Socio-Cultural Change
Chapter One: Introduction
Human beings have existed on earth about half a million years. Agriculture, the necessary basis
of fixed settlements, is only about twelve thousands years old. Civilization date back no more
than six thousand years old or so.
Today, it is impossible to live in the world without being bombarded with the reality and
pervasiveness of change. The media are full of reports of new or continuing crises, about
changes in family life, health, prospect for economic prosperity or decline, technological
innovations (example, biotechnology and computerization of everything) that have potentially to
“revolutionize” our lives. We are living in a world that is pregnant with possibilities; it is also at
times a frightening and hazardous world. It would be false to say Social change is historically
new, it is probably correct to say that people today are more likely to perceive change as normal
state of the world. Particularly in modern society, life is a journey, not a home. Or social life is
not a material or substance to be molded: rather, it is an ongoing process constantly renewing,
remaking, changing, and transforming itself. Life is never static but in constant flux.
The pace of change in general, and particularly the rate at which the world is becoming a single
(thought highly disordered system), gives a kind of urgency to the notion that crisis is the
ordinary state of the world. We are bombarded by the big events of major world transformation,
but social change is also the story of individual and of difference between generations in
families.
However, the view thinkers have is not the same. Some believe in change, while others say that
there is no change. For instance, a Greek philosopher, Heraclitus argued that the world was a
process in constant flux (change) and development. There is no fixed entity in nature. His
counter, Parmeniedes, another Greek philosopher, maintained the view that the world was an
indestructible, motionless continuum of matter and space, and that change is illusory. This shows
that problem of understanding permanence and change. This obstructs controversy of ancient
polarization of thought is also found in sociological thinking. However, we should not deny the
reality of either general process of stability or change. Both are real, and we recognize one in
relation to the other. To deny the reality of either persistence or change doesn’t recognize the
way that people experience the world.
Social life is an ongoing process constantly renewing, remaking, changing, and transforming
itself. Life is not static but changes. Social change is a continuous process. Society has
undergone a number of changes. The development of sociology is linked to even social
changes or developments occurred in the 19th century.
Social change in the broadest sense is any change in social relations. Viewed this way, social
change is an ever-present phenomenon in any society. A distinction is sometimes made then
1
between processes of change within the social structure, which serve in part to maintain the
structure, and processes that modify the structure (societal change).
The specific meaning of social change depends first on the social entity considered. Changes in a
small group may be important on the level of that group itself but negligible on the level of the
larger society. Similarly, the observation of social change depends on the time span studied; most
short-term changes are negligible when examined in the long run. Small-scale and short-term
changes are characteristic of human societies, because customs and norms change, new
techniques and technologies are invented, environmental changes spur new adaptations, and
conflicts result in redistributions of power.
If we believe in the existence of social change, what is social change? Social change is, in
sociology, the alteration of mechanisms within the social structure, characterized by changes in
cultural symbols, rules of behavior, social organizations, or value systems. It is the fundamental
alterations in the patterns of culture, structure, and social behavior over time. The most
important question to be raised here is what is culture? What is Social structure?
Culture is the social heritage of a people-those learned patterns for thinking, feeling, and acting
that are transmitted from one generation to the next, including the embodiment of these patterns
in material items. It includes non-material culture-abstract creations like values (what is good
and bad), beliefs, symbols, norms (how people are expected to behave), customs, and
institutional arrangements- and material culture (physical arrangements or objects like stone
axes, paintings, utensils, etc.
Culture supplies the frame work that allows people to interpret events and guide their actions;
society consists of the actual web of relationships that enter into as they go about their daily
activities. Social structure (at its root) means a persistent network of social relationships, in
which interaction between persons or groups have become routine and repetitive. At increasingly
abstract levels social structure can be understood as persistent social roles, groups, institutions
and societies.
To get the whole picture of social change, we must understand important structural change (for
example, changes in the composition of the population and of households, the size and
complexity of organizations, and in the economy) and how they are connected to changes in
culture (for example, in the change of definitions, values problems, fears, hopes, and dreams that
people share).
1.2. The fundamental concepts of social change
1.2.1. The Organic Metaphor
2
Sociology is a new science emerged in the middle of 19th century. The 19th century developments
contributed a lot for the development of sociology as an academic discipline.
It was at the very birth of sociology that a distinction was conceived which has haunted
sociological thinking up to our days and proved to be as misleading as it has been persistent. This
was a sort of original sin of our discipline, and the responsibility rests squarely with the father of
sociology, Auguste Comte, who divided his system of theory into two separate parts Social static
and social dynamics.
Herbert Spencer is an author of another distinction which for more than a century was at the core
of sociological language: structures and functions. Structures indicates the internal build up,
shape or form of societal whole, function is the modes of their operation or transformation.
The methodological legacy in the early ideas was the opposition of two types of procedures,
which in the early Comtean formulation was described as the search for laws of coexistence
(why certain social phenomena invariably appear together), versus the law of succession (why
certain social phenomena invariably precede or follow others). The idea, under various labels,
found its way into most textbooks of sociological research: synchronic or cross-sectional study
(defined as looking at society in timeless, static perspective, and diachronic or sequential study
(recognizing the flow of time and focusing on ongoing social change).
The modern study of change (diachronic research) has been strongly influenced by such views. It
has inherited the classical organic metaphor and related distinctions not directly, from Comte,
Spencer, and other 19th century masters, but via influential school of 20th century sociology
known as system theory, functional theory, or structural functionalism.
1.2.2. The System model and social change
The idea of system denotes a complex whole, consisting of multiple elements bound together by
various interrelations and separated from the environment by the bounder. According to system
model, society is a system composed of elements. Accordingly, social change is conceived as the
change occurring within, or embracing the social system. More precisely, it is the difference
between various states of the same system succeeding each other in time. To say there is a
change there must be a difference between what can be observed before that point and what we
see after that point in time. In order to be able to state differences, the unit of analysis must
preserve a minimum of identity- in spite of change overtime. Thus the basic concept of social
change involves:
i.
Difference,
ii.
at different temporal moments (time), and
iii.
Between states of the same system.
3
Social change is therefore any recurrent alteration of a social system as a whole. Depending on
what is seen as changing-what aspects, fragments, dimensions of the system are involved in
change- various kinds of change may be distinguished. This is because the overall state of the
system is not simple, one dimensional, but rather emerges as the combined, aggregated result of
state of various components such as:
1. the ultimate elements (eg. the number and variety of human individuals and their
actions),
2. Interrelations among elements (eg. Social bonds, loyalties, dependencies, linage, between
individuals, interactions, exchanges between actions),
3. the function of elements in the system as a whole (eg. the occupational roles played by
the individuals, or the necessity of certain actions for the preservation of social order),
4. the boundary (eg. criteria of inclusion, conditions for acceptance of individuals in the
group, gate keeping arrangements in organizations, etc),
5. the systems (eg. the number and variety of distinguishable specialized segments, sections,
subdivisions, etc), and
6. the environment (eg. natural conditions, or the absence of other societies, geopolitical
locations).
It is only through their complex interplay that the overall characteristics of the system emerge:
equilibrium or disequilibrium, consensus or disconsensus, harmony or strife cooperation or
conflict, peace or war, prosperity or crisis, etc…When dissected into its primary components,
and dimensions, the system model implies the following possible changes:
i.
change in composition (eg migration from one group to another, recruitment to a
group, depopulation due to famine, demobilization of social movement, dispersion of
a group,
ii.
change in structure (eg appearance of inequalities ,crystallization of power,
emergence of friendship ties, establishing cooperative or competitive relationships),
iii.
change of functions (eg. specialization and differentiation of jobs, decay of economic
role of the family, assumption of an indoctrinating role by schools or universities),
iv.
change of boundaries (eg migration of groups, relaxing admission criteria and
demobilization of membership, conquest and incorporation of one group by another),
v.
change in the relation of subsystems (eg. ascendance of political regimes over
economic organizations, control of the family and the whole private sphere by
totalitarian government), and
vi.
Change in the environment (eg ecological deterioration, earthquake, etc).
Generally speaking, change can be partial or restricted in scope, without major repercussions for
other aspects of the system. This is known as adaptive or reformative or evolutionary or
change in. In this case the system remains intact, no overall change of its states occurs, in spite
of piecemeal changes going on inside. On the other hand, changes may embrace all or the whole
4
system or at least the core aspects of the system, producing new systems. This type of change is
known as transformative or radical or revolutionary or change of.
1.2.3. Clusters of changes: raising the complexity of dynamic concepts
The concept of social change comprehends the ultimate smallest ‘atoms’ of social dynamics,
single shifts in the state of the system or any of its aspects. But single changes are rarely isolated,
they are normally linked with others, and sociology has devised more complex concepts to deal
with typical forms of such linkages.
The most important is the idea of ‘social process’ describing the sequence of interrelated
changes. A classical definition is given by Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968): by process is meant any
kind of movement, or modification, or transformation, or alteration, or evolution, in brief
any change, of a given logical subject in the course of time, whether it be a change in its place, in
space or a modification of its quantitative or qualitative aspects. More precisely, the concept
denotes:
1. the plurality of changes,
2. referring to the system (occurring within it, or transforming it as a whole),
3. causally related to each other (in the sense that one change is a causal condition, or
at least a partial causal condition, and not merely an accompanying or preceding factor,
of the other), and
4. the changes follow each other in a temporal sequence (succeeding each other along
the stretch of time
Examples of processes, going from the macro-level toward the micro-level, would include:
industrialization, urbanization, globalization, secularization, democratization, escalation of
war, mobilization of social movements, liquidation of a firm, dissolution of a voluntary
association, crystallization of a friendship circle, crisis in the family….. Again, the crucial
theoretical issue is the linkage between micro-processes and macro-processes.
Among social processes two specific forms have been singled out by sociologists, and for many
decades become the focus of their attention. These are social development and social cycle.
A. Social Development
Social development describes the process of unfolding some potentiality inherent in the system.
More precisely, the concept signifies a process with three additional characteristics:
i.
it is directional, i.e., no state of the system repeats itself at any stage,
ii.
the state of the system at any later moment represents a higher level of some
selected property (eg. There is growing differentiation of structure, or higher
economic output, or the advance of technologies, or enlarged population), or at each
5
iii.
later moment the state of the system comes closer to some indicated overall state
(eg. The society approaches the condition of social equality, universal prosperity, or
democratic representation), and
this is stimulated by the immanent (internal, endogenous, auto-dynamic)
propensities of the system(eg. expansion of human population with accompanying
growth in density, the resolution of internal contradictions by establishing
qualitatively new forms of social life, channeling human inborn creativenesstowards significant organizational innovations)
The notion of development carries some strong assumptions: the inevitability, necessity, and
irreversibility of the process it describes.
B. Social cycle
Social cycle is another form a social process particularly stressed by sociologists. The process is
no longer directional, but not haphazard either. It is characterized by two traits:
i.
it follows a circular patterns: each state of the system at any given moment is apt to
reaper at some moment in the future, and itself is a replica of what had already
occurred at some moment in the past;
ii.
the repetition is due to some immanent tendency of the system, which by its very
nature unfolds in such a specific undulating, or oscillating way.
Thus, in the short run there are changes, but in the long run there is no change, as the system
returns to its initial state.
1.2.4. The alternative models: The dynamic social field
It is only recently that sociology has put into doubt the validity of organic systemic models of
society, and the very dichotomy of social statistics and social dynamics. Two intellectual trends
seem to gain in importance:
i.
the emphasis on the pervasive dynamic qualities of social reality, i.e., perceiving
society in motion (procession image), and
ii.
The avoidance of treating society, group, organization as an object, i.e., de-reifying
social reality (field image).
The first imitations that the opposition of statistics and dynamics may be spurious, and that no
changeless objects, entities, structures or whole can be conceived at all, come from the natural
science. As Alfred N. Whitehead put it: “change is inherent in the very nature of things
(1925:179). Such a purely dynamic or procession perspective soon turned into the dominant
approach, the tendency of modern science to treat events rather than things, processes rather than
states, as the ultimate components of reality.
For sociology it meant that society should be conceived not as a steady state but as a process; as
a rigid quasi-object, but as a continuous, unending stream of events. It was recognized that a
6
society (group, community, organization, nation-state) may be said to exist only in so far, and
only as long, as something happens inside it, some actions are taken, some changes occur, some
processes continue to operate. Ontologically speaking, society as a steady state does not and
cannot exist. All social reality is pure dynamics, a flow of changes of various speed,
intensity, rhythm and tempo. Life is movement, motion, and change, when those stop there
is no more life, by an entirely different conditions, nothing ness, or as we call it, death.
The methodological consequence of such a dynamic view of social of social life is the rejection
of the validity of purely synchronic studies and the affirmation of a diachronic (historical)
perspective.,
1.3. Types of social processes: Typology
To get our bearings in the complex domain of social change, we need to introduce a typology of
social processes. The classification can be based on the following criteria’s:
a. the form or shape the process takes,
b. the outcomes of results of the process,
c. the awareness of social processes in the population,
d. the moving forces behind the process,
e. the seat of causality, and
f. temporal range of processes.
A. The form or shape of the social process takes
If we look at the processes from the distant, external perspective, various forms and shapes can
be recognized. The process can be directional or non-directional.
i. Directional process: The directional processes are irreversible and often cumulative. Each
consecutive stage is different from any earlier stage and incorporates effects of the earlier stage,
while each stage provides prerequisites for the latter stage. The idea of irreversibility emphasizes
that in human life there are deeds which cannot be un-experienced.
Directional processes may be gradual, incremental, or we sometimes say linear. When they
follow one single trajectory, or pass through similar sequences of necessary stages, they are
called unilinear. Evolutionary change is an example of unilinear process. On the other hand,
when the process follow a number of alternative trajectories, skip some stages, substitute others,
or add stages not typically found, they are called multilinear.
Non-linear process: Non-linear process is the opposite of linear processes which proceed by
means of qualitative leaps or break through after prolonged periods of quantitative growth,
passing specific thresholds or affecting certain step functions. Revolutionary change is a good
example of multilinear process.
7
ii. Non-directional (or fluid) processes
This may be of two types:
1. Some are random, chaotic with no pattern discernible. For instance, process of
mobilization and demobilization in social movement.
2. Processes that are oscillatory, following discernible patterns of repetition or at least
similarity, when consecutive stages are either identical with, or at least quantitatively
resemble, earlier ones. When virtual recurrence is observable, we consider the process as
circular, or as a closed cycle.
B. The end result of social process
Some processes result in the emergence of completely new social conditions, state of society,
social circumstances, etc. The term morphogenesis, according to Buckley, refers to all processes
of this sort. Morphogenetic processes are to be found at the origins of all the civilizations,
technological, cultural and social achievements of human kind, from early primitive society up to
the modern industrial society.
These must be distinguished from the process of mere transmutation, which produce less
radical results without fundamental novelty. This can be again divided into simple reproduction,
extended, and Transformation process.
i. Simple Reproduction: Simple reproduction does not produce any novelty at all. It is
compensatory, adaptive, homeostatic, equilibrating, or sustaining processes. It results in
upholding received conditions, preserving the status quo, safeguarding the persistence and
continuation of society in an entirely unchanged shape. This is the focus of attention of
structural functionalists. Simple reproduction keeps everything unchanged. Socialization, social
control, etc, are examples of simple reproduction.
ii. Extended reproduction: extended reproduction results merely in modifying, reforming,
reshaping, existing social arrangements. It signifies a quantitative enrichment without
qualitative modification. The opposite, quantitative impoverishment, again without qualitative
change, may be called contracted reproduction, as with spending of financial saving without
any saving, so called negative growth of population, the unbridled exploitation of natural
resources.
iii. Transformation: Basic qualitative modification not reproduction. Such changes touch the
core reality.
C. Process in social consciousness
8
Based on the awareness of change by the people involved, and particularly the awareness of the
results that processes bring about, three types of changes can be distinguished.
These are:
i.
Manifest process: this is recognized, anticipated, and intended process. For instance,
legalizing currency exchange eliminates the black market; the reform of traffic laws
lowers the number of accidents.
ii.
Latent Process: latent process is the process that is unintended, unrecognized and
unanticipated. The change itself and the outcomes are surprising.
iii.
Boomerang Process: in this case people may recognize the process, anticipate its
course and intend specific effects, but may be entirely wrong on all accounts. The
process runs against their expectations and produces results different from, or entirely
opposite to, those intended. Merton and Kendale call it boomerang process. For
example, a propaganda campaign may actually strengthen the attitude of attacks, by
mobilizing the defense and provoking a negative reaction.
D. The seat of causality
The next major criterion of differentiating between types of social processes has to do with the
moving forces behind them, the causal factors putting them in motion. The main is where such
forces or factors originate, whether in the realm undergoing change (endogenous process or
intrinsic causation) or outside (exogenous process or extrinsic causation).
Endogenous processes unfold inherent potentialities, properties, or tendencies enclosed
within changing reality. Exogenous processes are reactive, adaptive, they respond to
pressures, stimuli, and challenges coming from without.
E. levels of social process
Social process occurs at three levels. These are:
1. Macro processes: macro processes run as the most comprehensive level of global society,
nation states, regions, ethnic groups and their time span is longest. Globalization is an
example of such processes.
2. mezzo processes: mezzo processes embrace large groups, communities, associations,
political parties, bureaucracies etc
3. Micro processes: micro processes occur in the everyday life of world of human
individual, in small groups, families, schools, occupational settings and friendship cycles.
G. temporal range of processes
9
Social process stretches from the processes spending themselves in the extremely short periods,
fleeting, momentary, all the way to long range historical tendencies taking centuries and
millennia.
1.4. Characteristic of Social change
Societies and cultures rarely stand still: they are frequently involved in a process of change.
Society is always in flux. Social change has some characteristics. These are:
i. Social change may occur on varying levels and in varying amount of intensity. Social
change may occur at micro- or macro level. Micro changes are subtle alterations in the
day to day interaction between people. The change is in specific aspects of life. Example,
hairstyle, dressing style, greeting style, feeding style, etc. Macro-changes are gradual
transformations that occur on a broad scale and affect many aspects of society. The
process of modernization that causes different social differentiation, rise of computer that
alters means of communication and working habits are examples of macro processes.
When we see the intensity, for example, society reforms are adjustments in the content of
cultural patterns of behavior or normative systems, adjustments that do not fundamentally
alter the social structure. Social revolutions, on the other hand, are fundamental and radical
upheavals of existing structures. Revolutions sometimes involve bloody battles between
organized armies. The industrials revolution, for example, fundamentally altered the
process of production and the power and control workers had over those processes, and
therefore it changed institutions, roles, and statuses. But it did not occur on a battlefield
between clearly organized armies. The battle field was the shop floor in the factories, and the
conflict was initially between individual workers and owners (although, to
be sure, the
struggles in the labor movement that emerged many years later were at times quite bloody).
ii.
Social change can be manifest and planned, or latent and unplanned: Manifest
/planned change are deliberate and conscious organization of movements for change. The
movement made by African countries in 1950s, 60s and 70s to gain independence or
women’s movement for social, political, and economic equality are examples of planned
change. On the other hand, latent/unplanned is largely unrecognized and unintended
changes. Social change is sometimes intentional but often unplanned
iii.
Social change happens everywhere, although the rate of changes varies from place
to place as some societies change faster than others. Technologically complex
(modern) societies change faster than preliterate societies. Moreover, even in a given
society, some cultural elements change more quickly than others. William
Ogburn’s(1964) theory of culture lag recognize that material culture(that is, things)
usually changes faster than non-material cultural(ideas and attitudes). Some changes
10
are rapid (for example, computerization), whereas others are more gradual (for
example, urbanization).Sometimes people adapt quickly to change. Other times people
resist change or are slow to adapt new possibilities (for instance, use of contraceptive,
for instance). The speed of social change varies from society to society and from time to
time within the same society. As societies become more complex, the place of change
increases.
iv.
Social change is uneven: The different parts of society do not all change at the same
rate, some parts log behind others. This is the principle of culture lag (William Ogburn,
1992). Culture lag refer to the delay between the time social conditions change and
the time cultural adjustments are made. Often the first change is a development in
material culture (such as technological changes in computer hardware), which is followed
sometime latter by a change in non-material culture (the habits and moves of the culture).
The symptom of culture lag can be seen in the uneven dissemination of computer power.
Some organizations adopt more quickly than others. Even within a single organization,
change occurs unequally, with older employees tending to adapt to new technology more
slowly than younger members.
v.
The problem of social change is often unforeseen: The inventor of atomic bomb in the
early 1940s might not predict the vast changes in the character of international relations.
Television pioneers might not know that television would become such a dominant
force in determining the interest and habit of youth and the activities and structure of
family. I.e. change in family relations. The notion of culture lag is present in both of these
examples: a change in material culture (invention off atomic bomb and television)
precedes late change in non-material culture (international relations, youth culture and
family relations). These unplanned out comes often very dangerous and quiet
unpredictable made the growth of modern society as “risky society”. Industrial societies
actively promote many kinds of change. Yet even the experts of rarely envisage all the
consequences of the changes they promote. For example, automotive pioneers could
hardly have predicted the millions of deaths each year worldwide and environmental
degradation in many ways.
vi.
Social change often generates controversy: it creates conflict. Some support social
change while others oppose/resist it. In other words, most social change yields both
positive and negative consequences (as the history of the automobile demonstrates).
Positive consequences make travel easier and shorten. The environmental degradation
is the negative consequence for those who oppose automobile. Industrial revolution was
also differently welcomed by capitalists and workers. For capitalists the new
technology increases productivity and they support it. For workers, due to the fear that
the technology obsoletes their work, they oppose/resist the “progress”.
11
Changes often trigger conflicts along racial-ethnic lines, social class lines, and
gender lines. Terrorism focuses attention on the deep conflicts that exist worldwide in
political, ethnic and religious divisions. The social conflicts not only produce
international tension, but often drive the world events that generate social change.
vii.
Some changes matter more than others: Some social changes have only passing
significance, where as other transformations resonates for generations. For example,
clothing fashions burst among the youth and powerful technological innovations such as
televisions and information revolutions computer are not equally considered.
viii.
The direction of social change is not random: Change has “direction” relative to the
society’s history. A populace may want to make a good society better, or it may rebel
against status quo regarded as unendurable. Change may be wanted or resisted, but in
either case, when it occurs, it takes place within a specific social and cultural context.
ix.
Social change cannot erase the past. As a society moves toward the future, it carries
along its past, its traditions and its institutions. A generally satisfied populace that strives
to make a good society better obviously wishes to preserve its past, but even when a
society is in revolt against a status quo that is intolerable, the social changes that occurs
must be understood in the context of the past as much as the future.
Chapter 2: The Temporal Dimension of Social change: Social time
The notion of change implies the temporal sequence. The concept of change and time are
inseparably linked together. It is impossible to talk about change without time and vic vers.
2.1. Time as the dimension of social life
All social phenomena occur at some moment in time. All social processes stretch over time. In
short, social life is lived in time. Time, like space, is a universal context of social life: we must
grasp the time,-space relations inherent in the constitution of all social interaction…. Ant pattern
of interaction that existed are situated in time. Time is the indispensable dimension of human
reality implicated in every aspect of our lives.
Obviously, however, time is even more intimately related to social change. The very experience
of time and the idea of time derive from the changing nature of reality. It is impossible to
conceive of time without reference to some change. And, vice versa. The idea of change apart
from time appears in the definition of social change, which usually refers to the difference of two
states of the social system over time. Thus, as Pitirim Sorokin puts it with characteristics clarity:
12
any becoming, change, process, motion, movement, dynamic state, in contradiction to being,
implies time.
Some of the main properties of time as the dimension of every social phenomenon include:
➢ Every social phenomena or event is related to other social phenomena or event. All social
acts are temporally fitted inside of larger social acts. We call this time emboddedness.
This is to say that there are no absolutely single, unique, or isolated social phenomena or
events. This is true at macro, or mezzo, or micro level social events. For instance, peace
follows war; opposition follows dictatorial policy, and so on. All this happens within
the stretch of history.
➢ If we look more closely at every social phenomena or event, we shall see that it is not
only related externally to other phenomena but can be internally broken down into
components, and that those components are also temporarily interrelated. Some internal
relations are again sequential, linking earlier and later stages or phases of the
phenomena.
➢ Whenever we think of a phenomenon as a momentary, fleeting instantaneous, it is always
a matter of the relative time framework that we apply. There are no timeless phenomena
or event. Sequence and duration are two fundamental aspects of social life, which
become reflected as two crucial aspects of time.
➢ Social events and phenomena are irreversible. Once something has happened, it cannot be
undone.
➢ The irreversibility of the time flow implies the distinction between past, present, and
future.
➢ The distinction of time past, time present, and time future is also not as sharp as it may
seem. Strictly speaking, there is no present, because social processes are continuous, and
at every conceivable moment they are instantly passing from the past to the future; they
already in the past or no longer in the future.
2.2. Time as the aspect of social change
For the study of social change, time is not only a universal dimension, but the core, constitutive
factor. In social life change is ubiquitous; strictly speaking, there are no two, temporally distinct
states of any social entity (a social action, a group, a community, an institution, a society) that
can be identical.
Change and time are always there, and the idea of stability is a handy convention.
Accordingly, stability indicates slow change.
When related to social changes, time may appear in two guises:
13
i.
a.
b.
c.
d.
it may serve as an external framework for the measurement of events and
processes, ordering their chaotic flow for the benefit of human orientation or
the coordination of social action. This is implies quantitative time, for
instance, clock and calendar. Social changes are timed events in time.
ii.
There is another why in which time blends with social change, no longer as
external, conventional framework but as internal, immanent, ontological
property of social events and processes. This is quantitative time, defined by
the nature of social processes, they will manifest various temporal quantities:
they are typically longer or shorter,
they run slower or quicker,
they are marked by rhythmic or random intervals, and
They are sliced into units of different substantive qualities by means of natural or social
circumstances.
2.3. Time in conscious and Time in culture
1. The level of awareness of time: Some have obsessive concern with time, the flow of
time, the passing of time, the lack of time (the time is money syndrome); and at the
opposite extreme marked by indifference, negligence and permissiveness with respect to
time.
2. The depth of awareness of time: Sometimes only the immediate recent or nearest time
is recognized (presentism), and sometimes distant time is recognized, considered,
endowed with importance and meaning.
3. The shape or form of time: This is to say that social change can be cyclical (repetitive)
or linear (non-repetitive and directional).
4. The emphasis on the past or future: This time perspective is dependent on structure and
function of society. Some society focus on past while others are concerned with present
issues.
5. The way of convincing the future: Some passively encountered or, while others actively
constructed. The former suggests anticipation and adaptation, and the later planning.
6. The dominant value emphasis either on change, novelty and process, or on
recurrence, similarity and order.
The factor of time may enter the culture of a society, community or social groups not only in the
general orientation of time, but also in much more specific form of rules (normative
expectations) regulating various aspects of human conduct. For instance, clusters of norms and
values related to important social functions like education, family, economy, politics, etc and
within various social roles, i.e., clusters of norms and values linked with specific social positions
(like those of teacher, managers, etc).
14
Briefly, rules dealing with time are structurally embedded in wider networks of rules, in social
normative systems. One important category of such rules has been singled out by Robert K.
Merton and called “socially expected duration. Time regulates the duration of certain acts.
2.4. Functions of social Time
There are some universal functions that time serves in every society. And there are also
important historical differences between early traditional societies and modern industrial
societies with respect to the role of time. Wilbert Moore (1963a) suggests triple functions which
have to do with three universal aspects of social life: synchronization of simultaneous actions,
sequencing of following actions, and determining rate of actions within a temporal unit. Starting
from there, we may develop a more extended typology or function of time.
1. Time helps in the synchronization of activities: A large part of social life in every society
is filled by collective action, things done together by large numbers of people. For collective
action to occur, people must find themselves at same place at the same moment.
2. Coordination: Individuals actions do not occur in a vacuum. Large numbers of them are
related, leading to a common goal, or adding to the creation of a common product. Division
of labor is a good example for this.
3. Sequencing: Social process run in stages, events follow one another in specific sequence,
there is an inherent, necessary logic to most process.
4. Timing: Some activities can be undertaken only if facilities or resources are available, and
they may not be available at all times.
5. Measuring: The duration of various activities may have decisive social importance.
6. Differentiating: It is important to break the monotony and routine of living by allocating
various periods to various activities. `
Chapter Three
Theories about the cause and patterns of change
3.1. Introduction
There are more general explanations –theories-about how societies work and how change comes
about.” Theory” merely means how we explain things. Theories are general explanations that
enable us to make sense out of particular facts and events. They answer our questions about how
and why things happen or develop the way they do. Without being aware of it, we theorize about
things all the time.
They are usually competing theories about something and unfortunately the facts do not speak
for themselves but have to be interpreted as to their meaning. More formally, a scientific theory
15
is an abstract explanatory scheme that is potentially open to disconfirmation by evidence. Being
abstract means that it is composed of generalizations not tied to particular events.
Theory in sociology
Social science, like all sciences, assumes that events are not entirely random and that, in spite of
the complexity and apparent unpredictability of the social world, there is at least a degree of
order and predictability appearances. Any scientific attempt to understand social change must be
centrally concerned with theories of social change. Given the complexity of the social world,
social scientists often use models, which are simplified theories shorn of much elaboration and
detail. While we usually assume that a theory asserts something that is true about the world, a
model may be used as a useful metaphor or analogy to facilitate our understanding of something,
without the model itself being true in any real sense. For instance, we might use a computer
model to understand the way in which the human brain processes information, or a biological
organism as a model to understand something about human groups. But in literal sense the
human brain is not a computer and social groups are not biological systems. Such use of models
is useful but obviously very slippery (unreliable).
Theories can rarely be tested empirically as totalities. Hence we usually try to extract from
theories statements of relationships that can be examined empirically. When translated into the
concrete language of research, these become hypotheses.
It is conventional in sociology to distinguish between theories of large scale structures and
processes (macro-theories) and theories of small scale structures and processes (micro-theories).
In between these, in terms of scope and abstractness, is what is called middle range theories. For
instance, macro-theories deal with societies, middle-range theories would include general
theories of organizations, revolutions, and so forth, while micro-theories would deal with faceto-face interpersonal behavior or the dynamics of small gropes.
This chapter describes theories that relates to understanding
▪ The causes of change, and
▪ The patterns of directions of change.
3.2. Theories about the causes of change
The basic question here is “what are the most important general causes of change? Various
explanations are given to these. These explanations are generally falling into two general
categories: those that emphasize materialistic factors (such as economic production and
technology) and those that emphasize idealistic factors (such as values, ideologies, and beliefs).
16
3.2.1. Materialistic perspectives
Many have speculated that material factors are the primary causes of social and cultural change.
Material factors in this context usually mean economic factors, such as natural resources, wealth,
or the tools and techniques (technologies) related to economic production. In general, it is argued
that new technologies and modes of economic production produce changes in social interaction,
social organization, and ultimately cultural values, beliefs, and norm. The most influential classic
thinker to adopt this argument was Karl Marx.
A. The Marxist perspective
In a statement that illustrates his general argument, Marx stated that”the wind will give you a
society with the feudal lord, steam-mill give you with a society with the industrial capitalist”
(1920:119). Marx argued that the force of production is central in shaping society and social
change. By “force of production,” Marx meant primarily production technologies (for example,
wind mills) leads to the creation of certain “social relation of production” (for example, relations
between the feudal lord who owns the wind mil and his serfs).
Thus economic classes form the basic anatomy of society, and other things (ideas, ideologies,
values, political structures, and so forth) arise in to them. Changes in the forces of production
(technologies) erode the basis of the old system and classes and open new possibilities.
B. Other materialistic perspectives
William Ogburn (1930s) argued material culture (technology) changes more rapidly than the
non-material aspects of culture (ideas, values, norms, ideologies). That is, humans are often more
wiling to adopt new techniques and tools than to change their cultural values and traditions. He
argued that there is often a “cultural lag” between the material culture and non-material culture,
which is a source of tension.
How technology causes change?
Technology can cause change in three different ways. First, innovation increases the alternative
available in a society. New technology m ay bring previously unattainable ideas within the realm
of possibilities, and it may after the relative difficulty or ease of realizing differing values.
Second, new technology alters interaction patterns among people. Third, technological
innovation creates new “problems” to be dealt with. It is important to emphasize that they (three
ways above) are found together; it changes the structure of human groups and communities, and
it ultimately creates a new set of problems. Planners of deliberate technical innovation often
forget the last two factors.
17
Finally, it is well to mention some of the limit of considering technology as a cause of change.
Significant social change can occur without technical change may not produce significant change
at all levels of society.
3.2.2. Idealistic perspectives
There are those who have seen ideas, values, and ideologies as the cause of social change. These
can collectively be termed as ideational aspect of culture. Ideas here include both knowledge and
beliefs; values are assumptions about what is desirable and undesirable and ideology means a
more or less organized combination of beliefs and values that serve to justify or legitimize forms
of human action (for example, democracy, capitalism, socialism).
The classic thinker in sociology who argued most persuasively that ideational culture can have a
causative role in change was max Weber.
A. Weber’s perspective
Weber (1905) argued, contrary to Marx, that the development of industrial capitalism can not be
understood only in terms of material and technical causes, although he did not deny their
importance. He argued that certain value systems in western societies produced the development,
in interaction with material causes. Weber observed that the regions of Europe in which
industrial capitalism was most developed at the earliest dates were those regions with the
heaviest concentrations of Protestants. He argued that the values of Protestantism more
specifically Calvinism and related religious groups produced a cultural ethic that sanctified work
and worldly achievement, encouraged frugality, and discourage consumption, encouraged
savings.
The unintended social consequence of this religious world view, which he termed “this worldly
asceticism,” was to encourage the development of large pools of capital, and rational reinvestment and economic growth. Weber argued that the industrial capitalism would not have in
catholic areas, even though the material and technical preconditions were often present. Weber
also argued that there were ideational barriers to the development of capitalism in China and
India. Salvation was seen in the observance of religious ritual, not in work in the world.
While Weber’s characterization of the world religious is surely over simplified and not adequate
in terms of today’s scholarly understanding of them, the major thrust of his argument remains:
values and beliefs-both religious and secular can have decisive impact on shaping social change.
Weber was not saying that ideational factors are the only important causes of change. However,
Marx devalued the role of ideas and values as causes.
18
3.2.3. The interaction of causes
If material and ideation factors are both causes of change, they interact over time as causes of
change; they interact over time as causes and consequences. Thus we are brought to the reality of
the interaction of causes and the notion of multiple causations.
The way that different cause of change interacts or combine is not a simple matter. There are at
least three different ways that causes can interact. First, there is mutual feedback, in which
various factors affect each other in turn.
X→y
Y→x
Second, there is multiple causation, in which causes x and cause y both have an independent and
incremental effect on outcome z.
X→Z
Y→ Z
Third, there is combined causation in which a variety of factors must be present for a particular
outcome or change to occur.
X→y→Z
Combined causation is particularly important in the study of novels social reforms, historical
change and new technologies. Weber’s view of the emergence of industrial capitalism was that it
required the material base (such as resources and technologies) but also critical values and
attitude (about work and nationality).
3.3. Theory about the pattern of change
When we look at change from a broad perspective, can general patterns or directions of social
change be seen? Let us turn now to the question of general patterns and directions of change.
Theories can be grouped into three categories in terms of how they view the pattern and direction
of change. These are:
Linear models,
Cyclical model, and
Dialectical models
3.3.1. Linear models of change
Linear models assert that change is cumulative, non-repetitive, evolutionary, and usually
permanent. Change never returns to the same point. Linear models can depict change in two
stages or in terms of process that has intermediate stages.
The classical thinkers in sociology and anthropology concocted many two-stage theories of
change. Examples of these are:
Redfield’s theory about the transition from “folk” to “urban” societies
Durkheims theory of the transition from “mechanical” to “organic” solidarity.
19
Tonnies theory of change from “gemeinschaft” to “gesellschaft”.
These theories differ in the factors they emphasize, but all view the broad historical pattern of
change in human societies as involving the transition from small, undifferentiated societies with
homogenous culture to large societies with high degree of structural differentiation and a
heterogeneous culture. Each, in some sense, depicts the evolution from preliterate to modern
societies. Let us see Lenski’s contemporary macro “stage” theory of the evolution of societies.
These illustrations are linear models of change that connect several -rather than two stages in an
evolutionary sequence.
The evolution of human societies
Lenski(Lenski and Lenskii, 1982) developed a broad evolutionary theory of different type of
societies (hunting and gathering, pastoral and horticultural, agricultural, industrial) in which the
transitions from one form to the next were caused by innovations in the technology of economic
production that produced an ever larger and more certain surplus of food and material resources.
At each larger stage, according to Lenski’s theory, society come to able to support a larger
population and it became more complex and internally differentiated.
Hunting and Gathering Societies: Hunting and gathering societies are the oldest type of human
societies and still exist in a few scattered places. They were essentially subsistence economies
that produce no significant economic surplus. These were small nomadic groups whose daily life
was occupied by the hunting of animals and the search for edible foods. Example of near
contemporary hunters and gathers are:
• The Plains Indians of North America
• The polar Eskimos
• The Bushmen of Kalahari desert in southern Africa.
They traveled in bands of about fifty people, following the wild game and carrying virtually all
their possessions with them. The division of labor was simple, based on age and sex. Males were
typically hunters, while the women and children searched for edible plants. “The social unit“was
coterminous with the family and kinship. Leadership was informal and situational, and there
were no subsistence roles. Everyone helped with the search for food. These were very
equalitarian societies, since everyone had some rights to share in the food.
In sum, hunters and gatherers were small, undifferentiated societies that took food from the
physical environment as they found it. They required a very large territory to support even small
nomadic bands.
Pastoral and Horticultural Societies: Pastoralists and horticulturalists discovered a more
efficient way of making a living from environment, by cultivating crops (yams, corn) and
domesticating of animals (sheep, goats).The woodland Indians of Eastern North America, and
the Trobriand Islanders in Melanesia (New Guinea) are examples. Raising crops and shepherding
animals produced a more certain and large food supply.
20
While pastoralists continued to be nomadic, the horticulturalists began to live in larger settled
residences. The central social unit among horticulturalists was the village, which could support
populations of several hundred people and incorporate several different family and kinship units.
Thus compared with the hunters and gatherers, these groups represented a growth in the scale of
human society as well as an increasingly complex division of labor.
The food surplus could support people with full-time no subsistence roles (leaders, craft workers,
artists, warriors, magicians). Complex and stable social institutions that were separate from the
family and kinship began to emerge. For example, a separate political system in which villages
came to be ruled by “hadmen’ and hereditary rules. Thus the level of social inequality increased
with a generalized distinction between rules, specialists, and /or ordinary people.
Agricultural Societies: Agricultural societies originated between 5000 and 6000 years ago and
included the earliest civilizations (for example, ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, ancient china, and
the Roman Empire). Increased productivity and levels of surplus surpassed those of
horticulturalists in agricultural society.
The invention of basic irrigation techniques and metal working and literacy were also important
technological bases of agricultural societies. The basic social unit was now the city state
surrounded by much larger area of villages that are within the sphere of control of the city.
Although cities were much larger and denser human settlements (perhaps 20,000), probably 90%
of the population of agricultural societies still lived in rural villages.
With increased degree of internal differentiation and complexity of non-subsistence occupational
specialties (traders, scribes, priests, potters, weavers, metalworkers, warriors, slaves, healers, and
no forth.), such stratified social classes in descended order of dominance included (1) kings and
nobles (2) priests and scribes (3) merchants and warriors (4) craft worker and artisans and at the
bottom (5) peasants and slaves who farmed the land.
Industrial Societies: Industrial societies began about 200 years ago in Europe. They began to
evolve as technological innovations, first in the textile industry in England-that substituted
machine production for human and animal labor. Industrial production for dependant not only on
the invention of new machine but also on the utilization of new energy sources to power themwater power, steam engine, hydroelectric power, petroleum and so forth.
This new system vastly increased societies’ level of productivity and their ability to produce
surpluses of both agricultural and industrial products. A phenomenal economic growth began
that was driven by the intensification of capital investment and technology (and eventually the
deem phasing of labor) as components in economic production.
The social and cultural changes that followed from the new industrial system of production were
profound. People began to migrate to the cities in unprecedented numbers, not only because of
the factory jobs were located there, but also because the upgrading of agricultural technology had
21
reduced the demand for laborers in rural areas. Labor become increasingly a cash commodity
rather than a subsistence activity, and work became increasingly separated from family life. The
long term consequence of this was that most people in industrial societies came to reside in
larger urban centers (beginning the long term global trend of urbanization).
The vast increase of productivity required more raw materials and larger markets; hence it
stimulated improvements in communication and transportation.
Lenski argues that industrial societies are somewhat more egalitarian than agricultural societies,
with regard to political right and the distribution of material goods, thus revising the long term
evolutionary trend towards greater inequality in agricultural societies. But industrial societies are
not utopias (imagine perfect places): with greater mass consumption comes environmental
despoliations (exploitation), pollution, cyclical economic depressions, depersonalization, and a
great deal of moral ambiguity. Overt operations may have been traded for subtle forms of
alienation without question, more people eat more regularly than in hunting and gathering bands,
but are questionable whether they are happier or lead more satisfying social lives. Lenski’s
theory of linear change can not be simplistically equated with a theory of human progress.
Urbanization
Urbanization is important global change process that, like Lenski theory of societital evolution,
can also illustrate a linear evolutionary model of change. Cities are ancient, but as recently as
1800, only 3 percent of the world’s population was urbanized. But, by 1985, over 70 percent of
the world’s populations in the more developed nations and over 30 percent in the less developed
nations were urbanized.
Cities are larger and more densely settled communities than rural village or towns, and Max
Weber (1921) noted that cities have three distinctive characteristics:
A larger and more important market place where dwellers buy or barter essential goods and
services,
A center of political and administrative authority that regulate the market and city life and
often that of the surrounding country side as well, and
A defined human community (administered by the authorities) of dwellers having the
status, rights and duties of citizenship.
Focusing on the interaction of the dimension of social life mentioned by Max Weber: economic,
production, political power; and community conflict, let us illustrate a linear theory of change by
describing the organization and reorganization of cities in different historical epochs.
For every evolving city the (1) focal economic activity (2) spatial patterning (3) power holders
and forms, and (4) sources of community conflict and popular community responses are
mentioned.
22
Ancient and medieval: ancient and medieval cities which date back to 3500 BC would include,
as examples, ancient Babylon, old Delhi, Tokyo, Rome, etc. Small by today’s standards, many
had as few as 20,000 people and Rome, one of the premier cities of the ancient world, had only
300,000 at its peak.
Though these cities did have markets, they were not primary sites of economic production. They
were mainly the political, administrative, and ceremonial centers. Peasant villagers were the real
sources of wealth for the cities.
Commercial cities: Commercial cities were different from ancient and medieval cities in that
trade, shipping, craft production, and banking became primary sources of economic production
and wealth. These are cities of early 14th C. Industrial cities were stimulated by the development
of industrial technology, which made possible the mass production of goods in highly centralized
factories.
Corporate cities: during the postwar 1950 developments in technology, communication, and
transportation gradually decentralized industrial production. Multidivisional firms evolved that
had offices, plants and subsidiaries in many locations. Larger corporations developed. The
construction of freeways and post war housing boom stimulated suburban growth, the migration
of people, services and money away from the older urban “core”.
“World cities”: world cities are the headquarters of large multinational firms and large banks
that manage world economy. Examples, New York, London, Mexico city, Los Angeles, etc. The
very concept of “world city” is partly a futuristic one, since; their characteristics as distinict type
of urban formations are not entirely clear.
General summary of important features of the two linear theoretical models is as follow;
• Lenski argues that at the stages of societal evolution (hunting and gathering→ pastoral→
horticultural →agricultural →industrial) represent “discontinuous leaps” in human
history as new societal forms and modes of human living emerge.
• Similarly, the stage model of urbanization depicts a process of evolution that partly
destroys the old and then transforms city life into new form
• Both Lenski’s theory and the urban evolution model see technological innovations as
precondition for change.
• In both models each seemingly discontinuous stage is in fact dependent up on more
subtle cumulative processes involving the gradual addition of new elements to a
continuing base. Each society or city does not necessarily pass through the same set of
fixed stages
3.3.2. Cyclical models of change
Another conception of the long-term pattern or direction of change is that it is cyclical or
repetitive. The French have a phrase for it: “plus ca change, plus c’est la mime chose” (“the more
things change, the more they stay the same”). This view doesn’t deny change but denies that it is
23
leading anywhere over the long term. Advocates of cyclical models of change argue that in
important ways, history does repeat itself.
The classical macro cyclical theories of change were mostly “rise and fall” theories of
civilizations. In the twentieth century social scientists began to phrase such cyclical theories not
in term of moral cycles of recurring decadence, but in terms of biological models of growth and
decay. Societies were thus said to be like organic systems, going through periods of youth,
adolescent growth, mature vigor, and senility in old age.
The most pessimistic among these was Oswald Spengler (1930s) who argues that western
European civilization was in its twilight (the period of decline and destruction) years and could
be expected to be replaced by newer, more rigorous civilizations. This major statement of this
thesis, aptly titled -The decline of west (1932)
Similar, but less pessimistic, were the theories of Arnold Toynbee (1962), who at least held out
hope of the revitalization of declining civilizations by reinvigorating the creativity of the elites.
Within sociology, the most influential cyclical theory was that of Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968),
who argued that the master “cycles” of history of history were oscillations between periods
dominated by idealism and those dominated by hedonism (belief in pleasure as mankind’s proper
aim) and materialism, interspersed by periods of transition that creatively “blended” the two
dominant cultural frameworks.
In the western historical context, Sorokin, argued that medieval Europe was an epoch dominated
by idealism, the renaissance and reformation were transition periods, and contemporary western
societies are dominated by materialism and hedonism. He anticipated the ultimate collapse of
western materialism and return to a more idealistic culture.
Social Change in Western Societies
Medieval (idealism)
Renaissance and
reformation
(transition)
Medieval(idealism
Contemporary
western societies
(materialism and
hedonism)
24
As you can see, these classic cyclical theories are rather pessimistic: they don’t urge us to take
for much long-range significant change, much less any improvement in the human condition.
Repetitive economic expansion and contraction, political and economic cycles in America are
examples of contemporary long-range cycles and global social change.
Long cycles and global change
Numerous analyses have noted a periodicity of the outbreak of major wars in western history
over the last 200 years and wondered about it. And some economists (mainly European) have
argued that there are “long wave” cycles of expansion and contraction in the world economy,
termed Kondratieff cycles, with peaks between 45 and 60 years apart.
Forrester makes a plausible case for such long wave cycle with depressions about 50 years apart,
in the 1830s, 1890s and the 1930s. But the evidence for such cycles remains controversial as
many American academic economists assert that no such economic cycles exist.
3.3.3. Dialectical Models
Daniel Chirot (1986) argues that repetitive cycles are embedded in longer range historical eras
that are not repetitive. He therefore, in fact, combines cyclical and linear models of change.
Chirot sees the cycles of industrial societies as follows:
✓ The first industrial cycle- began in Europe with the industrial revolution in textile (1780s1820s).
✓ The second industrial cycle- based on the development of iron and rail roads (lasted 1870s).
✓ The third cycle- based on the steel and the chemical industries.
✓ The fourth cycle- based on automobiles and a great amount of mass consumption (after 1950)
Dialectical models of change are more complex than either purely linear or cyclical ones. They
assume that social life has inherent stresses or “contradictions;” which develop because every
social development, even a successful one, carries within it the “seeds of its own destruction” or
(at least its own modification). Significant change takes place as an attempt to resolve the
accumulation of intolerable contradictions. Such resolution produce new social and cultural
forms so, like linear or evolutionary change they do not merely repeat the past, and they also
contain predictable cycles-of sorts-in the accumulation of contradictions with resolutions.
Dialectical model contain, therefore, elements of both linear and cyclical change. How so?
Robert Ash Garner explains that:
History “repeats itself” only in the sense that some processes of change
persists. The contents of these processes, the specific processes that are
changing, are never quite the same…. Small changes pile up until the
system collapses. The old system gives way to a new one. The old system
drops into the past, never to be revived. However, the new system, already
at the same moment of its appearance contains stresses that will slowly
enlarge, like cracks in the foundation of the building, until the whole
25
collapses. Yet the process is not cyclical. Growth, decay and collapse
never return us to the initial starting point. Change is spiral than cyclic.
(1977:408)
In social science the best known advocate of a dialectical theory of social change was Karl Marx.
He argued that change resulted from “class struggles” between those with “material interests” in
existing systems of production systems and those with interests in new and emerging ones.
While such dialectical thought is rooted in classical Marxism, some dialectical theories differ
from classical Marxism in that they do not accept economically based “class conflict” as the
only, or even the most important source of “contradiction” that produce conflict and change.
Immanuel wallerstein (1974) is a more contemporary “materialist” dialectical perspective. He
argues that the modern world system and the demise (death, termination) of feudalism were
produced by the resolution of (at least) three contradictory modes of political and economic
organization. First was the contradiction between the older subsistence agriculture with its serfs
and the news commercialized cash crop agriculture with its wage workers. Second was the
contradiction between the older decentralized craft production and the newer centralized factory
system. Third was the contradiction between the small market systems of local trade with the
vast expansion of markets that attended the colonial expansion into the non-European world.
Ogburn’s “cultural lag” theory doesn’t deny the importance of class conflict as the manifestation
of contradictions, but it locates the source of contradiction more broadly in differential rates of
change.
Other dialectical theories depart more significantly from the materialist’s view of the cause of
change. Raymond Aron(1968), for instance, uses the notion of contradictions to mean
contradictions between, structural characteristics and individual aspiration (or at best, cultural
theme). First, modern societies are egalitarian with regard to the aspiration of people but
hierarchal with regard to structure and organization. Hence, there is dialectic of equality in mode
society. Second, there is a contradiction regarding socialization in modern society. Individuals
desire increasing individuation and uniqueness, while the structure of socialization creates
increasing “massification” with pressures towards conformity and sameness, hence, the dialectic
of socialization. Third, in societies around the world, there is desire for higher level of affluence
and national autonomy at the same time that the world is becoming increasingly interrelated and
interdependent. The desire for autonomy is frustrated by such dependency, hence, according to
Aron, the dialectic of universality. This is distinctly non Marxist dialectical view of social
change.
26
Chapter 4
Contemporary social change and sociological theory
There are three different images of society and social change and provide different answers to
the most basic sociological questions. For our purpose, these questions boil down to the question:
what factors determine the structure of society and the nature of change. One answer is that
society and change are shaped by the necessities of survival (the functionalist answer). Another
is that society and change are shaped by conflict among groups and classes within society over
the control of valued and scarce resources (the conflict theory answer). A third type of answer is
that the social interaction processes between people and groups result in the creation and ongoing
negotiation and revision of the meanings, symbols, and social definitions that constitute both
society and change ( the interpretive answer).
The three perspectives derive from different historical sources and view change in quite
different, often contradictory, ways. Functionalism originated in analogies between biological
systems and social systems commonly used in the 19th century sociology and anthropology. The
earliest explicit advocate of functionalist explanation in sociology was Emile Durkheim. Conflict
theory is historically rooted in classical Marxism, although contemporary conflict theory in
sociology has considerably modified early Marxist thought. Interpretive theories are really a
group of related perspectives with different sources, but they are rooted in the historic ideas of
Max Weber more than any other classical thinker. In various ways that all examine the way that
actors define their social situations and the effect of these definitions on ensuring action and
reactions.
4.1. Structural functionalist theory
Structural functionalism (functionalism, for short) assumes that a society is a system of
interrelated parts and subsystems that “function” in ways that promote the survival of the
whole system. The initial focus of much function thinking is to define activities that are
necessary for the survival of the entire system (“functional requisite” or “imperative”). Lists of
such functional requisites vary in length and abstractness.
According to Mack and Bradford (1979) there are five such functional requisites that every
social system must be concerned with. These are:
✓ The replacement of individual (by reproduction or recruitment),
✓ Socialization (enabling individuals to participate in the social system),
✓ The production of goods and services (hence, economic system),
✓ The provision of social order (hence, a political system), and
✓ The maintenance of common symbols, values, an motivations (hence, a culture)
27
Parsons (1951) states that the functional requisites more abstractly. He argues that there are four
basic functions that any society (or any of its sub-systems) must be concerned with for its
survival.
✓ Adaptation(the generation of resources from the environment)
✓ Goal attainment (choice about the consumption of resources.)
✓ Integration (regulation of regulation ships between the parts of the system)
✓ Latency or “pattern maintenance” (providing cultural legitimacy for the manner in which
other functions are accomplished.
Less abstractly, Parsons is talking about the functions of (1) the economy, (2) the political
system (3) the legal system (4) the diverse agencies that perpetuate culture. It is important
that binds and integrates the various aspects of the social world, he has in fact, labeled himself as
a “cultural determinist”. This assumption has an important impact on how he develops a theory
of social change.
The functional requisites depicted by both Mack and Parsons Lead to a discussion of social
institutions. From this perspective, different functional requisites are viewed as producing
differentiated structures that “specialize” in accomplishing them (for example, the family, the
economy, polity, and religions.).
Much functionalist thinking (particularly in the 1950s) viewed society as a system that persists
by maintaining “equilibrium,” that is, the various structures and institutions are viewed as
operating in concert in a mutually reinforcing way to maintain stability in the way that each
functions and in the relationships between them. Thus, society is viewed as a “homeostatic”
system, which is a system that operates to perpetuate itself. This is a way of explaining
persistence and stability, but not change. This inability to explain change was criticized by many
during the early 1960s, (Parsons was the focus of much of this criticism), and functional theorists
therefore began to be more concerned with the problem of understanding change. How did they
do so?
Structural functionalism and social change (revised view)
Functional thinking about change begins by asserting that in the actual world, interpretation and
“balance” in society is always incomplete. To some degree real societies are “out of sync”, for a
variety of reasons. They develop inconsistencies, contradictions, and institution practices that do
not mesh in an integrated way. There is a constant struggle to maintain order and integration in
connection with the realities of such strains (a general term for such inconsistencies and lack of
integrations).
Functionalist theory understands social change as the maintenance of a “moving” or
dynamic, rather than a static equilibrium between the components of the social system.
There are many possible sources of such strains. Since social system is all “open” in varying
degrees to their environment, strains can be the result of ‘exogenous” discrepant cultural items
28
that are “imported” from surrounded environments both natural and social. There may be
new ideas, values and technologies from other groups and societies, carried by immigrants’
traders, warriors, colonizers, or missionaries, and changes in the physical environment (for
examples drought, pollution, depletion) may produce strains in maintaining certain levels or
kinds of economic activity.
Bur strains can also be of “internal” or” endogenous origin in this revised functionalist view.
They can result, for instance, from inconsistencies between widely shared values and actual
behavior. They can result from different values themselves that may have contradictory
implications for choices and behavior. They can be strains resulting from innovations that do not
work within the established institutional practices. They can be strains resulting from
differentiated social roles that have different outlooks and responsibilities. Strains may be
produced by different rates of change in various institutions realms that may become somewhat
isolated and do not mesh” in an integrated fashion.
Even though functionalists do recognize that such strains can originate from within the social
system, exactly has this happens within the framework of the theory is not clear, given the
equilibrium assumption.
While certain levels of strain can be tolerated, if strains exceed certain limits, they produce
change in some aspect of the system-as an attempt to contain or adapt to strain. Thus functional
theorists argue that changes in the parts of a system produce change in other parts of the system.
… may balance each other so that there is no change in the system
as a whole; if they do not , the entire system will probably change.
Thus while functionalism adopts an equilibrium perspective, it is not
necessary a static point of view. In this moving equilibrium of the
social system, those changes that do occur are seen as doing so in an
orderly, not a revolutionary may (Ritzer, 1988:224.
Parsons (1966) developed an evolutionary theory of change that distinguished between
useveral types of change. According to him, first, there is system maintenance, which restores a
previous pattern of equilibrium (such as the rebuilding a community after a disaster). This is
certainly changed, but of a limited sort that is implied in the static functional perspective.
Second, there is structural differentiation, which means the increasing differentiation of
subsystem units into patterns of functional specialization and interdependence. Such newly
specialized and separated units (or” departments” in organizational) often develop problems in
the coordination of their activities and functions.
Thus structural differentiation typically produces “interpretive problems” which may require
the development of new mechanism of integration, coordination, and control. In concrete terms
this often means the development of new management procedures, roles, and structures. Parsons
29
terms this third type of change (differentiation plus new integrative mechanisms) adaptive
upgrading, meaning that the social system becomes more effective in generating and distributing
resources and enhancing its survival. But all such changes can occur without altering the “key
features” of the system (basic cultural values, goals, distribution of power, internal patterns of
order, overall organizational unity, and so forth).
Parsons reserves the term structural change for change in such key features of the system. His
argument is that fundamental change of the total system involves change in the system of
cultural values that legitimize and stabilize the system. This is the fourth type of change. For
example, a university may create new departments and programs (differentiation) and new
levels and procedures of administration to coordinate them (adaptive upgrading), without
changing the basic goals and values that serve to legitimate the university as a system
(perpetuating knowledge, research, and service to society). Parsons argues that in spite of the
enormous growth in size. Complexity, and specialization, some core values remain constant.
Indeed there is often much resistance to the alteration of basic values. Overall structural change
(involving the alteration of abstract core values) is less likely than differentiation and adaptive
upgrading, even though it does occur in the long run of historical development.
Parsons evolutionary theory not only distinguished between different types of change processes
in the evolution of societies but also developed a picture of the large –scale evolution of
societies from “pre-modem” to “modern” ones. He argues that there were some key
“evolutionary universals discovered in different societies that made transition to the modern
societies possible. The six” evolutionary universals” include
Social stratification
Bureaucratic organization
Cultural legitimization
A money economy and markets
Generalized or “ universalistic “ social norms and
Democratic associations.
There evolutionary “universals” are controversial as not all modern societies characterized by
them. Example, not all modern societies are parliamentary democracies.
Not also that Parsons’ notion of evolutionary universals is more a description of modernism than
an explanation: we are told noting about how various pre-modern societies discover them , or
what causal factors are at work.
What is more important in Parsons work about change is the assertion, although it is arguable,
that certain types of changes are more or less likely in terms whether or not they preserve the “
key features” of the system or transform them. In doing so he suggests what kinds of change will
be most and least common. Most common are system maintenance and differentiation;
30
intermediate would be the development of new interpretive and coordinative mechanisms; and
least common are new abstract values and systems of cultural legitimation.
More recent functionalist theories of social change define society not as an “equilibrating system
“but as a “tension management system “(Moore, 1974:11). Olsen (1978) describes this amended
functionalist theory of change as an “adjustment perspective
Whenever stresses or strains seriously threaten the key features of an organizationwhatever they might be- the organization will…. initiate compensatory action to
counter these disruptions, in an attempt to preserves its key feature. If the
compensatory activities successful defend the threatened key features, then
whatever changes do occur will be confined to other, less crucial features …when
disruptive stresses and strains or their resulting conflicts are so severe and
prolonged that compensatory mechanisms cannot cope with them, the key
organizational features being protected will themselves be altered or destroyed.
The entire organization then changes; there is a change of the organization rather
than just within the organization (1978:341).
On of the weaknesses of functional theory is that it deals mainly with gradual evolutionary
change they enhances the survivability or the system in question. It is less able to deal with rapid
or discontinues change, or change involving fundamental transformations of the system or the
emergence of new values. Functionalist theory of change would have a great difficulty
explaining a coup d’etat, a revolution, or for example, the rapid collages of state socialism in the
1990s
More abstractly, it understand change as a persons to the development of “ strains” but the
sources of strain are ambiguous, unless they are exogenous in origin. But such exogenous strains
are outside the theoriess frame of reference and hence , unpredictable. The theory is still a theory
of order and stability that has been amended to account for change.
31
Past tradition,
culture
Social order
Pattern:
✓ Equili
brium
✓ Adapt
ation
✓ Status
order
✓ Cultur
e
(AGIL
)
Stress, pressure
for Change
Disequilibrium
Conflict,
innovation
Institutionalization
Adaptive
success
No
Yes
Adaptive
Change
➢ System
maintenance
➢ Growth
➢ Differentiatio
n
➢ Structure
change
Causal imagery: functionalist theory of change
After the 1960s, in which functionalism (especially in its Parsonian variety) come under strong
attack, there was in the 1980s a revival in neo-functionalist theorizing in sociology. In America,
the most articulate speaks man for this was Jeffery Alexander(1985) who builds on Parsons but
32
argues for a functionalism that is more multidimensional in both macro and micro levels . He
rejects much of the optimism about modernity, and accepts conflict and disensus as being as
“natural “as equilibrium and censuses.
Neo-functionalism focuses on social change in the processes of differentiation with in the
social, cultural and personality systems. Thus, change is not productive of conformity and
harmony but rather individuation “and institutional strains.
4.2. Conflict theory
If functional theory can be viewed as basically a theory of stability that has been modified to
account for change, conflict theory, in contract, has always been centrally concerned with
understanding change. In the functionalist perspective, strains emerge somewhat mysteriously
when there is”mal-integration”, but such strains are viewed by conflict theory as begin inherent
in social structure. In other words, conflict theories make dialectical assumptions about society
and change, and much theoretical effort has gone into identifying the “inevitable “sources of
such strains and contradictions.
Generally, conflict theories of change argue that the inherent scarcity of certain goods and values
is the source of strains and contradictions in socials systems. Thus inequality is the source of
conflict, and the struggles of actors and groups in society to control scarce resources are viewed
as the “engines “of change. Exactly, what is scarce and what is unequally distributed is a matter
of controversy. For classical Marxist theory, conflict is rooted in economic equality. Three ways
that contemporary conflict theories differ from classical Marxist are in (1) the sources of conflict
(2) the role of culture, and (3) the inevitability of revolutionary change.
Most neo-Marxian and contemporary conflict theories argue that classical Marxism too narrowly
understood the structural basis of conflict, which it viewed as always deriving from struggles to
control of the mass of production. All conflicts, in this view, boil down to struggles about wealth
(or “material resources”). Other kinds of conflict based on politics, religion, or ethnic and
ideological differences are treated as less important or derivable of economic conflict.
Randall Collins (1975), a contemporary American conflict theorist has, in particular, argued for a
more diverse view of the origins of conflict than that found in classical Marxism. Drawings from
Weber as much as Marx, Collins argues that conflict can embody struggles about class (or
economic resources) as Marx argued and also from struggles over status (rooted in symbols
about honor and prestige distinctions, such as ethnicity or gender), as well as struggles about
power itself. In Collins view, class, status, and power all provide categories of “scarce values”
of which group in society struggle to control or increase their share.
Second most contemporary conflict theories emphasize, more than classical Marxism that the
symbolic realm of ideas, values and ideologies are semiautonomous and not merely derivative
33
from their material base. Collins, for example, emphasizes the importance of cultural symbols
and rituals in society as producing social unity, drawing more from Durkheim the Marx.
Similarly a group of scholars known as “critical theorist “ argue that , ideas and values produce
not only solidarity and unity (as functionalists argue ) but also social control related to the
interests of particular groups as well. Cultural ideologies are concocted and used not only by
social and economic elites but also by minority activists, feminists, gays, and pro-life advocates.
As with Marx, contemporary theorists assume that the dominant culture (ideas and values) are
those consistent with the “ interests “ of the dominant groups in society , if only because they
have greater access to and control of the instruments of the production and dissemination of
culture ( for example , education, mass media ). Conflict theory stresses the production of culture
as one of the ways in which the existing system reproduce itself and that change producing
contradictions become manifest as widespread disillusion with conventional cultural symbols .
When disillusion, disbelief, and cynicism about the dominant symbols of society become
widespread, this is a harbinger (signal forerunner) of significant change. In other words societal
transformation is preceded by-and in some measure caused by a legitimacy crisis, when large
number of people can no longer believe the system.
A third difference between classical Marxism and contemporary conflict theory is about the
inevitability of revolutionary change (in the sense of sudden, discontinues, economic. political
and social transformation), and in a broader sense, the whole notion of historical inevitability.
Classical Marxist though conceived of historical change as the accumulation of contradictions
that resulted in radical and discontinues transformations. Indeed, it was a limitation of Marxian
theory that it treated change other than total system transformation as having little significance.
Contemporary conflict theory and neo-Marxism not only conceive of the sources of conflict
broadly but also are les deterministic about outcomes than was classical Marx thinking.
The outcome of conflict that resolves contradictions can result in a revolutionary transformation,
but it can also result in reaffirming the dominance of powerful groups without resolving
contradictions. Conflict can also result in an ongoing stalemate (deadlock-state of unresolved
conflict between warring parties. It can also result in gradual reform and piecemeal changes.
What determines which outcome?
Conflict theory and social change
Functionalist theory focused on broad evolutionary change dealing primarily with the growth and
differentiation of social systems. Rather than focusing of on the elaboration of systems and how
34
they function to promote survival, conflict theorists focus on the accumulation of contradictions
and the transformation of the system.
4.3. Interpretive theory
Interpretive theory is a bundle of loosely connected theories that have similarities in the way that
they understand social action and social change. It is also called “symbolic theories “or a “Social
definition paradigm” in sociology.
They derive from the insights of Max Weber, who argued the a “ full” sociological
understanding would focus not only on the overt behavior and events, but also on how they are
interpreted, defined, and shaped by the cultural meanings that people give to them. Sociology is
therefore the” interpretive understanding “of social action (verstehen was the German term for
this).
Theorists that are “interpretive” include American symbolic interaction theory (Mead, 1934;
Blumer, 1969) and social phenomenology, (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). They all focus on “the
way actors define their social situations and the effect of these definitions on ensuing action and
interaction.”
Interpretive Perspectives and Social Life
Society and culture are created through the evolution of meaning. Human society is
fundamentally and an ongoing process than an entity or “Structure”. As they interact, humans
constantly “negotiate” order, structure, and cultural meanings among themselves. Negotiated
order in this sense may include reaffirmation, defense, rearrangement, change, or destruction of
existing social arrangements and cultural meanings (Strauss, 1978). Negotiated order can happen
informal and structured situations (as in the cases of treaties between countries, or business
contracts), as well as in loose, unstructured situations (such as when lovers” negotiate” a
relationship, or when parents and children interact), and in many “in between” situations (as
when students and professors figure out the terms of a grade) (Rothman, 1991)
The important point is that for both functionalist and conflict theories structure is the starting
point for a sociological analysis of change, but for interpretive theories change itself (interaction,
process, and negotiation) is the starting point, and structure is the always temporary –by product.
Indeed, from interpretive perspectives, social change is very easy to understand-as the constant
creation, negotiation and re-creation of social order. What gets harder to explain is stability or
persistence, the very thing the structural theories do very well.
Given this, how can groups, organizations, societies and culture be understood as “real” in any
sense? The interpretive answer is that they become” real” only insofar as actors take them into
account and behave as if they are real. Thus what emerges from history is a negotiated consensus
about what is real and what is not (which is often open to question and always subject to
35
revision). This emergent shared consensus enables individuals to participate in social life and
makes joins action (and therefore social life itself) possible. And change in such meanings and
definition is the key to understanding social change in the interpretive theory causal imagery.
At the macro level, “society” is viewed as and emergent phenomenon, which is “constructed”
from symbols created by actors, publics and reference group. Society is literally a social
construction, which is the outcome of the historical process of symbolic interaction and
negotiation between social actors, both individual and corporate.
Thus social structure and coherence exists only within the framework of those outlooks,
meanings, and definitions that are broadly established, Within these , there is a shifting mélange
(mixture) of groups and structures, based on class, ethnicity, occupation, residence, and so forth,
each of which develops its own differentiated and somewhat particularistic sub cultural “
definition of the situation.”
Interpretive Theories and social Change
In complex system there is, by definition, a plurality of definitions of social reality reflecting
differentiated” reference groups”. Change begins when such definitions become problematic. In
other words, when they do not work humans may discard, modify, or create symbols that are
more satisfactory. New ideas, values and ideologies arise when the accepted ones are perceived
as “not working,” and these new ones sanction new forms of human action. If actors perceive
problems with accepted lines of action, for whatever reasons they begin to reassess situations and
often redefine them,
The contention of the interpretive theories is that meaningful change does not occur
automatically when” external conditions” change, but rather when people redefine situations
regarding those conditions, and alter social behavior according. The alteration of definitions of
the situation to be congruent with alterations in external realities is by no means automatic. To
summarize, the essence of meaningful social change for interpretive theory is when actors
redefine situations and act upon such revised meanings and redefinitions. This is a very a
different emphasis from those of functionalism or conflict theory.
Unlike those theories, interpretive theory does not tell us much about the “structural” sources of
such redefinitions. Without examining each particular case, all we know is that for whatever
reasons, old definitions and meanings (and connected lies of action) become perceived as
unsatisfactory. Such problem situations are not, in the interpretive perspective, related to any
particular structural sources (for example, mal-integration, and inequality in authority). In
contrast to functionalism and conflict theory, interpretive theories argue that human beings are
relatively less constrained by external factors. Such macro structural factors are relevant to
change only to the extent that they are taken into account in the ongoing reconstructions of the
meanings attached to situations and the consequent alterations of social behavior pattern.
36
What you should note from all this is that interpretive theories are less deterministic than
structural theories. People are relatively free “in this view to ignore or attend to structural
stresses” and define them in various ways.
The actual change process begins with claims making by spokespersons for a reference group or
subsystem of some sort. Such claims making activity is the articulation of what is unsatisfactory
in the existing situation, along with “better” definitions of the situation and the advocacy of
“new” lines of action. An important part of this process is to define other relevant persons and
groups in a manner consistent with the interest and perspectives of the claim makers. This
process is defined as alter casting. Whether or not such claims are widely accepted depends on
the claims making gents having the power to disseminate their view to others without significant
challenge by other claims makers. Most claims making involves not only the articulation of a
problem, but also articulating grievances against another group held responsible for the problem.
When this is the case, alter casting involves getting someone to represent the role of the villain
(sinful), and it is unlikely that “villains” accept this role passively. Finally, successful claims
making involves access to important structures like the mass media and the judicial system to
promulgate laws and polices, and facilities that control the definition of social reality.
Access implies power and resources. Hence, other things being equal, higher status groups are
likely to have more effective claims making agents. The role of the mass media is to amplify and
disseminate claims (though the media are not neutral regarding all claims). The role of
government and the sudicals system is to adjudicate competing claims and promulgate polices
and laws regarding them. Government authorities may decide in favor of one of several claimant
groups on an issue and seek to transform social reality promulgating laws and policies. Often,
however, government may avoid any basic attempt to alter society but rather seek to regulate the
behavior of various claims making groups in order to minimize the disruptiveness of the conflict
between them.
To summarize social change involves the collective reconstruction of social reality. Change
inheres in the attempt of various groups to transform social definitions and meanings, along with
the action patterns associated with such changes in meaning
Criticism
There are many possible criticisms of interpretive perspectives on change. First, the interpretive
perspective is ambiguous regarding the perception of unsatisfactory definitions of the situation.
Why do preexisting cultural constructions and their associated limes of action become
understood as unsatisfactory and in need of modification? Second, interpretive theory ignores
sources of change that do not lie in the realm (imposition of change by power, technological
innovations, resource limits) but rather asks how people respond to and define things outside the
realms of cultural meanings. While this is a useful theoretical question, it does not get us closer
to understanding the change-causing conditions outside the human interpretive process. Third,
the particular version of interpretive theory developed above implies “power” as a relevant
37
factor. (Why do certain groups have greater access to the shaping of public opinion than others?)
The concept of power is implied in much interpretive theory, especially “societal reaction
theory” regarding deviance but it is not treated systematically. Finally, and perhaps the most
telling criticism of interpretive theory, social change, according to the theory, cannot be
understood apart from the popular redefinition of society.
Conclusion: the relevance of theory
The three contemporary sociological theories have very different causal imagery about society
and change. The three perspectives not only explain things in different ways, but they explain
different things about social change. Functionalism locates the origins of change in malintegration, which produces strains and innovations that deal with such strains. Change is usually
conceived as differentiation and the elaboration of new integrative mechanisms. Conflict theory
locates the sources of change in structured inequality, which produces a struggle to control
scarce resources (authority, power). To the extent that change results from these struggles, it is
understood as the redistribution of rights, duties, and obligations. Interpretive theories argue that
the sources of change can be found in the perception of “trouble” with the existing situation and
in attempt to redefine situations and attendant lines of action and in the public policies that flow
from such altered constructions of reality.
4.4. Action and interaction
Symbolic interactionists’ primary concern is with the impact of meanings and symbols on human
action and interaction. George Herbert Mead differentiated between covert and overt behavior.
Covert behavior is the thinking process, involving symbols and meanings. Overt behavior is the
actual behavior performed by an actor. Some overt behavior does not involve covert behaviors
(habitual behavior or mindless responses to external stimuli) However, most human action
involves both kinds.
Covert behavior is of greatest concern to symbolic interactionists, whereas overt behavior is of
greatest concert to exchange theorists or to traditional behaviorists in general. Meanings and
symbols give human social action (which involves a single actor) and social interaction (which
involves two or more actors engaged in mutual social action) distinctive characteristics.
Social action is that in which the individuals are acting with others in mind. In other words, in
undertaking actions, people in simultaneously try to gauge its impact on the other actors
involved. Although they often engage in mindless, habitual behavior, people have the capacity to
engage in social action. In the process of social interaction, people symbolically communicate
meanings to the others involved. The others interpret those symbols and orient their responding
action on the basis of their interpretation. In other words, in social interaction, actors engage in a
process of mutual influence.
38
The sciences are necessarily value-relevant, at least to the scientists themselves, or else nobody
would bother, but they must at the same time be value free, or else they would amount to nothing
more than elaborate ways of confirming existing prejudices. Sociologists are committed to
objectivity, to the belief that they should acknowledge valid and reliable evidence, however
personally inconvenient or distasteful it might be. Otherwise, the account which is produced is
merely fiction or propaganda but not science, and not sociology.
But sociology is the science of social action. Being concerned with action rather than with
behavior in general, it addresses not just anything that people might do, but what they do
purposively. Being concerned with social action it focuses on how they act in relation to one
another. In this formula we have two of the central assumptions of Weber’s sociology. First, his
approach seeks to root any account of social situations firmly in the actions of individuals, not in
the general operation of some abstract collectively. Secondly, this interactive, purposive activity
is essentially meaningful to the individuals themselves.
Social action perspectives /theory
If functionalist and conflict perspectives place emphasis on the structures that underpin society
and influence human behavior, social action theories pay greater attention to the action and
interaction of members of society in forming those structures. Here, the role of sociology is seen
as grasping the meaning of social action and interaction rather than in explaining what forces
external to people cause them to act the way they do.
If functionalism and conflict perspectives promote models of how society as a whole operates,
social action theories concentrate on analysis of how individual actors behave or orient
themselves towards each other and society.
Weber is often pointed to as the earliest advocate of social action perspectives. Although he
acknowledged the existence of social structures such as classes, parties, status groups and others,
he held that these structures were created through the social actions of individuals. This
standpoint was developed most systematically within symbolic interactionism. Symbolic
interactionism was only indirectly influenced by Weber. Its most direct origins were in the work
of the American Sociologist, George Herbert Mead (1863-1931).
Social Action Theory: Weber
Weber’s methodological individualism –the conviction that, in the end, any account of society
must be pounded in the intelligible activity of individuals. In Weber’s view, the social sciences
differ from natural science because they are about people. The molecules in a chemical reaction
don not care about one another do not choose whether to bond or not. The molecular code is
automatic. But the objects social scientists study involve people’s conscious or unconscious
39
feelings and ideas. The people themselves, the cultural objects they produce, and the cultural
practices they follow are meaningful to the actors involved. Social scientific explanations cannot
be solely in terms of causes and effects, they have to take in to account the reasons people have
for acting the way they do. For Weber, then, sociology is the science of social action because,
although each of us has his or her own preferences, prejudices and interests, it is impossible to
strive for some detachment about the assumptions and values to which our social being commits
us. These values, religious, cultural, moral, political and so forth, direct our interest in, or away
from, social and sociological questions in the first place.
Weber also distinguished between rational and non- rational action. Non–rational actions may be
simply (a) traditional, following custom or meeting every day expectations, or (b) emotionally
driven, acting up on impulse or the expression of a persons feelings. The relative lack of
conscious purpose in non-rational actions sometimes robs them of the meaningful character of
deliberate action and they may verge upon mere behavior.
The two types of Rational Action he distinguished are.
a. Instrumentally rational action: is the kind of action directed towards attaining some
specific objective
b. Value rational action: is the expression of a value, religious or political or whatever,
because that is the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences.
As far as Weber was concerned, social action is behavior directed towards a goal (therefore
action, not mere reaction), which is guided by the actions and anticipated action of other people
(that is what makes it social). Because it and the reciprocal actions it takes into account are goal
directed, social action is meaningful and can be understood (in German verstehen) as well as
explained. That is to say, one can discover reasons for social action in addition to seeking causes.
Ideas and Social Change
Industrial capitalism is a non-zero-sum system. It is not a closed share out of a fixed amount of
wealth; it is a system of continuous transformational growth. Weber rejected the crudely
technological and materialistic ones: colonial trade, population growth, the inflow of precious
metals. He then isolated some of the necessary but not sufficient “external conditions”, the
particular geography of Europe with its cheap transportation by water, the favorable military
requirements of the small states, and the large luxury demand from an unusually prosperous
population. Ultimately, it was not these external factors, but something more mysterious that was
important. It was the ethic, the justification of the pursuity of profit. In the last resort, the factor
which produced capitalism is the rational permanent enterprise, rational accounting, rational
technology and rational law, but, again, not these alone. Necessary complementary factors were
40
the rational spirit, the rationalization of the conduct of life in general and a rationalist economic
ethic.
Rationality is what is distinctive about capitalism not mere acquisitiveness or greed. Weber
wrote: acquisitiveness, or the pursuit of profit, of monetary gain, has in itself nothing to do with
capitalism. It is and has been found among waiters, doctors, coachmen, artists, tarts, venal
officials, soldiers, brigands, crusaders, frequenters of gambling dens, beggars-one might say “
among all sorts and conditions of men”, in all ages and in all countries of the world.
At all events, capitalism is the same as the pursuit of profit by means of continuing rational
capitalistic enterprise: that is, for the constant removals of profit, or profitability. The
identification of industrials capitalism not just with a class but in a distinctive religiously
sectarian movement gave Weber the heart of his argument. The emergence of that rational ethic,
indispensable to the development of industrial capitalism, was closely associated with the
rational religions ethic of the puritans. This distinctive religious ethic Weber argued was to be
found only in the protestant countries of North West Europe.
Material economic conditions were of course crucial causal factors in the development of
industrial capitalism. It is just that ideas and values, including religious beliefs, play an important
role too. Ideas also have an independent role in guiding action if not necessarily determining it
and, above all, are necessary for an understanding of how action may align with interests, of
what sense people make of their motivations.
Rationalization and the Modern world
The defining characteristic of modern industrial capitalism is the rational pursuit of profitability.
In Weber’s view, capitalist development depends on the spread of rational administration,
rational accounting, law, technology, and the rational attitudes and values which underpin them.
Once the processes of rationalization established, they cannot be rewarded or reversed. They
continue, once well underway; any alternative way of operating would be self-defeating. The
embodiment of rational administration is bureaucracy, and bureaucratic organization is a matter
of efficiently meeting organizational goals. These, however, may not always be clear to all
bureacy’s individual clients, or even to some of its lower level functionaries. In Weber’s eyes
this represented a paradox of tragic dimensions.
According to the Enlightenment principles he believed in, reason and freedom are much the
same thing. Rational through, and the action that flows from it, is free from the coercion of
caprice random accident, over-mastering emotion or uncontrollable desires. Freedom consists
precisely in the ability to follow the path indicated by one’s own reason, without being helplessly
41
driven by pulse in this way. The irrational man is not free at all, but is at the mercy of his own
psychological condition and of arbitrary external circumstances.
But, though reason is the source of human freedom and rationalization is the consequence of
systematically applied reason, in a society heading inexorably toward greater rationalization, the
future of human freedom looked highly problematic. Weber’s tragic vision was that the
increasing application of rational thought to the world, instead of enlarging the individual dignity
of people, seemed only to lead to an increasing depersonalization, reducing individuals to mere
cogs prisoner in a bureaucratic machine. This was the future for the modern world as Weber saw
it: the disenchantment of the world, “in the Poct Schiller’s phrase, seemed to him a
dehumanizing of the world too. Individual reason is displaced by the impersonal functional
rationality of the bureaucratic organization. There is no room for the human values in the
calculative world of rational resource planning and efficient administration. They have been
confined to the inword-looking world of purely personal private life.
Chapter Five
Modernization, Globalization and Social Movements
5.1. Modernization
A central concept in the study of change is modernity, social patterns resulting from
industrialization. In everyday usage, modernity (its Latin root means ‘lately’) refers to the
present in relation to the past. Sociologists include in this catchalls concept all of the social
patterns set in motion by industrial revolution, which began in Western Europe in the 1770s.
Modernization, then, is the process of social change begun by industrialization.
Key Dimensions of Modernization
Peter Berger (1977) notes four characteristics of modernization:
i.
The decline of small, traditional communities. Modernity involves the progressive
weakening, if not destruction, of the concrete and relatively cohesive communities in which
human beings have found solidarity and meaning throughout most of history.
ii.
The expansion of personal choice. To people in traditional, pre-industrial societies, life is
shaped by forces beyond human control-gods, spirits, or simply fate. Steeped in tradition,
members of these societies grant one another a narrow range of personal choices. As the
power of tradition erodes, however, people come see their lives as unending series of options,
a process Berger calls individualism. Many people respond to the alternatives in modern
societies by changing their lifestyles.
iii. Increasing diversity in beliefs: In pre-industrial societies, strong family ties and powerful
religious beliefs enforce conformity while discouraging diversity and change. Modernization
promotes a more rational, scientific world-view, in which tradition losses its force and
morality becomes a matter of individual attitude. The growth of cities, the expansion of
42
iv.
impersonal organizations and social interaction among people from various backgrounds
combine to foster a diversity of beliefs and behavior.
Future orientation and growing awareness of time: People in modern societies think
more about the future, while-pre-industrial people focus more on the past. Modern people are
not only forward-looking but also optimistic that discoveries and new inventions will
enhance their lives. In addition, modern people organize daily routines according to precise
units of time.
5.2. Globalization
The concept of globalization is an important one in contemporary sociology. It is a process in
which we are moving towards. It is defined as the set of processes that yields a single world.
Globalization is the increasing interdependence of individuals, groups, and nations. This
interdependence is in all aspects of life: political, economic, cultural, and the scope of those
interdependence becomes truly global. No country is a self-sufficient island. Humanity is no
longer merely a statistical aggregate, or philosophical or ideological category; it turns into a real
sociological entity, a social whole of the highest comprehensive, embracing all people living on
the globe. Today one may speak of a global structure of political, economics, and cultural
relations, extending beyond any traditional boundaries and binding separate societies into one
system.
Globalization is the process by which people of the world are unified into a single society and
function together. Globalization is often used to refer to economic globalization: the integration
of national economies into the international economies through trade, foreign direct investment,
capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology. This process is usually recognized as
being driven by a combination of economic, technological, socio-cultural, and political factors.
The term can also refer to transnational dissemination of ideas, languages, or popular culture.
The term globalization has been used in the social sciences since 1960s; however, the term did
not achieve widespread use until the later half of the 1980s. Any early description of
globalization was penned by the American entrepreneur-turned-minister Charles Taze Russell
who coined the term corporate giants in 1897. Since its popularization by economists and
journalists in the 1980s and 1990s, the concept of globalization has inspired numerous competing
definitions and interpretations.
The United Nations ESCWA has written that globalization is a widely-used term that can be
defined in a number of different ways. When used in an economic context, it refers to the
reduction and removal of barriers between national borders in order to facilitate the flow of
goods, capital, and services and labor……..although considerable barriers remain to the flow of
labor… Globalization is not a new phenomenon. It began in the late 19th century, but its spread
43
slowed during the period from the start of the WWI until the third quarter of the 20 th century.
This slow down can be attribute to the inward looking policies pursued by a number of countries
in order to protect their respective industries. However, the pace of globalization picked up
rapidly during the fourth quarter of the 20th century…
Saskia Sassen writes that a good part of globalization consists of an enormous variety of micro
processes that begin to denationalize what has been constructed as national-whether policies,
capital, political subjective, urban spaces, temporal frames, or any other of a variety of dynamics
and domains.
Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute defines globalization as “diminution or elimination of stateenforced restrictions on exchanges across borders and the increasingly integrated and complex
global system of production and exchange that has emerged as a result.
Thomas L. Friedman has examined the impact of the flattening of the world, and argues that
globalized trade, outsourcing, supply-chaining, and political forces have changed the world
permanently, for both better and worse. He also argues that the pace of globalization is
quickening and will continue to have a growing impact on business organization and practice.
Noam Chomsky argues that the word globalization is also used, in a doctrinal sense, to describe
the neo-liberal form of economic globalization.
Herman E. Daly argues that sometimes the terms internationalization and globalization are used
interchangeably but there is a significant formal difference. The term internationalization refer to
the importance of international trade, relations, treaties, etc. owing to the (hypothetical)
immobility of labor and capital between or among nations.
Globalization, generally, involves:
➢ Growing political homogenization;
➢ Economic integration and coordination; and
➢ Homogenization of culture.
Modern Globalization
Globalization, since World War II, is largely the result of planning by politicians to break down
borders hampering trade to increase prosperity and interdependence thereby decreasing the
chance of future war. Their work led to the Bertton Woods Conference, an agreement by the
world’s leading politicians to lay down the framework for international commerce and finance,
and the founding of several international institutions intended to oversee the process of
globalization.
44
These institutions include the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the
World Bank), the International Monetary Fund. Globalization has been facilitated by advances in
technology which have reduced the costs of trade, and trade negotiation rounds, originally under
the auspices of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which led to a series of
agreements to remove restrictions of free trade.
Since World War II, barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered through
international agreements-GATT. Particularly initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the
World Trade Organization (WTO), for which GATT is the foundation, has included:
• Promotion of free trade:
✓ Elimination of tariffs; creation of free trade zones with small or no tariffs;
✓ Reduced transportation costs, especially resulting from development of
containerization for ocean shipping,
✓ Reduction or elimination of capital goods,
✓ Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local business,
✓ Creation of subsidies for global corporations,
✓ Harmonization of intellectual property laws across the majority of states, with
more restrictions, and
✓ Supernatural recognition of intellectual property restrictions (eg. Patents granted
by China would be recognized in the United States).
Cultural globalization, driven by communication technology and the worldwide marketing of
western cultural industries, was understood at first as a process of homogenization, as the global
domination of American culture at the expense of traditional diversity. However, a contrasting
trend soon became evident in the emergence of movements protesting against globalization and
giving new momentum to defense of local uniqueness, individuality, and identity, but largely
without success.
Factors Contributing to Globalization
The rise of globalization is related to the rise of information and communication technology, and
economic and political factors.
A. the Rise of Information and communication Technology
Information Flows
B. Economic Factors
i. Transnational Corporations
ii. The Electronic Economy
C. Political Changes
D. Cultural factors: change in beliefs, values and openness to new inventions, etc
45
Effects of Globalization
Globalization is a hotly debatably issue. Some support it others oppose it. Its implication to
developing countries indicated also differs from scholar to scholar.
i. Positive effects indicated
➢ Emergence of worldwide production markets and access to a range of foreign markets
➢ Emergence of worldwide financial markets and access to external financing for
borrowers,
➢ Freedom of exchange of goods and capital,
➢ Creation of world government,
➢ Increase in flow of information,
➢ Increase in competition which calls for improvement in productivity,
➢ International cooperation to deal with environmental issues,
➢ Growth of cross-cultural contacts-spread of multiculturalism, greater international travel
and tourism, greater immigration, spread of local consumer products, worldwide sports,
etc.
➢ The development of global telecommunication infrastructure,
➢ The development of a system of non-governmental organizations as main agents of
global public policy, including humanitarian aid and developmental effort, and
➢ The development of international criminal court, global crime-fighting efforts and the
emergence of global administrative law.
ii. Negative effects
➢ Developing countries become center of “sweatshops”,
➢ Financial globalization results in instability of financial sector of developing
countries(financial clashes of interests),
➢ It increases inequality among countries of the world,
➢ Exploitation of foreign impoverished workers, and
➢ Increase in exploitation of child labor.
5.3. Social movements
Since social change is a human, social construction, humans do have the ability to affect how
societies change. Must we always adjust to the changes dictated by people who are powerful and
advantaged, or do we have options to counter those forces?
The key to these questions has to do with collective organized action. As individuals, we are
fairly powerless to challenge the social changes introduced by the powerful and advantaged
members of society. One voice alone may not be heeded or even heard. However, organized,
collective efforts by many similar-minded individuals have historically posed formidable
challenges to the powerful, even if they have had variable success. For instance, take workers
rebellion.
46
We call persistent, organized, collective efforts to resist existing structures and cultures, or to
introduce changes in them, social movements. They often permit the less powerful members of
society to effectively challenge and resist the more powerful members. Social movement also
sometimes allow the relatively powerless to affect inter-societal relations. Social movements can
be the vehicles through which individuals working together may be able to address issues that
otherwise seem too big, too daunting, and over whelming to them.
Types of Social Movements
Social movements differ in the types of change they pursue and the amounts of change they aim
for. Her four types of social movements are identified. These are:
a. Redemptive movements –do not attempt to change society; their efforts target individual.
Many redemptive movements are religious movements seeking to convert individuals eg
evangelism born
b. Alterative movements –also seek changes among individuals. But while redemptive
movements seek total changes, alterative movements focus on limited, but specifically
defined changes, but it does not try to change society.
c. Reformative movement –aims to change society. Nationally organized group actively
lobbies for strict national and state legislation. It seeks a limited but specifically defined,
change in societal norms, not just in the behavior of individuals. For instance, criminalizing
act-rapists. The goal is not to radically change the structure of society but to reform a specific
intuition and change societal norms towards the desired change –adjustment.
d. Transformative movements –like that of reformative movements, the goal is change in
society. But while reformative movements work toward limited specific changes,
transformative movements seek total change in society. Revolutions are good examples of
transformative movements. Their goal is radical and total change of the social structure,
resulting in a society that is completely different from the existing form. For example, the
1975 Ethiopian revolution.
Social Revolutions
Successful revolutionary movements are important elements of the dramatic and fundamental
change processes that we call social revolution. Revolution is rapid, fundamental, and violent
domestic transformations (change in socio-economic, cultural, and political instructions, values,
social structures accompanied by class upheavals fro below).
Revolutions are set apart from reform, failed rebellions, coups or even rational independence
movements. Sometimes we use the word “revolution” in a 100 ser sense, as in the “sexual
revolution” or the “computer revolution”.
47
In a more specific sense revolution mean a broader transformation that changes many areas of
social life. It is not necessarily a revolution, if it only means that one political elite has replaced
another with no popular base or broader implications for social transformation.
Successful revolutions are rare and dramatic historical events. The most dramatic and clear-cut
historic examples are the revolutions in France (1789), Russia (1917), and china (1911-1949).
But if successful revolutions are relatively rare, it does not follow that they have been historically
unimportant. Revelations have played an important role in social transformation.
48