time. In this sense, sociology establishes that discourse is a productive force as it shapes our thoughts, ideas, beliefs, values, identity, and communication with others, as well as our behavior. The prevalence of a dominant discourse is widely recognized in various social practices, however what is essential is to look at things from a more impartial point of view, that is, from a perspective where you can better understand the situation without your own prejudices getting in the way . .One understanding that is detrimental to thinking sociologically is sensitivity to culture. Sociology understands culture by exploring individual and group communications, their customs, ideologies, social narratives as well as their degree of integration. In his writings, Allan Johnson, author of The Forest, the Trees, and the One Thing explains the importance of looking at society through an external perspective, since often your individual vision is a reflection of the larger part, that is, society that you are. a part of. Indeed, the systems we are associated with not only define who we are as individuals, but also the society of which we are a part. One of the ways to understand society is to look at it from a holistic approach. Sociologists look at it from an individualistic point of view that goes beyond common sense understanding, it's when you go beyond common sense understanding that you see the different perspectives. Individualism is looking at the world in relation to oneself and therefore understanding society in its relation. It is a way of thinking that encourages us to explain the world in terms of what happens inside individuals and nothing else. “It's the forest and the trees and how they're connected to each other” (Johnson,2005). Here he uses the metaphor "the forest and the trees" to understand how an individual perceives himself and the world around him. The relationship between people and the group is characterized by the spaces between the trees. It takes into account how sociological practice finds its way into almost all aspects of life. An individualistic perspective tells us how if an individual changes then those changes can be introduced into the system, however a sociological perspective provided by Johnson goes on to say how people participate in systems without being part of them themselves and how social life is not a product of the individual and his characteristics. To meet standards and avoid potential criticism, individuals are often seen taking the path of least resistance, in a certain sense, certain criteria are created by society that the individual feels the need to follow in order to feel a sense ofmembership. For example, norms are cultural values ​​have been seen to transform into rules that members of various societies follow. A sense of belonging may exist within an institution such as school, such that students believe they must wear the colors represented by the school to feel part of the institution. Sociology as a natural science uses a scientific approach to critically analyze society, using both qualitative and quantitative methods in order to find patterns and connections which in turn provide explanations for how a society functions and influences individuals. Sociology makes us look at things from an individual point of view that goes beyond common sense understanding. Our opinions and perception of the world are often limited by the position we occupy in society. Very often we take for granted the inequality that arises from difference, be it social or physical. These differences are seen in all fields, in racial patterns and are also seen reflected in the social structure. Common sense understanding is perceived as what "everyone knows" about the social world around us or the individuals who compose it. Much of what people believe is influenced by the majority, which is why things are often very unclear and generalized. Instead of taking common sense and accepting it, sociology examines a set of seemingly common-sense data to test the accuracy of society's common-sense beliefs and ideas. For example, more common-sense beliefs have influenced our gender norms and stereotypes. The idea that women are essentially caretakers and are more expressive while men are emotionally stoic and strong has now been understood differently due to sociology, as we have come to realize that sex and gender are two distinct things, gender is something that is socially defined while sex is biological. Sociology has helped us understand how this understanding of “common sense” impacts our society. To distinguish sociology from common sense it is first important to understand that when we study our society there is a submergence of various other phenomena that take place within our society. Especially since as individuals we are more likely to lean towards common sense since we have come to have what is called a well-informed or developed common sense. In the works of André Beteille, “Sociology and common sense”, he mentions a certain clear difference between the sociological perspective and that of common sense. Common sense understanding is not always "common" or "sensible" as it requires the most general and incontrovertible understanding to be reality, however sociological understanding is one that examines all aspects of a situation in order to have an informed idea what the situation is about. Common sense tends to dwell on social norms and traditions, therefore it reinforces the status quo and does not lead to any social change, on the other hand sociology tends to focus on being progressive in nature. Sociology uses comparative measures and has been tested in some way, so it has greater validity than common sense. However, it is important to realize that neither is superior to the other, sociology continues to draw on common sense knowledge to distinguish which popular belief is true and which is not true. Sociology as a discipline makes use of a systematic use of comparison which makes it anti-utopian in its claims and anti-fatalistic in its orientation, and further distinguishes this generalized knowledge from the localized knowledge of common sense. Among sociologists who have made a clear separation between the The illusionof the understanding created by common sense is Max Weber, who states that "the consequences of human actions rarely coincide with the intentions of the actors, and that sometimes the two things are diametrically opposed". Here the intended meaning of said social action is often interpreted as referring to what an individual understands. Weber's works emphasize the influence of religious faith in the affairs of the state and society. He believes that the role of religion is widely misunderstood, states that the rise and prosperity of the capitalist economic system in Europe is attributed to certain concepts of the then dominant religious ideology, Christianity. In other words, looking at it from this perspective helps us understand how religion planted the seeds for the eventual rise of capitalism in Europe due to the resistance or reluctance of then-emerging Protestants who questioned many of its practices. Here Max Weber went beyond the common sense perspective as he had to study centuries and centuries of facts and patterns to arrive at this sociological understanding. A similar observation was made by Karl Marx, examining the factors leading to capitalism and the industrial revolution. Marx believed that social change starts from a primitive stage to a more developed one. Talk about change in society from a historical perspective. The rise of capitalism is due to the conflict in the society which leads to change in the society, changes the means and ways and therefore the social relations between people. Through Emile Durkheim's apparent use of sociological perspective to understand the reason for suicide. Durkheim discovered what drives people to commit suicide and what factors contribute to them making such a drastic life choice. Durkheim believed that economic hardship, religion, marriage etc. were the main reason that drives an individual to end their life. He based these social factors behind suicide by analyzing a larger amount of statistical data collected on a large cross-section of society. He believed that if suicide is an action of an individual, then why are there no cases of societies having different suicide rates that are not stagnant over time. It focused more on the social factors rather than the individual facts that support the increased suicide rate which in turn provides a sociological perspective instead of a generalized common sense understanding of the situation. Andre Beteille in his work examines the caste system and how inequality and conflict are mixed with politics in these villages of India. Talking about understanding the caste system, M. N. Srinivas has made important contributions to the study of the caste system of India by differentiating the "book view" from the "field view" while mentioning how he found the horizontal stratification which he emphasized as jatis, which serve as a functional unit of the caste system to understand the aspect of social mobility between different levels. He attacks the previously existing theory that the caste system is rigid and inflexible and how it had divided Indian society into four major Varnas. Beteille also cites other sociologists such as AM Shah who contradict the usual perception that joint families never exist in the form in which we understand them, talks about how joint families have never been a larger unit than the nuclear family and that average size of such a family in the Indian context has remained the same for the last hundred years. In expounding the works of these thinkers, Beteille emphasized how various societies are understood from a sociological perspective rather than a common-sense perspective. However, it should be noted that there is benefit.