The social transformation in the 18th and 19th century was so enormous that it changed the whole social set up. First capitalism grew which meant that only few people had the means of production while the rest had to sell labor in order to survive. In addition, impersonal financial markets developed and powers changed as there was the development of administrative and armed power. The other social transformation was enormous population worldwide as it changed the dimension and aspects of living especially with the changing world order. These are the main social changes that necessitated the development of new science of sociology.

Interpretative sociology has been defined as a social study which main focus is to the understanding of how people define their social life. Interpretive sociology differs from both the positivist’s sociology which is also referred to as scientific sociology and critical sociology in the ways that are highlighted below.

1. Interpretive sociology investigates what meaning is attached to the human behavior whereas, positivists focuses on the action. On the other hand, critical sociology is more geared towards promoting and encouraging critical thinking.
2. Interpretive sociology is more concerned quality and focuses on qualitative data whereas; the positivist sociology analyses and investigates quantitative data. Critical sociology uses journals.

III.   Interpretive sociology has a view that it is people who create a reality. On the other hand, positivist sociology is more bent on the objectivity of what reality is out there. Critical sociology tries to understand the human behavior.

Emile Durkheim was concerned with the society; thus he encouraged the interpretive school of theory sociology. Durkheim claimed that sociology was not only responsible for discovering apparent laws but also the inherent nature of our society and social world.

Karl Marx was in the school of thought of positivist’s sociology. Marxist sociology, was concerned with the relations between society and economics.

Max Weber is well defined by the conflict theory. He explains that there is a class of which is made up of few people who are filthy rich and have amassed a lot of wealth and those that are horribly poor.

The culture that underlies the structural, functional approach is that there are two main semantic fields that have their own scope of origin and their own history and language. When studying, an individual aspect of the character does not explain why a person is social or why they are not so social. Therefore, the social aspects of the person must always be studied to get a clear and precise understanding of the social being as a whole character.

According to Mead, the self is governed by certain factors.

1. Self is a social emergent-Mead argues that the self is a making of social interactions not the preconditions’ of the interactions themselves. An individual is not born with self but develops as they relate with other individuals.
2. The self is a reflective process. This means that it is an object to itself it is the reflexivity of the self that distinguishes it from other objects and other parts of the body.

III.   Self-consciousness is usually as a result of the process in which one takes to the attitude of others towards themselves. An individual tries to compare themselves according to the standards set by others.

1. Self symbolic interactions. This is formed by language play and the game. It is through language that an individual communicates with another self. In the play, role playing is not complicated. In the gaming, the role playing is much more complex. There is a difference in “I” and “me”. I am the response of an organism to the attitudes of others “me” is a conventional habitual individual this is according to Mead. According to Mead, both parts “I” and “me “are important to the self.