Introduction
Social change is constantly encountered in our daily lives. This is because the society we live in is itself changing all the time. The concept of social transformation is very closely linked to social change. Sometimes the two terms are used interchangeably. Sociologists have been trying to answer and explain, in main, three basic questions of social change. First, the question of whether social change is good or bad; second, the causal factors of social change: and third, the impact of social change to society. Modern sociology helps us understand and provide with explanation the complex set of changes that societies experience in the process of human history. In this unit, we shall discuss the
concepts and various aspects of social change and social transformation.
Social change, in sociology, the alteration of mechanisms within the social structure, characterized by changes in cultural symbols, rules of behaviour, social organizations, or value systems. Throughout the historical development of their discipline, sociologists have borrowed models of social change from other academic fields. In the late 19th century, when evolution became the predominant model for understanding biological change, ideas of social change took on an evolutionary cast, and, though other models have refined modern notions of social change, evolution
persists as an underlying principle. Other sociological models created analogies between social change and the West’s technological progress. In the mid-20th century, anthropologists borrowed from the linguistic theory of structuralism to elaborate an approach to social change called structural functionalism. This theory postulated the
existence of certain basic institutions (including kinship relations and division of labour) that determine social behaviour. Because of their interrelated nature, a change in one institution will affect other institutions.
Various theoretical schools emphasize different aspects of change. Marxist theory suggests that changes in modes of production can lead to changes in class systems, which can prompt other new forms of change or incite class conflict. A different view is conflict theory, which operates on a broad base that includes all institutions. The focus is not only on the purely divisive aspects of conflict, because conflict, while inevitable, also brings about changes that promote social integration. Taking yet another approach, structural-functional theory emphasizes the integrating forces in society that ultimately minimize instability.
Social change can evolve from a number of different sources, including contact with other societies (diffusion), changes in the ecosystem (which can cause the loss of natural resources or widespread disease), technological change (epitomized by the Industrial Revolution, which created a new social group, the urban proletariat), and population growth and other demographic variables. Social change is also spurred by ideological, economic, and political movements. The changing social order 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 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 shortterm 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.
This universal human potential for social change has a biological basis. It is rooted in the flexibility and adaptability of the human species—the near absence of biologically fixed action patterns (instincts) on the one hand and the enormous capacity for learning, symbolizing, and creating on the other hand. The human constitution makes possible changes that are not biologically (that is to say, genetically) determined. Social change, in other words, is possible only by virtue of biological characteristics of the human species, but the nature of the actual changes cannot be reduced to these species traits.
Evolutionary Theories
Evolutionary theories of social change are conglomeration of many but interrelated theories of change. The main notion of the evolutionary theory of change is that there is a consistent direction of social change of all societies in a similar sequence of stages from the original to the final stage of development, or from a simple and ‘primitive’ to the more complex and advanced state. Evolutionary theory also implies that evolutionary change will culminate at reaching the final stage of development. Evolutionary theorists consider change as progress and growth. The theory can be classified into two main categories- (a) Classical evolutionary theories (b) Neo-evolutionary theories.
1. Classical Evolutionary Theories
The classical evolutionary theories have been developed by the 19th century anthropologists and sociologists. Although, approaches differ among them, there is an underlying principle of convergence of ideas that evolutionary change takes place in a unilinear and similar direction. They largely draw an analogy of the progress of animal life from the simple uni-celled organisms to the most complex animal— the human being. They believe that as societies evolve and grow, the functions of its members would also become more specialized just as the development of
millions of body cells to perform specific functions within an interrelated system. The main proponents of the classical theories of evolutionary change include August Comte. We shall consider some of the frameworks of classification of human evolution developed by these classical evolutionists.
August Comte (1798-1857), a French scholar, and founder of Sociology, propounded that all societies passed through three stages of growth: (i) the theological stage (dominated by the guidance and principles of spiritual wisdom); (ii) the metaphysical stage (a transitional stage where supernatural beliefs are replaced by abstract principles as socio-cultural guidelines), and (iii) the positive, or scientific stage (in which society is governed mainly by scientific laws).
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), an English scholar, inspired by Darwin’s theories of organic evolution, opined that human societies moved through a series of social evolutionary stages from smaller and simpler structures to larger and more complex structures. This theory was later known as ‘Social Darwinism’. The idea of social evolution was well received and popular among the 19th century anthropological and sociological thinkers. At about the same time, Lewis Henry Morgan a contemporary of E.B.Tylor, made great impact in America by contributing to the evolutionary schemes of thinking and research by engaging on the origin and development of family, marriage and kinship systems. He saw the development of human society in three broad stages based mainly on technological innovations: savagery, barbarism and civilization. The first two stages were divided into sub-stages which were denoted Lower, Middle and Upper. The last stage was marked by the emergence of invention of phonetic alphabet and writing.
2. Neo-evolutionary School
Evolutionary theories were revived in the 20th century by V.Gordon Childe, Julian Steward and Leslie White. Their formulations of evolutionary theories are characterized by careful scrutiny of evidence, systematic analysis, and rigorous reasoning. To distinguish them from the classical evolutionary theorists, they have also been labeled as neo-evolutionists. Marshall D. Sahlins and Elman Service attempted a synthesis of the theories of evolution (particularly the theories of Julian Steward and Leslie White’s) by developing the concept of ‘specific’ and ‘general’ evolution. The main claim of these theories was that evolution moved simultaneously in two directions in both the biological and cultural aspects. This evolutionary process then led to progress and made new ones emerge out of the old ones. They considered these two processes as interconnected in its totality. Thus, in the former stage, it took ‘specific’ biological and cultural processes and then continued to give effect in the progress of successive forms of evolution which were ‘general’ in nature for both the resultant aspects of evolution. While the former was classified in terms of the order of descent, the latter was done in terms of the levels of development or stages. For instance, specific evolution would imply development in local cultures and its sub-units or groups of cultures in a relatively shorter period while the general cultural evolution would mean the processes of successive forms of development such as the stages of hunting and gathering, agriculture, industrial revolution, atomic age, nuclear age, etcetera. This principle could be applied to other spheres of evolution such as religion, kinship structure and so on.
Cyclical Theories
Cyclical theories have been concerned with the repetitious change of conditions, events, forms and/ or fashions over a long period of time, although the period of recurrent phases (cycles) of change would vary. The cyclical theorists believe that societies pass through a series of stages. However, they do not consider the notion of ending in a stage of perfection but see them as a return to the stage where it began for further round in a cyclical manner. A.L.Kroeber (1876-1960), a well-known American anthropologist, provides classical analysis of cyclical patterns of clothing-style changes of Western women. Kroeber found that clothing styles in Western societies followed certain patterns over long periods of time, and even within these patterns were observed changes in more or less regular cycles. Kroeber also discovered that the basic pattern of Western women’s dress in the medieval and modem ages spanning about a thousand years has gone through a constant remodeling without any fundamental change. Kroeber found that the general pattern included a long skirt, a narrow waist, and a top with arms and breasts partially exposed.
Periodically, within this general form, there is a cyclical change. Hemlines rise and fall, the waistline moves up and own from just under the bust to the hips, and the amount of cleavage shown increases and decreases. Kroeber also discovered that women’s dressing in the West repeat themselves over and over within cycles of about hundred years.
Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968), a Russian-American sociologist, believed that all great civilizations pass through three cultural systems in a cyclical way: (i) the ideational cultural society based on faith and revelation; (ii) the idealist cultural society guided by a ‘mixed’ notion of supernatural beliefs and empiricism; and (iii) the sensate culture society, which are guided by empirical sense perceptions. He opined that all societies need not necessarily decay but rather they go through various stages by shifting from one cycle to another as the needs of the society demand.
11.3 Structural-Functional and Conflict Theories
The structural-functional and conflict theories are generally concerned with micro and middle range theories of social change. The structural-functionalists assume that society, like the human body, is a balanced system of institutions, each of which performs a function in maintaining society. They consider ‘change’ as a constant that requires no explanation. They hold that changes disrupt the equilibrium of a society, until the change has been integrated into the culture. Societies accept and adopt those changes that are found useful (functional), while they reject changes that are useless (dysfunctional). They opine that when events within and without the society disrupt the equilibrium,
social institution make adjustments to restore stability. For instance, a natural calamity, a famine, an influx of immigrants or a war may disrupt the social order and compel the social institutions to make adjustments.
Karl Marx was one the great exponents of conflict theories. He looked at society as composition of oppositional forces— the oppressor and the oppressed. Such notion led him to predict the revolt of the masses. He saw conflict as the stage of development and progress that would lead to a higher order.
Karl Marx was the first to introduce dialectical pattern of change to sociological analysis of change which concept had already been analyzed by the German philosopher G.W.F.Hegel. A dialectical pattern of change is neither linear nor cyclical. It assumes that new social forms emerge out of the old social forms through opposition and conflict. Karl Marx and his followers propound that a social form (the thesis) gives rise to new social form (the synthesis) due to oppositional forces and conflict (the anti-thesis) within the existing old social form. It would mean that thesis generates anti-thesis, and anti-thesis generates synthesis, and again synthesis would give rise to a new anti-thesis, which in turn generates a new synthesis and the alternate process goes on.
11.4 Synthesis of Social Change Theories
Most theorists today integrate the various ideas and theories of social change that have been discussed above. There are very few theorists that still hold on their own ideas and theories. There are also not many theorists which believe that social change always results in improvement or that societies inevitably decay. There is a general agreement, however, that societies change because of various factors conditioed on the society. These factors could be both within and without the society and/or planned and unplanned. Many theorists do believe that changes in societies are not necessarily good or bad. They opine that although a stable society is usually better than a chaotic and conflict-ridden society, stability would sometimes imply exploitation, oppression and injustice.
11.5 Linear Theory
Change is cumulative, nonrepetitive, developmental, usually permanent (Tonnies theory of change from gemeinschaft to gesellschaft); 2 or more stages; view broad historical pattern of change in human societies as involving transition from small, undifferentiated societies with homogeneous culture to large societies with high degree of structural differentiation an heterogeneous culture. • Lenski’s macro stage theory or historical development of human societies: caused by innovations in the technology of economic production that produced ever larger surplus of material resources • hunting and gathering • pastoral and horticultural • agricultural • industrial • Urbanization: involves ancient process of interaction between cities and surrounding countryside; cities have 3 distinct characteristics of a marketplace (economic production), of a centre of political and administrative authority (political power) and of urban community (community conflict);
• ancient and medieval cities: community conflict dealt with peasant tax and rent revolts in countryside, competing elite groups and dynasties • commercial cities: community conflict dealt with import-export taxes on trade, competition between merchant families, wages & working conditions for craft workers and seamen, • industrial cities: community conflict from disadvantaged US farmers, urban factory workers and industrialists
• corporate cities: decentralized industrial production and more service-based economy, postwar 1950’s; community conflict and popular protest was about the urban community itself, about issues to do with urban decline, i.e. slums, poverty, jobs, housing, crime and racial discrimination • world cities: global economy, international banking & trade, recent decades; community conflict deals with old residents and newer immigrant communities, disparities in taxes and municipal services between political jurisdictions, foreign investment and capital flight.
11.6 Mechanisms of Social Change
Causal explanations of social change are limited in scope, especially when the subject of study involves initial conditions or basic processes. A more general and theoretical way of explaining social change is to construct a model of recurring mechanisms of social change. Such mechanisms, incorporated in different theoretical models, include the following. Mechanisms of one-directional change: accumulation, selection, and differentiation Some evolutionary theories stress the essentially cumulative nature of human knowledge. Because human beings are innovative, they add to existing knowledge, replacing less adequate ideas and practices with better ones. As they learn from mistakes, they select new ideas and practices through a trial-and-error process (sometimes compared to the process of natural selection). According to this theory, the expansion of collective knowledge and capabilities beyond a certain limit is possible only by specialization and differentiation. Growth of technical knowledge stimulates capital accumulation,
which leads to rising production levels. Population growth also may be incorporated in this model of cumulative evolution: it is by the accumulation of collective technical knowledge and means of production that human beings can increase their numbers; this growth then leads to new problems, which are solved by succeeding innovation.
Mechanisms of curvilinear and cyclic change: saturation and exhaustion Models of one-directional change assume that change in a certain direction induces further change in the same direction; models of curvilinear or cyclic change, on the other hand, assume that change in a certain direction creates the conditions for change in another (perhaps even the opposite) direction. More specifically, it is often assumed that growth has its limits and that in approaching these limits the change curve will inevitably be bent. Ecological conditions such as the availability of natural
resources, for instance, can limit population, economic, and organizational growth. Shorter-term cyclic changes are explained by comparable mechanisms. Some theories of the business cycle, for example, assume that the economy is saturated periodically with capital goods; investments become less necessary and less profitable, the rate of investments diminishes, and this downward trend results in a recession. After a period of time, however, essential capital goods will have to be replaced; investments are pushed up again, and a phase of economic expansion begins.
Cyclical theories of social change focus on the rise and fall of civilisations attempting to discover and account for these patterns of growth and decay” – (Ian Robertson). Spengler, Toynbee and Sorokin can be regarded as the Champions of this theory. Their ideas may be briefed here.
1. Spengler: ‘The Destiny of Civilisations’
Oswald Spengler, a German school teacher, in his book “The Decline of the West”-1918, pointed out that the fate of civilisations was a matter of “destiny”. Each civilisation is like a biological organism and has a similar life-cycle; birth, maturity old age and death. After making a study of eight major civilisations, including the West, he said that the modern Western Society is in the last stage, i.e. old age. He concluded that the Western Societies were entering a period of decay – as evidenced by wars, conflicts, and social breakdown that heralded their doom. This theory is almost out of fashion today. His idea of ’destiny’ is hardly an adequate explanation of social change. His biological analogy is also too unrealistic and his work is too mystical and speculative.
2. Toynbee: ‘Challenge and Response’
Arnold Toynbee, a British historian with enough sociological insight has offered a somewhat more promising a theory of social change. His famous book “A Study of History”-1946, a multivolume work, draws on materials from 24 civilisations. The key—concepts in Toynbee’s theory are those of “challenge and response”. “Every society faces challenges-at first, challenges posed by the environment; later challenges from internal and external enemies.
The nature of the responses determines the society’s fate. The achievements of a civilisation consist of its successful responses to challenges; if it cannot mount an effective response, it dies”.-(Ian Robertson). Toynbee’s views are more optimistic than those of Spengler’s, for he does not believe that all civilisations will inevitably decay. He has pointed out that history is a series of cycles of decay and growth. But each new civilisation is able to learn from the mistakes and tomorrow from cultures of others.
It is, therefore, possible for each new cycle to offer higher levels of achievement. Still he has not explained why some societies are able to offer effective responses to their challenges while others do not, or why a society should overcome one challenge but become a victim of another.
3. Sorokin: ‘Sensate’ and ‘Ideational’ Culture:
The Russian-American sociologist, Pitirim A Sorokin, in his book “Social and Culture Dynamics”- 1938, has offered another explanation of social change. His work has had a more lasting impact on sociological thinking. Instead of viewing civilisations into terms of development and decline he proposed that they alternate or fluctuate between two cultural extremes: The “sensate” and the “ideational’.
The sensate culture stresses those things which can be perceived directly by the senses. It is practical, hedonistic, sensual, and materialistic. Ideational Culture emphasises those things which can be perceived only by the mind. It is abstract, religious, concerned with faith and ultimate truth. It is the opposite of the sensate culture. Both represent ‘pure’ types of culture. Hence no society ever fully conforms to either type. Without mentioning the causes, he said that as the culture of a society develops towards one pure type, it is countered by the opposing cultural force. Cultural development is then reversed moving towards the opposite type of culture. In brief, too much emphasis on one type of culture leads to a reaction towards the other. “Societies contain both these impulses in varying degrees and the tension between them creates long-term instability”. Between these types, of course, there lies 9 third type ‘ideastic’ cultures. This is a happy and a desirable blend of the other two, but no society ever seems to have achieved it as a stable condition.
Sorokin’s theory has not been accepted by the sociologists for it portrays his prejudices and probably his disgust with the modern society. His concepts of ’sensate’ and ‘ideational’ are purely subjective. His theory is in a way speculative and descriptive. It does not provide an explanation as to why social change should take this form. Thus, the cyclical theories, in general are not satisfactory.