Introduction
Social change is the change in established patterns of social relations, or change in social values, or change in structures and subsystems operating in society. Social change may be partial or total, though mostly it is partial. Just as change in the examination system is partial change in the educational system, similarly enacting a law which prescribes punishment for refusing entry to untouchables in Hindu temples, or a law which legally permits divorce in the society, or a law which does not permit marriage below the specific age, might be called partial changes in a society. Nationalization of banks, coal mines, etc. are the examples of partial change in the economic system of society because this coexists with private property ownership in other spheres. The difficulty is in recognizing total change in the society or in a social system. If we say that not something but everything has changed in the society, it may be termed as total change, but it never happens. Similarly, a few aspects of family system, or marriage system or banking system or caste system, or factory system, etc. may change but we never find a total change in any of these social systems. No social system ever changes in toto. Social change is always or mostly partial.
Percy Cohen has said that one might also distinguish between minor changes and major or fundamental changes in a society. Change in the core or strategic features of a society or a social system may be defined as a major change. If we take the example of prison as a social system, its important features are: giving training to prisoners, arranging food, recreation and medical facilities for the inmates, giving punishment to criminals for violating the prison norms, permitting of fenders to maintain social contacts with their family and friends, making security arrangements to prevent escape from the prison, and so forth. Now suppose the entire security force is withdrawn and prisoners are given freedom to go to market at their will during the day time but spend nights compulsorily in the jail, it will be an example of change in that feature of the prison system which will affect other features too. As future and as the basic strategy for the restructuring of rural society and for expanding state control of the means of industrial production. The government’s approach to private enterprise and to the role of the state in industrial development was indicated in Industries Development and Regulation Act which provided that no new industrial unit or substantial expansion of existing plants could be made without a license from the Central Government. This rule was, however, liberalized in
the economic policy adopted by the government in 1992.
10.1 Concept and Meaning of Social Change
Social change has been understood and defined in many different ways. This is due to differences in perceptions and perspective of the concept and variation in labeling weightage to the idea and nature of social change. However, it is generally agreed among sociologists that the focus in the discourse of social change is the aspect of occurrence of significant alterations in the organization and/or structure and functions of social life rather than the regular, short term, and predictable reoccurrences.
We shall attempt a working definition of social change. The definition incorporates the aspects of significant changes in the various patterns of social relationships social processes, social patterns, action and interaction, the rules of relationships and conduct (norms), values, symbols and cultural products. The concept of social change also refers to variations over time in both the material and non-material aspects of culture. These changes take place both from within the societies (endogenousforces) and from without (exogenousforces) that is brought about by external forces.
The concept of social transformation is very closely related to that of social change. Social transformation is a relatively new term that has gained some popularity in the recent decades in the discourse of the social sciences. In fact, social transformation is a radical form of social change. It is a more abrupt change of a society and/or state, usually with a larger scale, through agents such as revolution. The concept connotes the idea of a particularly deep and far-reaching change that alters the way of life of the people within a limited span of time. Social change is on the other hand essentially concerned with minor and persistent changes in the social organization and/or social
structure of a society such as changes brought about in the patterns of family, marriage, and educational institution. In the following discussion, we shall use social change as connoting both the persistent changes (social change) and the radical and abrupt changes (social transformation)
unless specific mention is made.
10.2 Goals of Social Change
At the time of political independence of the country, many intellectuals felt that India had failed to modernize itself not because it lacked the wherewithal to develop but it had been the victim of capitalist imperialism. The socio-cultural transformation we had initiated four and a half decades ago and the one which we want to plan for the coming decades aims at structural changes which could meet the emerging needs and aspirations of the people. The collective goals we had planned to achieve in the very first decade of the republic were social, economic, political and cultural. The social goals were: equality, justice, freedom, rationality, and individualism. The economic goals include: distributive justice and economic rationalism in place of economic theology. The political goals were: establishing
a political system where the ruler is accountable to the ruled, decentralization of political power, and associating more and more people with the decision-making processes. Our cultural goal was a change from the sacred to the secular ideology.
The goals given by out power elites were:
- To create a strong central state: This was necessary because historically, political authority in India had been fragmented. After independence, it was feared that the religious, linguistic, caste, tribal, class, etc. forces may further attempt to fragment authority. Strong federal government with some authority to state governments alone would thwart attempts of such fragmentation.
- To modernize the economy: This was necessary for raising the low per capita income, for making the country self-reliant, and for having an indigenous capital goods sector which is not dependent on foreign private capital.
- To create a socialist pattern of society: This was necessary to restrict, but not eliminate, the role of private capitalists and emphasize public ownership of major industries.
- To reduce inequalities among castes, regions, and classes.
- To preserve fundamental human rights, such as right of free speech, right of free religious expression, right of political participation, and so forth.
- To establish a society where individuals would be motivated by spirit of selflessness, sacrifice, cooperation and idealism.
10.3 Approaches of Social Change
Yogendra Singh in his early writings on social change (1969: 11) had talked of three approaches to the study of nature and process of social change in India: philosophico-historical and metaphysical approach, historical and political approach, and social anthropological and sociological approach. The source for the philosophico-historical approach was described as the Indian and the western philosophies. Indian philosophy and religion had proposed a philosophical theory of change characterized by cyclical rythm in society (vilai-prilai;satyug-kalyug), broken and reactivated from time to time through avataras (reincarnations). The foundation of this theory was belief in karma, dharma and moksha. At one time, this theory was much accepted but now it has almost waned because systematic
analysis is not possible. Social change by the historicopolitical approach is studied through records of Indian history. For example, change in the caste system or change in the status of women is studied by systematic analysis of historical records pertaining to different periods, say Maurya period, Gupta period, Brahmanical period, Mughal period, British period, and post-independence period. The limitation of this approach lies in the fact that all historical records may not be available or the evidence may not be reliable. Consequently, reliance on this approach for sociological generalizations would be fallacious.
The socio-anthropological approach was considered more systematic than the other two (metaphysical and historical) approaches. The method in this approach is intensive field-work or participant observation. The theoretical propositions in this approach refer to a body of ethnographic data, either the result of one’s own or another’s field-work. Theoretical conclusions formulated by others are developed further by applying them to body of intensive data collected by the social anthropologist himself. M.N. Srinivas (1985: 137) is of the opinion that a few weeks or months with a people, through interpreters and a few selected informants cannot provide a reliable or intimate view of the people studied. A social anthropologist is expected to spend at least twelve to eighteen months among the people he studies to master their language as to observe as much as he can. The British social anthropologists now not emphasize culture but society, social structure and social relations. The social anthropologists have also come to focus on the ‘comparative method’ which includes study of different societies. Further, knowing that the institutions of a society are interrelated, the social anthropologist studies, along with the specific institution, all the other institutions related with it. The limitation of socio-anthropological approach is that effort to generalize about the macrocosm is on the basis of the microcosm. This is on the implicit assumption of ‘homogeneity’ and ‘universality’. But in India, we find more heterogeneity and diversity. As such, by studying change between two time-periods in a certain institution (say family, caste, etc.) in one village, we cannot generalize that similar change takes place in other villages or in whole Indian society as well. The weaknesses in the socio-anthropological approach are eliminated in the sociological approach. In sociological approach, the systematic empirical inquiries are conducted at macrocosmic level and generalizations are developed.
In his later writings on social change (1977), Yogendra Singh talked of five approaches in studying social change in India. These are: evolutionary approach, cultural approach (Sanskritization and Westernization, Little and Great traditions, and Parochialization and Universalization), structural approach (based on functional and dialectical models), ideological approach, and integration approach.
Evolutionary Approach
In the evolutionary approach, gradual development is studied from simple to complex form through a long series of small changes. Each change results in a minor modification of the system, but the cumulative effect of many changes over a long period of time is the emergence of new complex form. Within the evolutionary approach, the four sub-ap-proaches used by different scholars are: unilinear, universal, cyclical and multilinear.
The unilinear sub-approach talks of change in stages and believes that every stage is better and higher. The universal sub-approach does not believe in change in stages but it talks of change from simple to complex. It also talks of increasing differentiation and integration. The cyclical sub-approach talks of change in rhythmic way. The multilinear sub-approach concentrates on the process of adaptation to environment.
Conflict Approach
According to Marxist’s conflict approach, economic change produces other changes through the mechanism of intensified conflict between social groups and between different parts of the social system. Some theorists like D.P. Mukherjee, A.R. Desai, M.N. Dutta, have suggested that conflict in its broadest sense must be the cause of social change. The reasoning behind this is that if there is consensus in society and if the various sectors are integrated, there is little pressure for change; therefore, change must be due to conflict between groups and/or between different parts of the social and cultural systems.
Cultural Approach
In the cultural approach, change is studied by analyzing changing cultural elements of society. Within this approach, M.N. Srinivas studied change through sanskritization and westernization processes; Robert Redfield through change in Little and Great traditions; and McKim Marriott through the process of Parochialization and Universatization. Sanskritization (Srinivas, 1973) refers to the process of adopting customs, rituals, ideology and way of life of higher castes by the lower castes with a view to raise their position in the caste hierarchy. It is the process of cultural mobility in the traditional social structure. The higher castes are not always Brahmins; they could be Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and
so on in various regions of the country. Westernization is adopting the ideals, values (like rationalism, humanism), institutions and technology of the western society by the non-western society. Some scholars are, however, of the opinion that both sanskritization and westernization processes do not fully describe the ramifications of socio-cultural changes in India. Sanskritization refers only to the positional change of an individual or a group in the caste system; it does not explain change in the society or social system. Yogendra Singh (1973: 9) has also maintained that to describe the social changes occurring in modern India in terms of sanskritization and westernization is to describe it primarily in cultural and not in structural terms.
Following Robert Redfield (1955) who analyzed social change in the Mexican communities with the help of the concepts of Little and Great traditions, McKim Marriott (1955) and Milton Singer (1959) studied social change in India with this conceptual framework. Little traditions are indigenous customs, deities, and rites found at the folks’ or peasants’ level. They persist at the level of village community and their growth is internal. Those traditions which grow because of outside contacts and are found at elite level are called ‘Great traditions’. Explaining cultural changes, Milton Singer has said that (a) the growth of ‘great tradition’ was continuous with the ‘Little tradition’, (b) the cause of cultural continuity in India is the sharing of common cultural consciousness by the people and having a similar mental outlook, (c) the common cultural consciousness is formed by sacred books and sacred objects, and (d) India’s cultural continuity with the past is so great that even accepting change does not result in discarding ancient traditions. Thus, even though modern influences are changing many aspects of Indian society and culture, they have not destroyed its (India’s) basic structure and pattern.
The process of moving of elements of Little tradition (customs, rites, etc.) upward to the level of Great tradition is called ‘universalization’ by McKim Marriott, while the process of moving of elements of Great tradition downward to become part of the Little tradition is called ‘parochialization’. Thus, these concepts (of universalization and parochialization) also describe the processes of cultural change.
Structural Approach
This approach analyzes change in the network of social relationships and in social structures (like castes, kinship, factory, administrative structures, etc.). These social relationships and structures are compared intra-culturally as well as cross-culturally. According to Yogendra Singh (1977: 17), a structural analysis of change consists of demonstrating the qualitative nature of new adaptations in the patterned relationships. For example, when the spouse is selected by a child himself and not by his parents, the nature of quality of conjugal relations is bound to be different. However, in India, the structural approach has rarely been used in the analysis of change, while the cultural approach has been frequently used.
Integrated Approach
Yogendra Singh (1973: 22-27) feels that none of the above approaches provides a comprehensive perspective on social change in India. He has, therefore, integrated a series of concepts relating to social change and developed a new approach or paradigm, what he calls an ‘integrated approach’. In this approach, he integrates (a) direction of change (that is, linear or cyclical), (b) context of change (that is, through macro or micro levels of structures), (c) source of change (that is, through external contacts or internal sources), and (d) substantive domain of phenomena undergoing change (that is, the culture and the social structure).
Planning and Social Change
Planning is commitment to concerted action. It is adjustment of social institutions to new social, economic, and political conditions. It is not necessarily rational because it is not always guided by reliable scientific information. For example, in India, if for eliminating poverty, emphasis is laid only on increase in production and the issue of control over population explosion is completely neglected, how could it be called rational planning? Social planning aims at: (i) change is social organization, and (ii) community welfare (like improving educational facilities, increasing employment opportunities, doing away with evil social practices, etc.)
According to Riemer, three important characteristics of planning are: (a) prior determination of objectives and proclamation of values; (b) concreteness, that is, laying down concrete details of its subject-matter; and (c) co-ordination of diversified skills and diversified professional training. For the success of a plan, we have to bear in mind a few things: (i) plan must stem from the people themselves, (ii) people’s participation is extremely necessary, (iii) initiative (for implementing the plan) is to be taken not by the planners but by the activists in different walks of life, (iv) priorities have to be decided in advance, and (v) arbitration in decision-making must be by a person who has
technical knowledge and is a trained professional because he has the capability of visualizing alternative solutions.
In India, the economic planning was advocated by M. Visves waraya in 1940s. The Indian National Congress appointed a National Planning Committee on the eve of the Second World War (1938-39) to frame an all-India plan. But it was the Bombay Plan (known as Tata-Birla Plan) which made people planning-conscious in India. The Government of India set up in 1943 a committee of the Viceroy’s Council, known as Reconstruction Committee of Council (RCC), which was assisted by Provincial Policy Committees to chalk out plans for reconstruction. In 1944, the Department of Planning and Development was also created. However, at this stage, government plans were not concerned with definite economic targets. They were mainly concerned with issues like raising standard of living,
increasing purchasing power of the people, stabilizing agricultural prices, developing industries, removing wealth disparities, and raising backward classes. Different provinces were asked to prepare their own plans. There was no resource budget and no priorities. Thus, it could be pointed out that induced social change could not be possible in India till its independence because: (i) no priorities for development were determined through adequate planning, (ii) no adequate statistics were prepared regarding the need of production, national income, etc., (iii) limited foreign exchange was available for development purposes, (iv) private entrepreneurs were reluctant to invest huge amounts in industrial development because of the government’s policies, (v) there was no facility for getting raw materials, machineries, and capital goods from abroad, (vi) no serious efforts were made to check the growth of population, (vii) planning mechanism was not possible in the absence of proper coordination among the provincial and the central committees, (viii) inflation had increased due to world wars, and (ix) the administrative machinery was developed mainly with a view to discharge the policing function of the state. The bureaucrats were not trained to take interest in the development schemes.
After independence, the Government of India appointed the Planning Commission in 1950 to coordinate all state and central plans. The Commission was to: (i) determine priorities, (ii) plan balanced utilization of the country’s resources, (iii) make an assessment of the material, capital and human resources of the country, (iv) assess the progress achieved from time to time and recommend readjustment, and (v) identify factors which retard economic development. Since its inception, the Planning Commission has so far prepared eight Five Year Plans, each focusing on different objectives. For example, when the First Five Year Plan launched in April 1951 emphasized on agricultural development, the Second Five Year Plan emphasized on heavy industrial development, while the remaining six plans concentrated on both agricultural and industrial development. Other priorities of the Five Year Plans for the induced change were: family planning, increasing employment opportunities, increasing annual national income by 5 per cent to 7 per cent, growth of basic industries (like, steel, power, chemicals), maximum use of manpower resources, decentralization of economic power, reducing inequalities in income distribution, achieving social justice with equality, and so on.
It could be said that the central objective of planning in India has been to raise the standard of living of the people and to open out to them opportunities for a richer and more varied life. But has planning in India achieved the objectives of planned change? During the period of fortythree years of planning, the average rate of economic growth has been 3.5 per cent. Though it is not bad in comparison to the world’s average of 4 per cent, it is definitely poor in comparison to the average of the developing countries of 7 per cent to 10 percent. During 1951 to 1991 (that is, at the end of the Seventh Five Year Plan in April 1992), our national income had increased by about 3.5 per cent.
Though the government claims that the number of people below the poverty line has reduced by about 15 per cent between 1972 and 1992 but since the number of unemployed people registered in employment exchanges has increased from 4.37 lakh in 1952 to 50.99 lakh in 1971, 178 lakh in 1981 and 334 lakh in 1990 (India Today, May 31, 1991: 117), we cannot concede that objectives of planned change have been achieved and the quality of life of the people has been improved. No wonder, more people feel frustrated today and the number of agitations is increasing every year. We have to wait and watch before we decide to give planning a long holiday.
Following Ronald Lippit (1958: 96-99), it may be pointed out that certain principles have to be put into practice if a development programme has to be made successful. Some of the important principles are: (i) development proposals and procedures should be mutually consistent, (ii) the goals of development must be stated in terms that have positive value to the community, (iii) the planners must have a thorough knowledge of the beliefs and values of the community’s culture, (iv) development must take the whole community into account, (v) the community must be an active partner in the development process, and (vi) communication and co-ordination between various agencies of development is essential. The countries, including Japan and Germany, which have done better are those which have no planning commissions and have no plans. Should India follow the same path?
10.4 Nature of Social Change
Have we realized our collective goals? Indian society was described as traditional society till the first quarter of the twentieth century. Though the British Government did industrialize our country and introduced several economic and social changes, but it was not interested in raising the quality of life of the people. Have we succeeded in modernizing our society after political independence? If yes, what has been the pattern of social change or modernization? This question can be answered first by trying to understand what is a traditional society and what is a modern society? A traditional society is one in which (i) the status of a person is determined by birth and is fixed, that
is, individuals do not strive for social mobility; (ii) individual’s behaviour is governed by custom and ways of behaviour of people vary only slightly from generation to generation; (iii) social organization is based on hierarchy; (iv) individual identifies himself with primary groups and kinship relations predominate in interaction; (v) individual is given more importance in social relations than his position (vi) people are conservative; (vii) economy is simple and economic productivity above subsistence is relatively low; and (viii) mythical thought predominates in society.
Contrary to this, a transitional or a modern society is one in which (i) individual’s status in society is
determined by his own potentialities and capabilities; (ii) a person’s behaviour is governed more by
law than by custom; (iii) social structure is based on equality; (iv) secondary relations predominate
over primary relations; individuals identify with different kinds of groups as different situations
require and may compete for higher rank in each context; (v) individual’s position in society is achieved
and it is given more importance in social relations; (vi) people are innovative; (vii) economy is based
on complex technology; and (viii) rational thought predominates in society.
Does this mean that traditionalism and modernity are two extremes and the two cannot co-exist? Scholars like S.C. Dube, and Yogendra Singh are of the opinion that the two can co-exist. Accepting traditionalism does not mean completely rejecting modernization. It may simply mean regulating the forces of modernization. Similarly, accepting modernization does not mean complete rejection of traditionalism. It may mean retaining only those elements of traditionalism which are considered by the society as functional for it in view of the set (collective) goals. Accepting this viewpoint, we have to find out, to what extent Indian society continues to be traditional and to what extent has it become modern?
It will not be wrong to say that the nature of social change in India is such that we find synthesis of tradition and modernity. On the one hand, we have discarded those traditional beliefs, practices and institutions which we believed were more dysfunctional and on the other hand, we have imbibed those modern values and have created those modern institutions which we thought will help us in achieving our basic goal of ‘change in quality of life of the people’. In comparison to the British period, today we enjoy more individual freedom; we have more opportunities to rise in social scale; we have become more rational in discarding traditional social practices or creating new institutional structures; the number of people living below the poverty line has decreased; our per capita income in real terms has increased by 92 per cent in four decades since we became a republic; and active higher social status and positions of privilege and rank is no longer an illusion for the backward and the low caste people. In forty-five years, India’s economy has grown by 3.5 per cent per year, per capita growth rate has been 1.4 per cent, agricultural growth has been 2.7 per cent and industrial growth has been 1.0 per cent. On the other hand, inflation rate has been 7.0 per cent, total indebtedness is 2.28 lakh crore rupees, exports have gone down, and about 33 per cent people are living below the poverty line in the rural areas and 45 per cent in the urban areas. There are 34.2 per cent of the total number of poor people of the world in India.
Have we achieved communal harmony? Have we been able to bring women or par with men? Have we been able to ameliorate the conditions of untouchables? Have we been able to remove the feelings of deprivations among different classes like cultivators, industrial workers, daily wage-earners? Have we been able to alter property relations in favour of the less privileged? Can we claim to have egalitarian society?
The existing widespread unrest is the result of increasing contradictions in our social system. Some important contradictions are: our roles have become modern but our values continue to be traditional; we project egalitarianism but we practice discrimination; our aspirations have become very high but the means for achieving these aspirations are either not available or not accessible; we talk of nationalism but we encourage parochialism; we claim that our republic is dedicated to equality but in fact it is mired in an archaic system of caste; we claim to have become rationalists but we endure injustice and unfairness with fatalistic resignation; we proclaim the policy of liberalization but we still impose too many controls; we support individualism but we reinforce collectivism; we aim at ideational culture but we hanker after sensate culture; many new laws have been enacted and old ones modified but these laws are either not implemented or are full of loopholes and benefit none except the legal profession. There are too many laws and too little justice, too many public servants and too little public service, too many programmes and plans and too little welfare, too much government and too little administration.
The result of all these contradictions is that social unrest has increased in our society. The development has encountered formidable opposition from the corrupt and non-committed political elite and sub elite who are much more interested in their personal prosperity than in the future of the country, from the special interest groups and the economic monopolizers who prefer to flourish in the noncompetitive environment, and from the fanatic communal and religious leaders and the uninterested bureaucrats who are reluctant to shed their enormous powers.
The fundamental rights guaranteed by India’s Constitution assert individual liberties while the directive principles, on the other hand, commit the state to promote the welfare of the people by establishing a social order based on justice—social, economic and political—by systematic distribution of material resources, and by preventing the concentration of wealth. Thus, the fundamental rights and the directive principles represent two different traditions. When the former are ‘justiciable’, the latter are not. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution gave primacy to the directive principles (that is, commitment to socialism) above that of individual liberties (fundamental rights). Jaya Prakash Narain warned that the abrogation of the fundamental rights for the achievement of socialism would destroy India’s democratic institutions. But Indira Gandhi’s declaring of national emergancy in 1975 restricted fundamental rights. Indian socialism thus faced crisis because emergency in 1975 was not promulgated for creating a social order based on justice but for the vested interests of the political elite in power. The result was that the Congress party lost power at the Centre in 1988 elections, that is, after remaining in power for forty-one years. When Rajiv Congress came in power in 1984 in the parliamentary elections, socialist ideology had lost its lustre. The Janata Dal government also did not focus upon it during its remaining in power for two years. The Rao government in early 1992 and the
Congress party in its April 1992 session at Tirupati called for liberalizing the economy, ending licensing in industries, permitting expansion of the larger private firms, eliminating subsidies, encouraging collaborative agreements with foreign capital, ending the policy of nationalizing sick industries, and opening the economy to greater competition. Thus, socialism unofficially faced its death in India in early 1992 and India chose to adopt new strategy of development. Communism died in Russia after seventy years. There are no prominent intellectual spokesmen for socialism in India today. The bulk of India’s educated youth in political power and in educational institutions show no sympathy for the socialist perspective. How far the new liberal and competitive non-socialist policies will take
India to its goals is yet to be seen.
10.5 Hinderances to Social Change
It is true that Indian society is changing and certain directions of social change and development are clearly apparent, yet it is a fact that we have not been able to achieve all those goals which we wanted to achieve. What have been the hinderances in achieving our goals? Some western scholars like Gunnar Myrdal suggest that the main cause of India’s economic weakness is not lack of technical skills among the people but rather a lack of intiative, of interest in improving their status, and of respect for labour. Such views are illogical, biased, and vigorously chal-lenged by Indian and some western scholars like Morris (1967), Milton Singer (1966, 1969), T.N. Madan (1968), Yogendra Singh (1973), and S.C. Dube (1982). A good number of studies in rural India have shown keen desire on the part of the villagers for improvement. They are willing to work hard, change their harmful customs, eschew temptations, and rise above human fallibilities. The impediments to developmental efforts are not human factors but political environment, social structures, and economic handicaps.
Forces of Tradition
Change in a society is possible only by fostering attitudes of receptivity toward new ways of doing things. Sticking to one’s traditions and refusing to accept new ideas act as a barrier to social change. The degree of cultural accumulation and the amount of contact with other societies determine the nature and extent of social change within a society. The possibility of invention and the introduction of new traits from other cultures is limited by the degree of cultural accumulation, which in turn depends upon the willingness to discard traditions—if not all, at least non-utilitarian and dysfunctional ones. What transpires through contacts with other cultures is diffusion, the source of most social change. Relatively isolated societies experience little change, whereas societies which are meeting
grounds of people from many cultures experience rapid social change. In a society which does not change, one finds people refusing to intermingle freely and declining to share others, customs, knowledge, technology and ideologies. This refusal is because people consider their traditions as sacred. They allege that the merit of traditions derives from transmission from a sacred orientation. Traditionally transmitted norms are accepted not because they exist, but because they fill the need to have rules in a given situation. They perform a stabilizing function in society. So, the role which traditional norms are likely to play in an economically and technically changing society depends at least in part, on the place which tradition-oriented behaviour holds in the society. And here we can draw a division on the continuum of tradition and modernity. For, in traditional society, traditional values are given importance because they have been transmitted from the past. But in modern society, the conditions for change are welcomed because they offer solutions to present problems.
Caste System
The caste system has been a great obstacle in achieving both justice and prosperity. Kingsley Davis (1951: 216) was correct when he said that the conception of hereditary occupation is exactly the opposite of the idea of open opportunities, free competition, increasing specialization and individual mobility associated with a dynamic industrial economy. Factionalism is an important factor in the failure of development projects, particularly in rural areas. Caste and sub-caste membership is one basis of the formation of factions. In many areas where farmers belong to one caste amongst many, other castes do not wish to cooperate as it will be of no direct benefit to them. In areas where farmers are the ruling group, the development programme likewise fails to gain widespread acceptance. Any project that apparently aids one caste is opposed by all other castes who are jealous of their position in society or eager to defend their own position at every one else’s expense. Like caste factions, the intra-caste factions also act as barrier in social change. Earlier the restrictions of the caste system on interaction with people of other castes did not permit mobility and industrialization, and today its use in politics has presented rulers to function in constructive ways. William Kapp has also pointed out that Hindu culture and Hindu social organization are determining factors in India’s low rate of development. Milton Singer, however, does not accept this viewpoint. His contention is that there is no considerable evidence to indicate that Hindu culture and caste system have had any dampening effect on India’s development. He describes Kapp’s conclusions as largely speculative extrapolations derived from misunderstood
scriptual concepts.
Illiteracy, Ignorance and Fear
Ignorance caused by illiteracy creates fear which resists social change. The customary ways of doing things are considered safe because they have been tried. Opinion about trial in villages or in simple— societies is not so rationalistic. New is unknown and therefore must be avoided. If inventions, which are in part determined by the existing material culture, are frequent, a people become accustomed to change and the hostility to change tends to break down. Conversely, if material culture inventions are frequent change, may be rare and feared. When illiteracy promotes hierarchy, education insists on the idea of equality. It encourages rationality too. The educated people generate all kinds of new desires, inventions, etc. and also develop means for achieving them.
The Values
The role played by values in social change is a subject of much controversy. For example, Hegel felt that social change was a result of the unfolding of ideas. Marx felt that values had no effect on long term social change. He felt that social change was exclusively a result of the interplay of economic forces and was manifested in the class struggle. Most of the Indian sociologists agree that values do influence both individual and collective behaviour thereby influencing social processes. Many also feel that values are the result of change and therefore should not always be considered as primary factors in social change. The values of the caste system (hierarchy, pollution, endogamy, etc.) were a great barrier in changing Indian society. It was only when technology and industrialization were accepted by the common people that geographical mobility and consequently the social mobility was made possible. Fatalism also prevented hard work and social change. Famines, floods, earthquakes, poverty, unemployment were all considered to be the result of God’s wrath. In industrial societies, people have proved that control over nature is possible and undesirable situation is not a hopeless block but a challenge to man’s ingenuity
Ethnocentrism (belief in the superiority of one’s culture) also prevents persons in accepting things/ innovations from other cultures. Ethnocentrism is so deeply engrained in the minds of Indians that even when they are sensitive to the philosophy of cultural relativism, they easily fall victim to evaluating others in terms of their own views. The pride and dignity too prevent people from accepting things suggested by others. They think that they are so matured and learned that others’ suggestions need to be discarded.
The Power Elite
It has been recognized almost by all scholars in our country that government has been a principal agency of social change and a good part of social change has been stimulated and directed by government agencies. In government, the innovative and reformist functions rest with ‘power elite’, or what Pareto has called the ‘governing elite’. All elites are not committed to community’s welfare or society’s development. Many elites function on the basis of vested interests. In terms of their interest in self (S) and in public (P), I classify them in four groups (Ahuja: 1975: 65-66): indifferent (S –, P –), manipulative (S +, P –), progressive (S –, P +), and rationalist (S +, P +). The progress in a
society depends upon the type of political elite who predominate. My contention is that in the first two decades of independence our elites were nationalist-rational while in the last two and a half decades, they are parochialist-irrational. Since indifferent and manipulative elites have dominated over progressive and rationalist elites, the development of our society has been blocked. Like political elites, our bureaucrats are more ritualists than innovative, our judiciary is more traditional than liberal, our police is committed more to politicians in power than to law. Thus, since our policymakers and law-enforcers do not share the necessity of social change conducive to people’s welfare,
development has been overlooked.
Population Explosion
The nation’s potential for achieving the set goals is handicapped by explosion in our population. About 47.3 thousand persons are added to our existing population every day, or 17 million persons every year, or 170 million people in a decade. It has been calculated that for every addition of about 135 million people in our country, we will require every year 20 million cereals, 25,000 meters of cloth, and also 2,500 million houses, 1.35 lakh primary and secondary schools, 4,000 hospitals and dispensaries, 1,500 primary health centres, 2 lakhs hospital beds and 50 thousand doctors (India Today, September 16-30, 1979: 53). The large population thus checks our efforts to contain poverty and bring rapid development.
It may be concluded that as regards the direction of social change in India is concerned, there has been considerable cultural continuity along with change based on imbibing modern values, practices and institutions. The traditional patterns have not been held static and modern behaviour is commonly fitted into long-standing patterns of action.
10.6 Forms of Social Change
Transformations and Revolution
Group conflict has often been viewed as a basic form of social change, especially of those radical and sudden social transformations identified as revolutions. Marxists in particular tend to depict social life in capitalist society as a struggle between a ruling class, which wishes to maintain the system, and a dominated class, which strives for radical change. Social change then is the result of that struggle. These ideas are basic to what sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf has called a conflict model of society. The notion of conflict becomes more relevant to the explanation of social change if it is broadened to include competition between rival groups. Nations, firms, universities, sports associations, and artistic schools are groups between which such rivalry occurs. Competition stimulates the introduction and
diffusion of innovations, especially when they are potentially power-enhancing. Thus, the leaders of non-Western states feel the necessity of adopting Western science and technology, even though their ideology may be anti-Western, because it is only by these means that they can maintain or enhance national autonomy and power.
Additionally, competition may lead to growth in the size and complexity of the entities involved. The classic example of this process, as first suggested by Adam Smith, is the tendency in capitalism toward collusion and the establishment of monopolies when small firms are driven out of the competitive marketplace. Another example came from Norbert Elias, who suggested that western European nationstates were born out of competitive struggles between feudal lords. Competition also dominates theories of individualism, in which social change is seen as the result of individuals pursuing their self-interest. Game theory and other mathematical devices, however, have shown that individuals acting in their own self-interest will in certain conditions cooperate with one another and thereby
widen the existing social networks.
Tension and adaptation
In structural functionalism, social change is regarded as an adaptive response to some tension within the social system. When some part of an integrated social system changes, a tension between this and other parts of the system is created, which will be resolved by the adaptive change of the other parts. An example is what the American sociologist William Fielding Ogburn has called cultural lag, which refers in particular to a gap that develops between fast-changing technology and other slower-paced sociocultural traits.
Diffusion
Diffusion, is the process of the spread of culture from group to group. It has been considered as one of the main causes of social change. Diffusion takes place within societies and between societies through contact. This is why the process of diffusion becomes difficult to penetrate in a situation of isolation. Jazz, which was originated among black musicians of New Orleans diffused to other groups within the society, and then later spread to other societies as well and to different parts of the world. Social movement is certainly one of the most important factors of social change. We can understand social movement into two different forms- one, those movements organised to create some new social forms that are usually radical and liberal in nature; and two, those movements concerned with maintaining or recreating older social forms that are generally conservative or reactionary. However, in both these cases, social change will depend much on the success of the movements and the impact it could cause to the society. Revolutionary movement may be considered as a kind of social movement. Revolutionary movements also cause social change. The French Revolution of 1789 witnessed the rise of French democracy, rise of modern civilian army, and was a great eye-opener and model for many peoples in different parts of the world who are struggling for liberation and justice. The Russian Revolution is also another example of revolutionary change that brought an end to monarchical government and class stratification in Russia.
Diffusion of innovations
Some social changes result from the innovations that are adopted in a society. These can include technological inventions, new scientific knowledge, new beliefs, or a new fashion in the sphere of leisure. Diffusion is not automatic but selective; an innovation is adopted only by people who are motivated to do so. Furthermore, the innovation must be compatible with important aspects of the culture. One reason for the adoption of innovations by larger groups is the example set by higherstatus groups which act as reference groups for other people. Many innovations tend to follow a pattern of diffusion from higher to lower-status groups. More specifically, most early adopters of innovations in modern Western societies, according to several studies, are young, urban, affluent, and highly educated, with a high occupational status. Often they are motivated by the wish to distinguish themselves from the crowd. After diffusion has taken place, however, the innovation is no longer a symbol of distinction. This motivates the same group to look for something new again. This mechanism may explain the succession of fads, fashions, and social movements.
Planning and institutionalization of change
Social change may result from goal-directed large-scale social planning. The possibilities for planning by government bureaucracies and other large organizations have increased in modern societies. Most social planning is short-term, however; the goals of planning are often not reached, and, even if the planning is successful in terms of the stated goals, it often has unforeseen consequences. The wider the scope and the longer the time span of planning, the more difficult it is to attain the goals and avoid unforeseen or undesired consequences. This has most often been the case in communist and totalitarian societies, where the most serious efforts toward integrated and long-term planning were put into practice. Most large-scale and long-term social developments in any society are still largely unplanned, yet large-scale changes resulting from laws to establish large governmental agencies, such as for unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, or guaranteed medical care, have produced significant institutional changes in most industrial societies. Planning implies institutionalization of change, but institutionalization does not imply planning.
Many unplanned social changes in modern societies are institutionalized; they originate in organizations permanently oriented to innovation, such as universities and the research departments of governments and private firms, but their social repercussions are not controlled. In the fields of science and technology, change is especially institutionalized, which produces social change that is partly intended and partly unintended.