Breaking down the question
The question has two linked demands. First, discuss the nature of Sociology — that is, what kind of discipline it is: its subject matter, its claim to be a science, and its distinctive way of seeing. Second, highlight its relationship with Social Anthropology — a comparison that expects both affinities and differences.
The verb discuss invites a reasoned account rather than a list. A strong answer states what makes Sociology's nature specific, then locates Social Anthropology as its close cousin — historically distinct in field and method, yet increasingly converging.
For fuller treatment, draw on the note on the scope of sociology and other social sciences.
How to approach it
Open by characterising Sociology's nature through a few defining features — it is empirical, comparative, generalising, and aspires to value neutrality. Cite Comte's positivist founding and Durkheim's insistence on treating social facts as things.
Then pivot to Social Anthropology. Note the classical division of labour — Sociology studied modern, complex, literate societies; Social Anthropology studied small-scale, pre-literate, tribal ones — before showing convergence. Close by arguing the two are branches of one enterprise.
Model answer
Sociology is the systematic, scientific study of society, social institutions and social relationships. Its nature can be captured in several features.
It is empirical — grounded in observed evidence rather than speculation. Comte, who coined the term, envisaged a positive science of society modelled on the natural sciences, and Durkheim urged sociologists to study social facts as external, constraining realities.
It is comparative and generalising — seeking regularities across societies rather than describing single cases, though it stops short of the exactitude of physics.
It aspires to value neutrality and objectivity, even while acknowledging, with Weber, that the subject matter is meaningful human action requiring interpretive understanding. Sociology is thus both a science and a humanistic discipline.
Social Anthropology shares this scientific temper. Historically the two divided their terrain: Sociology examined modern, industrial, complex societies, while Social Anthropology — through fieldwork and participant observation — studied small-scale, tribal, non-literate communities, emphasising holism and culture.
Yet the relationship is one of deep kinship. Both study social structure, kinship, religion and institutions; both use the comparative method; and figures like Radcliffe-Brown developed structural-functional theory usable in either. As tribal societies modernised and anthropologists turned to studying complex settings — villages, factories, cities — the old boundary blurred. In India, the disciplines have been especially intertwined, with scholars like M. N. Srinivas moving freely between them.
In short, Sociology and Social Anthropology are twin sisters — distinct in origin and traditional focus, but united in subject matter, method and scientific aspiration.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners look for a candidate who can pin down the nature of Sociology in crisp attributes — empirical, comparative, value-neutral, both scientific and interpretive — rather than offering only textbook definitions. Naming Comte, Durkheim and Weber signals command of the foundations.
On the relationship, the reward goes to answers that present the classical division and the convergence, avoiding the dated claim that anthropology studies only tribes. A neat closing metaphor — twin sisters, or branches of one tree — with an Indian illustration such as Srinivas lifts a 10-mark script within its tight word limit.