Social Action & Change Original
217
Ambo University Distance Education Coordination Office (DECO) Module on the Course- Social Action and Change (SOSW 272) Prepared By; Birhanu Megersa & Fekadu Dereje Edited by: Dereje Bekele July, 2011 Ambo, Ethiopia P.O.Box 19 1 | Page
-
Upload
dessalegnmekuriaw -
Category
Documents
-
view
58 -
download
0
Transcript of Social Action & Change Original
Ambo University
Distance Education Coordination Office (DECO)
Module on the Course- Social Action and Change
(SOSW 272)
Prepared By;
Birhanu Megersa & Fekadu Dereje
Edited by:
Dereje Bekele
July, 2011
Ambo, Ethiopia
P.O.Box 19
Ambo, West Shoa,Ethiopia
Tel: Office- Operator +251-11-2360020
Fax +251-11-2362037
1 | P a g e
E-mail: [email protected] (Department of Sociology and Social
Work)
Table of ContentModule
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
Course Objectives ......................................................................................
................................ 2Unit One- Social
Action ............................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
Section One- Definitions of Social Action ............................................................................... 4
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 4
Section Two-Characteristics of Social Action ....................................................................... 7
Section Three-Types of Social Action .................................................................................... 9
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 9
Section Four - Systems of Social Action ................................................................................ 12
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 12
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 16
Check Activities One ...............................................................................................
............... 18Unit Two –Sociology and Social
Change .............................................................................. 20Introduction ...................................................................................
.......................................... 20Section One: Sociology as the study of Social Change_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _21Overview _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
21Section Two: The Notion of Social Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 23Overview_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
23
2 | P a g e
2.1 Social Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 23
2.2. The Basic Concepts in Social Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 25
Section Three: The Characteristics of Social Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 29
Overview _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _29
3.2 Characteristics of Social Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 29
3.3. Social Change and Social Revolutions _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 32
Section Four: Social Change as a Social Reality _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _34
Overview _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ 34
4.1 Social Change: Historical Analysis _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 34
4.2 Some Global Social Changes in Human History and Its Continuity _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _35
Section Five: Time and Social Change_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 37
Overview _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ 37
5.1 The Place of Time in Social Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ 37
5.2. The Concept of Time_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 38
5.3. Social Time and Its Function_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 39
Summary _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 42
Self-check Exercise Two ...............................................................................................
............ 43Unit Three – Origin and Patterns of Social
Change ............................................................... 45Introduction ...................................................................................
............................................ 45Section One: Theories about the Origin of Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ __ 46Overview _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
462.1 Materialistic Perspectives of the Origin of Change__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _47A. The Marxist Approach _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 47B. William Ogburn (1930s) materialistic perspectives _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ 48
3 | P a g e
2.2 Idealistic Perspectives: Max Weber _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 49
2.3 The Interaction between Causes of Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _50
Section Two: Theory of Pattern of Social Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _52
Overview _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ 52
3.1 Linear Models of Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 52
A) Societal Development_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 53
2) Pastoralist _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 55
3) Horticulturalist _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 55
4) Agrarian _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 56
5) Industrial _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 57
6) Post-Industrial _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 58
7) The Implications of Societal Development _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 59
3.2 Cyclical Models of Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 62
2.3_ Dialectical Models of Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 65
Summary _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ 68
Self -Check questions Three_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _69
Unit Four - Contemporary Sociological Of Social Change .................................................... 71
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 71
Dear Student, ........................................................................................
..................................... 71Section One: Structural Functionalism and Social
Change ................................................... 72Overview .......................................................................................
.............................................. 72Objective .......................................................................................
.............................................. 721.1. Structural Functionalist Theory: Revised view_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
_ _ _731.2. Parsons Theory of Social change_ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _75
4 | P a g e
1.3. Robert Merton’s Theory and Social Change_ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _80
1.4. Neo-functionalism and Social Change _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __81
1.5. Criticisms of Structural/Functionalism Theory on Social Change_ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _82
1.6. Mass society Theory_ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __84
Section Two: Conflict Theory and Social Change.................................................................. 86
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 86
Objective .................................................................................................................................... 88
2.1_ Marxist and Neo-Marxist theory of social change_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ 88
2.2_ . Ralph Dahrendorf Theory of Social Change_ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 89
2.3_ Criticism against Dahrendorf theory of Social Change_ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ 91
Section Three: Interpretive Theory and Social Change .................................................. 93
Overview .............................................................................................................................. 93
Objective .............................................................................................................................. 93
3.1 Interpretive Theories and social Change _ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ 93
3.2_ Criticism of Interpretive Theory of Change_ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ 96
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 97
Self test questions 3 ...................................................................................................
........... 98Unit Five - Paradigms of Social Change: Modernization, Development
andEvolution .......................................................................................
....................................... 100Introduction ...................................................................................
...................................... 100Objective .......................................................................................
....................................... 100Section One: The Modernization Paradigm of Social
Chang........................................... 101Overview .......................................................................................
....................................... 101
5 | P a g e
Objective .............................................................................................................................. 101
1.1 The Concept of Modernization_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ 102
1.2 Modernization Paradigm of Social Change_ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 103
1.3 Critics of Modernization_ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ 106
Section Two: Development Paradigm of Social Change_ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ 108
Overview_ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ 1082.1 Development Approach to Social Change_ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
1092.2 Dependency Theory of Development_ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _
1122.3 The World System Theory of social Change_ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _
1162.4 Critics of Development paradigm of Social Change_ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _
_ 119Section Three: Evolution Theory of Social
Change ........................................................ 123Overview .......................................................................................
.................................... ..123Objective .......................................................................................
..................................... 1233. 1 Auguste Comte and the Idealist Concept of Evolution_ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _
1243.2 Herbert Spencer and the Naturalistic Concept of Evolution_ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _
_ _ 1243.3_ Emile Durkheim and the Sociological Concept of Evolution_ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _
_ 1253.4_ Lester Ward and the Evolution of Evolution_ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ _
1253.5_ The Common Core of Evolutionary Theory_ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ _ _
1263.6_ Weakness of Classical Evolutionism_ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ _ _ __
1273.7_ The Place of Darwinian Theory_ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _
128Summary .......................................................................................
...................................... 133Self test questions
4 ......................................................................................................... …135
Unit Six - Forces and Agents of Social Change: Social Movements and Globalization...... 137
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 137
6 | P a g e
Objective .............................................................................................................................. 138
Section One. The Concept and Types of Social Movements ........................................... 139
Overview ............................................................................................................................. 139
Objective ............................................................................................................................. 139
1.1._ Formation of Social Movements_ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ 140
1.2._ Types of Social Movements_ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ 142
1.3._ Decline of Social Movements__ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ 146
1.4._ Theories of Social Movements_ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ 147
1.5._ New Social Movements_ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _149
Section Two: Globalization and the Internet as Agents of Social Change ...................... 152
Overview__ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _152Objectives__ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _152
Section Three: New Social Movements and Social Change ............................................. 156
Overview ................................................................................................................................ 156
Objectives ................................................................................................................... ……..156
2.1_ New Social Movements_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ 159
2.2_ New Forms of Collective Action_ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ _ _ __ _ _161
2.3._ Social Movements and Modernity: A New Outlook_ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ ___ 166
Summary_ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _170)Self test questions
5 ................................................................................................................ 172
Reference .................................................................................................................................. 173
7 | P a g e
Module Introduction
In these times scarcely a day passes without the newspaper and other mass
media reporting a new or continuing crisis of grave international import in
some little-known part of the world. The technology of telecommunication
and travel has “shrunken the size of the world”. The politics of international
tension made that small world a dangerous place for human habitation. The
pace of change in general, and particularly the rate at which the world is
becoming a single tough highly disordered system, gives a kind of urgency to
the notion that crisis is the ordinary state of social life. The contemporary
world is more hazardous than the past, and the hazard affect more people.
Social change, on the other hand, is not uniquely modern phenomenon.
Some kinds and degrees of change are universal in human experience. The
speed of contemporary change is not totally illusionary but can be
exaggerated, as when we pass a much slower moving auto on the road and
it seems to be standing still. By any crude measurement, the contemporary
world appears to be changing more rapidly than at any time in human
history and this is the result of and demands social actions.
As such this course discuses about the concepts of social action, its
meaning, characteristics, type and system and change, causes and patterns
of change, problems of change and action, and theoretical analysis of social
change and action. It also deals with how social actions facilitate the
processes of social change in society with illustrative issue of social
movement as a force of social change. It explains the factors in rate and
directions of change and social actions with presenting the divers paradigms
of social change, modernization, development and evolution.
Course Objectives
At the end of this course, students are able to:
Understand the relationship and concepts in Sociology , Social action
and
8 | P a g e
Social Change
Explore the Causes and Patterns of Social action and Change
Analyze the Contemporary Sociological theory of Social action and
Change
Understand and apply the Paradigms of Social Change: Modernization,
Development and Evolution to different social realities
Examine the forces and forms of social action and change particularly
of social movement
Unit One- Social Action
Introduction: Dear learner, in this chapter we are going to discuss about
social action ‘action that has social nature’. What does social action mean? In
the words of the father of sociology Max Weber an action is social so far as it
involves the behavior of others. You may remember from other sociology
courses that the others are as significant as self, since they make part and
parcel of human personality. Based on the influence of social action on
human personality the detailed discussion of it is demanding. The discussion
will be based on the works of Max Weber, Velferdo Pareto, Talcott Parson and
Karl Mannheim. Accordingly the meaning/definition, characteristics, types
and system of social action will be explored in this chapter. The unit has four
sections; section one discusses the meaning of social action based on the
works of Max Weber, Talcott Parson, V. Pareto and Karl Mannheim, section
two is devoted to the characteristics of social action, the third section
identifies the major types of social action while the fourth section deals with
the system of social action.
Objective: Dear learner, after accomplishing this unit, you will be able to:-
o Define what is social action;
o Identify the major characteristics of social action
o Describe the main types of social action and their influence on human
behavior
9 | P a g e
o Describe the system of social action
Section One- Definitions of Social Action: An Overview
Dear learner, how do you define social action and what are the major criteria
to identify an action as social? (Write your answer on the space provided
before you proceed to reading the chapter) - - - - - - - - -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, as you have seen in other sociology courses, many sociologists have
wrote about social action. Among these Max Weber, Talcott Parson, Karl
Mannheim and Velferdo Pareto are those with notable contributions. In
sociology, social action refers to an act which takes into account the
actions and reactions of individuals (or ’agents’).
According to the father of sociology Max Weber an action is social in so far as
by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by acting individual it
takes account of the behavior of others and is thereby oriented in its course.
As such social action includes all human behavior when and in so far as the
acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to it. There is an argument
that the concept of social action was primarily developed in the non-positivist
theory of Max Weber to observe how human behaviors relate to cause and
effect in the social realm. For Weber, sociology is the study of society and
behavior and must therefore look at the heart of interaction. The theory of
social action, more than structural functionalist positions, accepts and
assumes that humans vary their actions according to social contexts and
how it will affect other people; when a potential reaction is not desirable, the
action is modified accordingly. Action can mean either a basic action (one
that has a meaning) or an advanced social action, which not only has a
meaning but is directed at other actors and causes action.
According to Talcott Parsons social action is a process in the actor-situation
system which has motivational significance to the individual actor or in the
case of collectivity, its component individuals. Parson’s theory of social
10 | P a g e
action is based on his concept of the society. Parsons is known in the field of
sociology mostly for his theory of social action. On the basis of this definition
it may be said that the processes of action are related to and influenced by
the attainment of the gratification or the avoidance of deprivations of the
correlative actor, whatever they concretely be in the light of the relative
personal structures that there may be. All social actions proceed from
mechanism which is their ultimate source. It does not mean that these
actions are solely connected with organism. They are also connected with
actor’s relations with other persons’ social situations and culture. According
to Velferdo Pareto sociology tries to study the logical and illogical aspects of
actions. For Pareto every social action has two aspects one is its reality and
the other is its form. Reality involves the actual existence of the thing and
the form is the way the phenomenon presents itself to the human mind. The
first is called the objective and the other is called subjective aspects. Logical
action essentially involves rational action both
in the mind of the actor as well as those who observe them objectively. He
maintains a logical co-relation between the means to the action and the end
it serves. All sorts of logical actions are objectively observable and verifiable
which is a reality in itself.
However in social reality most of the social actions are not logical. Although
sociology deals with both the logical and non-logical actions it emphasizes
the analysis of non-logical actions. It is the social reality in which actors give
subjective meaning to the action which is driven by meanings, motives and
sentiments. Karl Mannheim’s theory of sociology of knowledge explains the
linkage between thought and action. Thought process is not of individual
making; rather a group having similar position develops only gradually new
thoughts as differentiated from the old established thoughts when they are
exposed to a certain kind of typical behavior in a prolonged historical setting
and social perspective. When the actors interact in certain social reality they
organize their thought and act in a historical and social perspective.
11 | P a g e
According to Max Weber, though not merely confined to the study of social
action, [Sociology is] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning
of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which
the action proceeds and the effects which it produces. By ’action’ in this
definition is meant the human behaviour when and to the extent that the
agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful ... the meaning to which we
refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an individual
agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of agents on an
approximate average in a given set of cases, or (b) the meaning attributed to
the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in the abstract. In
neither case is the ’meaning’ to be thought of as somehow objectively
’correct’ or ’true’ by some metaphysical criterion. This is the difference
between the empirical sciences of action, such as sociology and history, and
any kind of priori discipline, such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics
whose aim is to extract from their subject-matter ’correct’ or ’valid’ meaning.
Max Weber The Nature of Social Action 1922
#Activity 1
1. List sociologists with notable contribution to the study of social action.
________________________________________________________________________
2. Is there any difference between the definitions given to social action by
Max Weber, Talcott Parsons and Velferdo
Pareto?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Two-Characteristics of Social Action: An Overview
Dear learner, social action is the action of human being and like anything
that is human; it has its own characteristics. Would you please take ten
minute to think about the major characteristics of human social action and
write your ideas on the space provided before you read the following
paragraph?
12 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________
_______________________________________
Well, I hope we have a lot to write as it is about our own action and what we
can observe from the society we are living in and with. Though it is not
exhaustive the following are the four major characteristics of social action.
1) Relationship with the action of others: No action shall be called a
social action unless it has relationship with the present, past or future
behavior of others. Others are not necessarily known persons. They may be
unknown individuals as well. Social action includes both failures to act and
possess acquiescence may be oriented to the past, present or accepted
further behavior of others.
2) Social action is not isolated: Social action in order to be really social
has to be oriented to the behavior of other animate things as well. Worship
before an idol or worship in a lonely place is not a social action. It has to be
oriented to the behavior of animate beings as well. In every kind of action
even overt action is social in the sense of the present discussions. Overt
action is non social if it is oriented solely to the behavior of the inanimate
objects.
3) Result of cooperation and struggle between individual and
members of the society: Mere contact with human beings is not a social
action. It should deal with the cooperation and struggle between various
individuals. A crowd that may collect at a place does not necessarily indulge
in the social action unless it starts behaving with one another. Social action
is not identical with the similar action, actions of many persons or action
influenced by others.
4) Has a meaningful understanding with other, action or action of
others: Mere contact with others or actions in relation to others are not a
social action. Social action should have a meaningful understanding with the
social action of others. In every type of contact of human beings has a social
13 | P a g e
character. This is rather confined to cases where the actor’ s behavior is
meaningfully oriented to that of others.
Weber argued that to explain an action we must interpret it in terms of its
subjectively intended meaning. A person’ s action is to be explained in terms
of the consequences he or she intended purpose rather than in terms of its
actual effects the two are often at variance. A subjectively intended meaning
is also a causal explanation of the action, in that the end in view is a cause of
present actions. For Weber it is important that action is defined in terms of
meaningfulness and sociological analysis must proceed by identifying the
meaning that actions have for actors.
#Activity 2
1. Explain the distinctiveness of social action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
2. Is there any human action that is not social? If yes what are the
characteristics of asocial humanaction?
__________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Section Three-Types of Social Action: An Overview
Dear learner, it is now time to see the major types of social action identified
by sociologists. Before you read the following paragraph would you please
recall the works of Max Weber on Social action and write the four major
types of social action on the space provided?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________
Good, Max Weber has also a notable contribution on the types of action that
are social. He said like any other social forms it is possible to identify the
following four types of social action. These are;
14 | P a g e
1) Rational Action: In terms of rational orientation to a system of discrete
individual ends that is through expectations as to the behavior of objects in
the external situation and of other human individuals making use of these
expectations as conditions or means for the successful attainment of the
actor’ s own rationally chosen ends. Rationality means that the actions taken
are analyzed and calculated for the greatest amount of (self)-gain and
efficiency. Rational choice theory although increasingly colonized by
economist, it does differ from microeconomic conceptions. Yet rational
choice theory can be similar to microeconomic arguments. Rational choice
assumes individuals to be egoistic and hyper rational although theorists
mitigate these assumptions by adding variables to their models.
2) Evaluative actions: actions which are planned and taken after
evaluating the goal in relation to other goals, and after thorough
consideration of various means (and consequences) to achieve it. An
example would be a high school student preparing for life as a lawyer. The
student knows that in order to get into college, he/she must take the
appropriate tests and fill out the proper forms to get into college and then do
well in college in order to get into law school and ultimately realize his/her
goal of becoming a lawyer. If the student chooses not to do well in college,
he/she knows that it will be difficult to get into law school and ultimately
achieve the goal of being a lawyer. Thus the student must take the
appropriate steps to reach the ultimate goal. In terms of rational orientation
to an absolute value involving a conscious belief in the absolute value of
some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other form of behavior entirely for its
own sake and independently of any prospects of external success.
3) Emotional actions: actions which are taken due to one’s emotions, to
express personal feelings. For examples, cheering after a victory, crying at a
funeral would be affectional actions. Affectual is divided into two subgroups:
uncontrolled reaction and emotional tension. In uncontrolled reaction there is
no restraint and there is lack of discretion. A person with an uncontrolled
reaction becomes less inclined to consider other peoples’ feelings as much
15 | P a g e
as their own. Emotional tension comes from a basic belief that a person is
unworthy or powerless to obtain his/her deepest aspirations. When
aspirations are not fulfilled there is internal unrest. It is often difficult to be
productive in society because of the unfulfilled life. Emotion is often
neglected because of concepts at the core of exchange theory. Emotions are
one's feelings in response to a certain situation. There are six types of
emotion: social emotions, counterfactual emotions, emotions generated by
what may happen (often manifested as anxiety), emotions generated by joy
and grief (examples found in responses typically seen when a student gets a
good grade, and when a person is at a funeral, respectively), thought-
triggered emotions (sometimes manifested as flashbacks), and finally
emotions of love and disgust. All of these emotions are considered to be
unresolved. There are six features that are used to define emotions:
intentional objects, valence, cognitive antecedents, physiological arousal,
action tendencies, and lastly physiological expressions.
4) Traditional actions: actions which are carried out due to tradition,
because they are always carried out in a particular manner for certain
situations. An example would be putting on clothes or relaxing on Sundays.
Some traditional actions can become a cultural artifact Traditional is divided
into two subgroups: customs and habit. A custom is a practice that rests
among familiarity. It is continually perpetuated and is ingrained in a culture.
Customs usually last for generations. A habit is a series of steps learned
gradually and sometimes without conscious awareness. As the old cliché
goes, “old habits are hard to break” and new habits are difficult to form.
#Activity 3
1. What are the major types of social action according to Max Weber?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
16 | P a g e
2. Discuss the major distinguishing feature of the four types of social action
identified by
Weber.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Section Four - Systems of Social Action: An Overview
Dear learner, now we will briefly look at the systems that channel social
actions. Before resuming in to the discussion take five minute think about
what guide social interaction and write your answer on the space
provided.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good learner, as you have mentioned human social interaction does not
take place in liberated way, there are systems that guide and lead it.
Accordingly social actions are guided by the following three systems which
may also be called as three aspects of the systems of social action.
1) Personality system: This aspect of the system of social action is
responsible for the needs for fulfillment of which the man makes effort and
performs certain actions. But once man makes efforts he has to meet certain
conditions. These situations have definite meaning and they are
distinguished by various symbols and symptoms. Various elements of the
situation come to have several meanings for ego as signs or symbols which
become relevant to the organization of his expectation system.
2) Cultural system: Once the process of the social action develops the
symbols and the signs acquire general meaning. They also develop as a
result of systematized system and ultimately when different actors under a
particular cultural system perform various social interactions, special
situation develops.
3) Social System: A social system consists in a plurality of individual
actor’s interacting with each other in a situation which has at least a physical
or environmental aspect actors are motivated in terms of tendency to the
optimization of gratification and whose relations to the situation including
17 | P a g e
each other is defined and motivated in terms of system of culturally
structured and shaped symbols. In Parson’s view each of the three main type
of social action systems-culture, personality and social systems has a
distinctive coordinative role in the action process and therefore has some
degree of causal autonomy. Thus personalities organize the total set of
learned needs, demands and action choices of individual actors, no two of
whom are alike. Every social system is confronted with four functional
problems. These problems are those of pattern maintenance, integration,
goal attainment and adaptation. Pattern maintenance refers to the need to
maintain and reinforce the basic values of the social system and to resolve
tensions that emerge from continuous commitment to these values.
Integration refers to the allocation of rights and obligations, rewards and
facilities to ensure the harmony of relations between members of the social
system. Goal attainment involves the necessity of mobilizing actors and
resources in organized ways for the attainment of specific goals. Adaptation
refers to the need for the production or acquisition of generalized facilities or
resources that can be employed in the attainment of various specific goals.
Social systems tend to differentiate these problems so as to increase the
functional capabilities of the system. Such differentiation whether through
the temporal specialization of a structurally undifferentiated unit or through
the emergence of two or more structurally distinct units from one
undifferentiated unit is held to constitute a major verification of the fourfold
functionalist schema? It also provides the framework within which are
examined the plural interchanges that occur between structurally
differentiated units to provide them with the inputs they require in the
performance of their functions and to enable them to dispose of the outputs
they produce. Now let us discuss the pattern variables of Talcott Parson to
better get to the heart of the system of social action.
4) Pattern Variables
Dear learner, do you recall the work of Talcott Parson on pattern variable. If
yes please list them.
18 | P a g e
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Good! As you may have mention Talcott Parson is known for his work on
Pattern variable and developed the following patterns in relation to the
system of social action.
1) Affectivity vs affectivity neutrality: The pattern is affective when an
organized action system emphasizes gratification that is when an actor tries
to avoid pain and to maximize pleasure; the pattern is affectively neutral
when it imposes discipline and renouncement or deferment of some
gratifications in favor of other interests.
2) Self-orientation vs collectivity orientation: This dichotomy depends
on social norms or shared expectations which define as legitimate the
pursuit of the actor’ s private interests or obligate him to act in the interests
of the group.
3) Particularism vs universalism: The former refers to standards
determined by an actor’s particular relations with particular relations with a
particular object; the latter refers to value standards that are highly
generalized.
4) Quality vs performance: The choice between modalities of the social
object. This is the dilemma of according primary treatment to an object on
the basis of what it is in itself an inborn quality or what it does and quality of
its performance. The former involves defining people on the basis of certain
attributes such as age, sex, color, nationality etc; the latter defines people
on the basis of their abilities.
5) Diffusion vs specificity: This is the dilemma of defining the relations
borne by object to actor as indefinitely wide in scope, infinitely broad in
involvement morally obligating and significant in pluralistic situations or
specifically limited in scope and involvement.
#Activity 4
19 | P a g e
1. Discus the three major systems that channel human interaction and social
action.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________
2. What is Pattern Variable and how it is related to systems of social action?
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
Summary: Social action is an action that takes account of the behavior of
others, which includes all human behavior when and in so far as the acting
individual attaches a subjective meaning to it. The concept of social action
was primarily developed in the non-positivist theory of Max Weber to observe
how human behaviors relate to cause and effect in the social realm. For
Weber, sociology is the study of society and behavior and must therefore
look at the heart of interaction. The theory of social action, more than
structural functionalist positions, accepts and assumes that humans vary
their actions according to social contexts and how it will affect other people;
when a potential reaction is not desirable, the action is modified accordingly.
Action can mean either a basic action (one that has a meaning) or an
advanced social action, which not only has a meaning but is directed at other
actors and causes action.
For Parsons social action is a process in the actor-situation system which has
motivational significance to the individual actor or in the case of collectivity,
its component individuals which is based on his concept of the society. For
Pareto sociology tries to study the logical and illogical aspects of actions and
every social action has two aspects one is its reality and the other is its form.
Although sociology deals with both the logical and non-logical actions it
emphasizes the analysis of non-logical actions. It is the social reality in which
actors give subjective meaning to the action which is driven by meanings,
motives and sentiments.
Weber mentioned, though not merely confined to the study of social action,
[Sociology is] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of
20 | P a g e
social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the
action proceeds and the effects which it produces.
The following are the major characteristics of social action;
1) Relationship with the action of others
2) Social action is not isolated:
3) Result of cooperation and struggle between individual and members of the
society
4) Has a meaningful understanding with other, action or action of others
Max Weber said like any other social forms it is possible to identify the
following four types of social action: Rational Action, Evaluative actions,
Emotional actions & Traditional actions.
The following are the systems that guide social action. Like any other social
phenomenon social action does not take place in a liberated way, there are
systems that serve the course
1. Personality system
2. Cultural system
3. Social System
) Check Activities One
I - Multiple Choices: Choose the best answer from the suggested
alternatives and give your answer on the space provided.
1. According to _______________Social action is a process in the actor-situation
system which has motivational significance to the individual actor.
A) Max Weber
B) Talcott Parson
21 | P a g e
C) Karl Mannheim
D) Pareto
2. Sociology is the science with the aim of
A) Interpreting the meaning of social action
B) To give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds
C) To give explanation on the effects of social action
D) All
E) A and B
II – Answer the following Questions by writing true if the statement is correct and
false if the statement if wrong.
1. For an action to be social it should have relation with others action.
2. An action can qualify to be social even if it is isolated sometimes.
3. Actions which are taken due to one’s emotions, to express personal feelings is traditional
action.
4. Actions which are planned and taken after evaluating the goal in relation to other goals
are rational action.
5. Rationality means that the actions taken are analyzed and calculated for the greatest
amount of gain and efficiency.
III – Short Answer Question
1. What is social Action and what makes it different from other actions? Explain.
2. What are the major characteristics of Social Action?
3. There are four types of Social action according to Max Weber, list and explain.
4. Describe the systems that guide social action?
Unit Two –Sociology and Social Change
Introduction: Emile Durkheim said “the air does not cease to have
weight, although we no longer feel that weight”. The point is, of course, how
do we know that there is "air" out there if we do not feel its presence? What
22 | P a g e
Durkheim was interested to show, indeed, was that those elements of reality
that he came to call social facts, were out there, regardless of whether the
individuals felt their presence or not. Actually, the individuals are almost
never aware of the compelling presence of those social facts, which they
have a tendency to take for granted. Sometimes, however, social facts
appear unmistakably to the individual who is not even trained sociologically
to discover that which is not so obvious. This awareness about the
constrictive presence of social facts is often made possible by any kind of
alteration to what we normally take for granted in the regularity of social
events. Such breakdowns of normalcy may at times occur by accident for
example, we make more eye contact than what is culturally prescribed with
a stranger whom we mistakenly identify as an acquaintance. However, they
invariably occur in the midst of drastic social changes, when completely new
social situations put individuals together who are at a loss trying to find out
what it is expected from them to do. This unit will put us in a position where
we are going to discuss the social change as sociologically significant
concept. The discussion will focus on the meaning/definition and
characteristics of social change, analysis of social change in historical
perspectives and the place of time in social change.
Objective: Dear learner after accomplishing this unit, you will be able
to:-
Understand the social change is both the context and subject matter of
sociology
understand the concept of social change;
know the basic characteristics of social change; and
analyze social change in historical perspectives
know time as the aspect of social change
Section One: Sociology as the study of Social Change: An
Overview
23 | P a g e
Dear learner, do you remember the origin of sociology from your Introduction
to Sociology course? Mention the major factors that contributed for the
development of sociology.
_______________________________________________________________________
Well, in your Introduction to sociology course you learned that change in
society was the impetus for the development of sociology. So, it is not
surprising that the scientific study of society was born in the midst of a
profound breakdown of social normalcy, it follows that virtually all classical
social thinkers were able to appreciate the relevance of social change as an
object of study. Indeed, the study of social change constitutes the main
object in the sociological theory and inquiry of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim’
s. At this juncture we see the views of such sociologists with regard to social
change.
For Marx, the analysis of social change is present in an evolutionary model
that contends that human history has seen as a succession of modes of
production -namely, tribal, ancient, feudal, and capitalist- and that the
present capitalist mode of production is bound to be superseded by the
socialist mode of production. The object of Weber's study of history has been
the tracing of the process of rationalization of human life. His model of social
change entails a multidimensional
triumph of reason, which slowly came to pervade every area of social life in
the accident and which has led to the disenchantment of the World, the fall
from grace of magic, tradition, charisma, and affectivity in the legitimation of
authority and wisdom. For Durkheim, social change is represented by
transformations in the social morphology or the structure of social relations
that links individuals into a coherent entity, society and the moral structure -
or the body of laws, norms, and sanctions that regulate social life.
Durkheim’s scheme of social change involves a contrast between a simple
division of labor and corresponding mechanic solidarity, on the one hand,
and a complex division of labor accompanied now by what he called organic
solidarity, on the other.
24 | P a g e
#Activity 5
1. Discus Durkheim’s orientation to social
change.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
2. Describe Karl Marx and Max Weber’ s view of social
change-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Section Two: The Notion of Social Change: An Overview
Dear learner, Change can defined as a succession of differences in time in
persisting identity. In this definition we can identify three basic three
elements; difference, time and persisting identity. Failure to know all three
leads to confusion of change with forms of motion and interaction that are
not change at all: merely motion and interaction.
Objective: Dear learner, after accomplishing this section you will be able
to
define the concept of social change;
describe the three elements existing in definition of social change;
2.1 Social Change
Before reading the following paragraph tries to define the phrase social
change?
________________________________________________________________________
________________
25 | P a g e
Dear learner, in the preceding section you learned the concern of pioneer
sociologists with social change. In this section it follows the definition of
social change for curiosity. The concept social change has different meanings
for different scholars. Thus, social change is difficult to define, because there
is a sense in which everything changes, all of the time. Every day is new day;
every moment is a new instant in time. Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed
out that a person cannot step into the same river twice. On the second
occasion, the river is different, since water has flowed along it and three
people has changed in subtle ways too.
The Greek philosophers had opposing views with regard to change.
Heraclitus argued that the world was a process in constant flux (change) and
development. But, his counterpart Parmenides argues that the world was an
indestructible, motionless continuum of matter and space, and that change
is illusory. This shows the problem of understanding permanence and
change. This controversy 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. Here is the
most widely used definition of social change.
Social change refers to any significant alteration over time in behavior
patterns and cultural values and norms. By “significant” alteration,
sociologists mean changes yielding profound social consequences. Examples
of significant social changes having long-term effects include the industrial
revolution, the abolition of slavery, and the feminist movement. If social
change requires the significant alteration of social and cultural patterns
through time, three questions (definition question) are important. These are;
what is significant, what social structure is and what culture is? Significance
is largely in the eye of the beholder. It is judgments about importance of
changes (what significance is and what is trivial). People with different
26 | P a g e
outlooks can disagree about them. Asserting that “nothing important has
really changed” or that
“things have drastically changed”. 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. In addition to structural aspect in social
life, there are cultural aspects of social change which are important. If social
structure is the network of relationship in which people are embedded,
culture is the “ blue prints for living” that people share. Unlike social
structure, culture is hard to define in short abstract way. Culture is the
shared way of living and thinking that includes symbols and languages (both
verbal and non verbal) knowledge, beliefs, and values (what is “good” and
“bad”), norms (how people are expected to be have), and technologies
(ranging from simple to sophisticated).
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. The modes of life and social characteristic of the modern world
are radically different from those of even the recent past. While this
observation is in sense correct, we do of course normally want to say that it
is the some river and the some person stepping it on two occasions. There is
sufficient continuity in the shape or form of river and in the physique and
personality of the person with wet fact to say that each remains “the same”
through the changes that occur. Identifying significant change involves
showing how far there are alterations in the underlying structure of an object
or situation over a period of time. In the case of human societies, to decide
how far and in what ways a system is in a process of change. We have to
show to what degree there is any modification of basic institutions during a
27 | P a g e
specified period. All types of change also involve showing what remains
stable, a base line against which to measure alterations.
2.2. The Basic Concepts in Social Change
Identify what you think are the basic elements in the process of social
change before you read the following
paragraph?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Good learners, When we speak of social change, we have reference to
successive differences in time of some social relationship, norm, role, status,
or structure: For example, the family, church, nation, property, role of
women status of father and the village community.
A) Differences; Without differences of condition or appearance we can
hardly speak of change. Thus when someone says of an object: “it has
changed” , he clearly means that there is a difference between the object he
is looking at it and what he has seen at some earlier time. Observation of
difference or differences is the defining concept of change.
B) Time: Dear learner, the difference we observe in social change must be
successive in time. Change is inseparable from the dimension of time. A
mere array (arrangement, order) before ones eye is not change, only
differences, no single fault is prefer in sociological study of change than the
wider spread neglect of time. If the difference is to be speaking change, they
must be successive in time.
C) Persisting identity: Dear learner, as you may all know , merely to
arrange different things before ones eyes in time is not to exhibit change;
only differences. Only when the succession of differences in time may be
seen to relay to some object, or being the identity of which persists through
all the successive differences, can change be said to have occurred. For
instance, if family has changed; we are saying that we have observed a
contrast between the present condition of the family and some earlier
condition known to Us either through the records or from memory. The
family, if change, there has been in fact, shows a succession of differences in
28 | P a g e
time. For example, if the variable indicted Table 1 in changes, then we are
entitled to say that there has been change.
Table 1. Changes in family in succession of difference in time
Variable Earlier family Present family conditionDivorce forbidden all together permitted under specified
conditionDegree of
relationship
marriage forbidden
within
allowed by except brother and
sisterLegitimate
ceremony
only ecclesiastical
(religious)
religious or civil ceremony
For long with the succession of differences in time, there has been an
identifiable, persisting identity; in this case, the family in a given area. For
there to be change or anything social there must be area; that is place.
Different parts of the world have different time order and different persisting
identity. To say something about change we have to answer change where?
Change when? And what persisting substantive identity? Change how?
Change why? Another important point is the cause for the successive
difference in time. Though it is difficult to identity a single
(sole) cause for a change, a powerful influence, which cannot be neglected,
should be studied/ analyzed. The unities of time, place and subject should be
intact.
Change is not the something or at least not necessary as mere interaction,
motion, mobility and variety. Interaction, motion, and variety are inseparable
from social life. Even within the most conservative and stationary of cultures
and groups there is to be found social interaction people interact with one
another in several principal forms or interaction , such as coercion,
conformity, competition, exchange, and conflict. There is a bound to be
motion in at least some degree in the most traditional-bound of peoples;
even if it is no more than motions involved in daily routine. And finally, in
even the most primitive of peoples there is variety and diversity in some
degree: people moving from one kind of scene within their culture to
29 | P a g e
another; adopting now this, now that technique in performance of duties or
recreations.
But none of this is change; not necessary interaction and motion are
constant and universal. Action and interaction are part of social life. But, all
too plainly change is not constant and universal; not if we keep our eyes
rigorously on some given structure or trait, some specifiable persisting
identity in time. For example modes of kinship and religious practice in rural
India, (extra ordinary persistence) are characterized by some degree of
internal interaction: people in this groups love, hate ,cooperate, conflict,
exchange, and move about from one point to another ,substituting this form
of action for that, just as it is done in more complex societies. For all the
internal tension and conflict tensions and conflicts, casts in India, especially
rural India is only negligible today from what it was five hundred, a thousand,
even two thousand years ago in that sub continent.
#Activity 6
1. How do you explain social
change?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Explain the idea of time, difference and persistent identity by taking one
example of
social
change?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Three: The Characteristics of Social Change: An
Overview
Dear learner, societies and cultures rarely stand still: they are frequently
involved in a process of change. Society is always in flux. Social change may
occur on varying levels and in varying amount of intensity. For example,
society reforms are adjustments in the content of cultural patterns of
behavior or normative systems, adjustments that do not fundamentally alter
30 | P a g e
the social structure. Social revolutions, on the other hand are fundamentally
and radical upheavals of existing structures. Here in this section, therefore,
attempts will be made to discuss the basic characteristics of social change
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this section you will be able to;
describe the basic characteristics of social change, and
distinguish social change from social revolutions
3.2 Characteristics of Social Change
Dear learner, would you please identify the basic characteristics of social
change before
reading the following
paragraph?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section two of this unit, we have already defined the concept of social
change and now it is time to discuss the major features of social change to
understand what it really means.
A. Social change can be manifest and planned, or latent and
unplanned
Manifest planned: deliberate and conscious organization of movements for
change. Colonist to gain independence or women’ s movement for social,
political, and economic equality are examples of social change.
Latent/unplanned: it is largely unrecognized and unintended. Social
change is sometimes intentional but often unplanned
B. Social change happens in every society
Although the rate and the type of changes varies from place to place, at
some societies change is faster than others. Technologically complex
(modern) societies change faster than traditional societies. Moreover, even
in a given society some cultural elements changes more quickly than others.
William Ogburn (1964) theory of cultural lag recognizes materials culture
(that is, things) usually changes faster than non material cultural (ideas and
attitudes).
31 | P a g e
Some changes are rapid (computerization) where as other are more gradual
(urbanization). Sometime people adapt quickly to change. Other type people
resist change or are slow to adapt new possibilities (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.
C. Social Change is Uneven
The different parts of society do not all change at the same rate. Some parts
lag behind others. This is the principle of culture lag (William Ogburn, 1992).
Culture lag refers to the delay between the time social conditions 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 later 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.
D. The problem of social change is often unforeseen.
The inventor of atomic bomb in the early 1940s could not predict the vast
changes in the character of international relations. Television pioneers could
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.
E. Social changes often creates controversy
Most social change yield both positive and negative consequences (as the
history of the automobile demonstrates).
Positive- makes travel easier and shortens time of travel (weeks/months _
hour/days).
Negative-it degrades environment and causes death.
32 | P a g e
For example, industrial revolution was differently welcomed by capitalists
and workers. For capitalists the new technology increases productivity so
they support it. For workers, on the other hand, the fears that the technology
obsoletes their work, so they oppose/resist the “progress”. Changes often
trigger conflicts along racial- ethnic class lines, social class lines, and gender
lines. Terrorism focuses attention on the deep conflicts that exists 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.
F. Some changes matter more than others
Some social changes have only passing significance, where as other
transformations resonates for generations. Example, clothing fashions burst
among the youth and powerful technological innovations such as televisions
and information revolutions computer are not equally considered.
G. 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.
H. Social change can not 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 change
that occurs must be understood in the context of the past as much as the
future.
3.3. Social Change and Social Revolutions
Dear learner, can you define the phrase social movement and explain the
difference between social change and social revolutions?
33 | P a g e
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
Once the basic characteristics of social change are identified, one can easily
make a distinction between social change and social revolution. Social
change is the alternation in the social structure of a society. Micro social
changes are subtle alterations in the day today interaction between people.
The change is in specific as peels of life. For example; hairstyle, dressing
style, greeting style, and feeding style. And macro social changes are
gradual transformations that occur on a brood scale and affect many aspects
of society. Example: the process of modernization, rise of computer that
alters means of communication and working habits. Although the macro
change to the digital culture was shift, some macro changes can take
generation. Whatever time they require, macro changes represent deep and
pervasive changes in society structure and culture.
On the other hand, revolutions sometime 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 and some society changes are
micro whereas, others are macro.
#Activity 3
1. Discuss the characteristics of social
change.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
2. Distinguish social change from social revolution by taking some
examples----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Section Four: Social Change as a Social Reality: An
Overview
34 | P a g e
Dear learner, it is impossible to live in the world today without being
attacked with the reality and passiveness of change. The media are full of
reports or news of continuing crises, about changes in family life, health, and
prospect for economic prosperity or decline, technological innovations
(example, biotechnology and computerization of everything) that have
potentially to “revolutionize” our lives. Here, in the section a historical
analysis of social change and global instance of social change are discussed.
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this section you will be able to:-
describe social change in historical context, and
identify the major global examples of social change
4.1 Social Change: Historical Analysis
While we live 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. 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.
A well know sociologist, Anthony Giddens (2001) described the history of
social change. He elaborated as human beings have on earth about half a
million years. Agriculture, the necessary basis of fixed settlements, is only
about twelve thousands years old. Civilization dates back no more than six
thousand years old or so. If we were thinking of the entire span of human
existence thus far as day, agriculture would have come into existence at
11:56 and civilization at 11:57. The development of modern societies would
get underway only at 11:59 and 30 seconds! Perhaps as much change has
taken place in the last thirty seconds of this human day as in all the leading
35 | P a g e
up to it. The modes of life and social institution have been changed through
time (premodern human society (which include, hunting and gathering
societies, agrarian societies, pastoral societies, and non industrial
civilizations) to modern societies (first world societies, second world
societies), newly industrializing societies, post modern societies.
4.2 Some Global Social Changes in Human History and Its
Continuity
The world has registered social changes in areas of settlements patterns,
civilization, modernization, technological innovation, industrialization and
urbanization, electrification, computerization and bio technology. In sphere
of communication there have been rapid changes in media, electronic and
transportation. In political aspect there is rapid social movements and
revolutions And even in the rapidly moving world of today there are
continuities with the distant past (likewise in the apparent absence of
change, there are new ideas, procedures, technologies, development and
transformations). Major religious system, for example, such as Christianity or
Islam, retains their ties with ideas and particles initiated some two thousand
years ago. Yet most institutions in modern societies clearly change much
more rapidly than did institutions of the tradition world. Change and
continuity are inseparable they are released social concepts and processes
that are real. To understand one, we must understand the other as they are
always found together (hand in hand).
#Activity 4
1. Describe social change in historical
aspects.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
2. Mention some of the global social changes occurred in the past
centuries.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
36 | P a g e
Section Five: Time and Social Change: An Overview
Dear leaner, 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 that can be identified. To this effect, this section deals with
time as the aspect of social change, time in consciousness and in culture and
the function of social time.
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this section you will be able to:
describe time as the aspect of social change,
identify people’s subjective level of consciousness of time, and
Mention some of the universal functions that time serves in every society.
5.1 The Place of Time in Social Change
Dear learner would you please explain how time is related to social
chang
e?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Obviously time is more intimately related to social change than other social
phenomenon. The very experience of time and the idea of time derive from
the changing nature of reality. Thus, it is impossible to conceive of time
without reference to some change and vice versa. The idea of change apart
from time is simply inconceivable. As we remember time appears in the
definition of social change over time (See section 2). When related to social
changes, time may appear in two guises. First it may serve as the external
framework for the measurement of events and process, ordering their
chaotic flow for the benefit of human orientation or the co-ordination of
social action. This quantitative time implied by conventional devices like
clocks and calendar which allows us to identify the comparative span, speed,
intervals, duration of various social occurrences. When devices for measuring
time are invented and implemented, all social changes-events and
phenomena –can be timed, located within that external framework. We may
37 | P a g e
refer here to events in time. But there is another way in which time blends
with social change, no longer as the external, conventional framework, but
as an internal, immanent ontological property of social events and process.
This is qualitative time defined by the nature of social processes. When we
consider any actual social process, they will manifest various temporary
qualities. Examples are: war, waves of economic decline and prosperity,
work and leisure correlated with natural phenomena of day-time and night-
time or in rural settings, phases of farm labor marked by the equality of
natural division of seasons, and the socially constructed distinctions of
sacred time and secular time. These are ‘time in events’ rather than simply
‘events in time’, and this is what we usually mean in sociology by the term
‘social time’ (Sztompka, 1994:45).
5.2. The Concept of Time
As a pervasive trait of social life objectively permeating all social events and
process, time has to find its reflection at the subjective level of
consciousness. Perception and awareness of time is a universal human
experience. More precisely, when we speak of time orientation or time
perspective, the following aspects may be distinguished:-
1. The level of awareness of time: this is the most general trait,
exemplified at one extreme by an obsessive concern with time, the flow of
time, the passing of time and the lack of time.
2. The depth of awareness of time: sometimes only the immediate
nearest time is recognized, and sometimes distant time is also recognized
and endowed with importance and meaning.
3. The shape or form of time: Cyclical or linear: the cyclical vision of time
that time conception of archaic man was cyclical, with events unfolding in a
recurring rhythm of nature. Where as the linear vision of time introducing the
concept of future redemption and salvation towards which both world history
and all personal biographies consistently approach.
38 | P a g e
4. The emphasis on the past or future: the way group members orient
themselves to the past and future –i.e their time perspective- is to a lesser
extent dependent on the group’ s structure and functions.
5. The way of conceiving the future: it may be seen as either something
to be passively encountered or rather as something actively constructed. The
former is passive orientation (e.g. religious chiliastic sects) versus active or
voluntarisitic orientation (e.g. in social movements or revolution).
6. The dominant value-emphasis either on change, novelty and progress, or
on recurrence, similarity and order: the former may be called progressive
orientation, and opposed to conservative orientation.
5.3. Social Time and Its Function
Dear learner, have you ever taught the social function of time and what
value do you have for your
time?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some universal functions that time serves in every society. And
there are also important historical characteristics between early traditional
societies and modern industrial society with respect to the role of time.
Wilber Moore (1963) 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
temporary unit. Starting from there, we can develop a more extended
typology.
1. The first requirement of social life which is met by common accepted
systems of reckoning of time is the synchronization of activities. A large part
of social life is filled by collective action, things done together by large
number of people. For collective action to occur, people must find
themselves at the same place and at the same moment (e.g. to come
together at football stadium to make the audience of a match).
2. The second universal requirement is coordination. Individual actions do
not occur in a vacuum. Large numbers of them are related, leading to a
39 | P a g e
common goal or adding to the creation of a common product. Example to
build a house the foremen, bricklayers and plumbers come to work at the
same time and organize their day by the clock.
3. A further requirement is sequencing. Social process run in stages, events
follow one another in specific sequences, there is an inherent necessary logic
to most process. The child must enter into school at certain age; the field
must be sown at a certain season, and sleeping pills taken at a certain hour
of the evening. For all this, time reckoning is indispensable.
4. Another requirement is timing. Some activities can be undertaken only if
facilities or resources are available, and they may not be available all times.
5. The next requirement to be mentioned is measuring. The duration of
various activities may have deceive social importance, for example
determining the length of expected effort (school hours, working hours), the
amount of pay (per day, weekly or monthly wages).
6. The final requirement is differentiating. It is important to break the
monotony and routine of living by allocating various periods to various
activities. Example the days devoted to leisure or prayer (even
etymologically sanctified as holy days).
#Activity 5
1. Explain to what extent time is related to social
change.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
2. Discuss the major aspects in time
orientation.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
Indeed, the study of social change constitutes the main object in the
sociological theory and inquiry of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. For Marx, the
analysis of social change is present in an evolutionary model that contends
that human history has seen a succession of modes of production. The object
40 | P a g e
of Weber’s study of history has been the tracing of the process of
rationalization of human life. For Durkheim, social change is represented by
transformations in the social morphology -or the structure of social relations
that links individuals into a coherent entity, society. Change is a succession
of differences in time in persisting identity. Three elements exist in the
definition. These are difference, time and persisting identity. Social change is
the significant alteration of all social and cultural patterns through time.
When we speak of social change, we have reference to successive
differences in time of some social relationship norm, role, status, or
structure. Obviously time is more intimately related to social change than
other social phenomenon. When related to social changes, time may appear
in two guises. First it may serve as the external framework for the
measurement of events and process, ordering their chaotic flow for the
benefit of human orientation or the co-ordination of social action. But there is
another way in which time blends with social change, no longer as the
external, conventional framework, but as an internal, immanent ontological
property of social events and process. Perception and awareness of time is a
universal human experience. More precisely, when we speak of time
orientation or time perspective its reflection is at the subjective level of
consciousness.
) Self-check Exercise Two
41 | P a g e
I - Multiple Choices: Choose the best answer from the suggested
alternatives and give your answer on the space provided.
________ 1. Which one of the following is not true change?
A. Without difference we can hardly able to speak change
B. Change is inseparable from dimension of time
C. Merely to arrange different things before one’ s eyes in time is not to
exhibit change
D. None
________ 2. Social change and social revolutions are different in that?
A. Social change is the alternation in the social structure of a society.
B. Like revolutions, social change involves some time involve bloody battles
between organized.
C. Social revolutions are gradual transformations that occur on a brood scale
and affect many
aspects of society.
D. All of the above
________3. Identify the correct statements;-
A. The very experience of time and the idea of time derive from the changing
nature of reality.
B. It is impossible to conceive of time without reference to some change.
C. Time has to find its reflection at the subjective level of consciousness.
D. All
II. Short Answer
1. What are the three concepts social changes?
2. Outline the aspects that may be distinguished in time orientation or time
perspective.
42 | P a g e
Unit Three – Origin and Patterns of Social Change
Introduction: Dear learner, for social changes to take place there should
be a definite cause. Once took place, it has also some patterns to follow.
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 is an
abstract explanatory scheme that is potentially open to disconfirmation by
evidence. Being abstract means is that composed of generalizations not tied
to particular events. This unit describes theories that relates to
understanding about the causes of change and the patterns of directions of
change. The unit has two sections; section one discusses theories about
causes of social change and sections two describes theories of patterns of
social change.
Objective: Dear learner, after accomplishing this unit, you will be able to:-
o identify and describe theories of causes of social change;
o identify theories of patterns of social change; and
o Describe the theories of patterns of social change.
Section One: Theories about the Origin of Change: An
Overview
Explanation about the origin of change fall into two general categories: those
that emphasize materialistic factors as cause/origin of change (such as
economic production and technology) and those that emphasize idealistic
43 | P a g e
factors as origin (such as values, ideologies, and beliefs). Thus this section
discusses the materialistic and idealistic perspective of social change.
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this section you will be able to:-
define the materialistic perspective of social change;
define the idealistic perspective of social change; and
Describe the difference and similarity between the materialistic and
idealistic perspective of social change.
Dear learner, as you all know change cannot happen without reason and for
any change there should be causes, what do think are the most important
causes of change?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Writings on the origin of change mainly focus of two major views as
mentioned above: The materialistic and the idealistic perspectives. In this
section we will discuss these perspectives.
2.1 Materialistic Perspectives of the Origin of Change
Many have speculated that material factors are the primary causes of social
and cultural change. A material factor includes 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 norms. The most influential classic
thinker to adopt this argument was Karl Marx.
A. The Marxist Approach
Dear learner, what is the main thesis of the Marxist approach and how it is
related to the origin of change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mind behind many social science disciplines, Karl Marx stated that “the
windmill gives you a society with the feudal lord; steam-mill gives the society
44 | P a g e
with the industrial capitalist” . 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 mill and his serfs). Thus,
economic classes form the basic anatomy of society, and (ideas, ideologies,
values, political structures, and so forth) into them. Changes in the forces of
production (technologies) erode the basis of the old system and classes and
open new possibilities.
B. William Ogburn (1930s) materialistic perspectives
Dear learner, would you please explain the link between technology and
change before reading the following paragraph?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Ogburn argued that material culture (technology) changes more
rapidly than the non material aspects of culture (ideas, values, norms,
ideologies).That is, humans are often more willing 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. Here, culture lag refers to a condition in
which the non- material culture (norms, value and beliefs) resist to accept
the existing material culture or new technologies. According to William
Ogburn technology can cause change in three different ways.
First, innovation increases the alternative available in a society. New
technology may 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. Planner of deliberate technical
45 | P a g e
innovation often forgets the last two factors. Finally, it is 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.
2.2 Idealistic Perspectives: Max Weber
Before resuming reading the idealistic perspective of social change, please
try to state how idea could be the cause of change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are those who have seen ideas, values, and ideologies as the cause of
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. Weber (1905)
argued, contrary to Marx, that the development of industrial capitalism
cannot 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 region of Europe in which
industrial capitalism was most developed at the earliest days 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 consequences of this religious
worldview, which he termed “this worldly asceticism” was to encourage the
development and economic growth. Weber argued that the industrial
capitalism would not have in catholic areas, even though the material and
46 | P a g e
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, whereas, Marx devalued the role of ideas and values as causes.
We must understand the way that ideas, values and ideologies are used in
particular social contexts. It is important to recognize that ideational culture
often acts as a barrier to change. Furthermore, the same set of ideas and
values can promote change at one time and place and retard change at
another. Additionally, culture can cause change in at least three different
ways.
First, it can legitimize a desired direction of change. Second, ideologies can
provide the basis for the social solidarity necessary to promote change. They
can be, in other words, interpretive mechanisms, neutralizing the conflicting
strains that are found in most societies. Ideology can be a powerful
mobilizing force in terms of war as holy crusade or a defense of democracy.
A third way that ideational culture can promote change is by high lighting
contradictions and problems. Values, in other words, can high light areas of
discrepancy and contradictions, and change often takes place as an effort to
resolve or reduce contradictions. It is true that ideas are cause of change,
and then it is undeniable true that individuals, who after all are the ultimate
source of ideas and values, play some role in creating change.
2.3 The Interaction between Causes of Change
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
47 | P a g e
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.
#Activity 6
1. How material change can change society?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
2. Compare and contrast the materialistic and idealistic perspective of social
change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
3. Describe the interaction perspective of social change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Section Two: Theory of Pattern of Social Change: An
Overview
Dear learner, in the preceding chapter you learned about explanations of
social change or the origin of social change. This section describes the
patterns of social change. Patterns of change imply the direction of social
change. Some social change can take liner model, or cyclic model and other
dialectical one. Let us now turn to the question of general patterns and
48 | P a g e
directions of change. Theories can be grouped into three categories in terms
of how they view the pattern and direction of change. Linear models, cyclical
model, and dialectical models.
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this section you will be able to
define the linear model of social change;
discuss the cyclic & dialectical models of social change
3.1 Linear Models of Change
Linear models assert that social 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 connected many two-stage theories of change. Examples,
Redfield’s theory about the transition from “folk” to “urban” societies.
Durkheim’s theory of the transition from “mechanical” to “organic”
solidarity.
Tonnie’s 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 that illustrates the linear models of change that
connect several stages rather than two stages in an evolutionary sequence.
A) Societal Development
The sociological understanding of societal development relies heavily upon
the work of Gerhard Lenski. Lenski outlined some of the more commonly
seen organizational structures in human societies. Classifications of human
49 | P a g e
societies can be based on two factors: (1) the primary means of subsistence
and (2) the political structure.
This chapter focuses on the subsistence systems of societies rather than
their political structures. While it is a bit far-reaching to argue that all
societies will develop through the stages outlined below, it does appear that
most societies follow such a route. Human groups begin as hunter-gatherers,
move toward pastoralism and/or horticulturalism, develop toward an
agrarian society, and ultimately end up undergoing a period of
industrialization (with the potential for developing a service industry
following industrialization).[4] Not all societies pass through every stage.
Some societies have stopped at the pastoral or horticultural stage (e.g.,
Bedouin nomads), though these may be temporary pauses due to economic
niches that will likely disappear over time. Some societies may also jump
stages as a result of the introduction of technology from other societies. It is
also worth noting that these categories aren't really distinct groups as there
is often overlap in the subsistence systems used in a society. Some
pastoralist societies also engage in some measure of horticultural food
production and most industrial and post-industrial societies still have
agriculture, just in a reduced capacity.
1) Hunter-Gatherer: The hunter-gatherer way of life is based on the
exploitation of wild plants and animals. Consequently, hunter-gatherers are
relatively mobile, and groups of hunter-gatherers have fluid boundaries and
composition. Typically in hunter-gatherer societies men hunt
larger wild animals and women gather fruits, nuts, roots, and other edible
plant-based food and hunt smaller animals. Hunter-gatherers use materials
available in the wild to construct shelters or rely on naturally occurring
shelters like overhangs. Their shelters give them protection from predators
and the elements. The majority of hunter-gatherer societies are nomadic. It
is difficult to be settled under such a subsistence system as the resources of
one region can quickly become exhausted. Hunter-gatherer societies also
tend to have very low population densities as a result of
50 | P a g e
their subsistence system. Agricultural subsistence systems can support
population densities 60 to 100 times greater than land left uncultivated,
resulting in denser populations.
Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have non-hierarchical social
structures, though this is not always the case. Because hunter-gatherers
tend to be nomadic, they generally do not have the possibility to store
surplus food. As a result, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely
supported by hunter-gatherer societies. The hierarchical egalitarianism in
hunter-gatherer societies tends to extend to gender-based egalitarianism as
well. Although disputed, many anthropologists believe gender egalitarianism
in hunter-gatherer societies stems from the lack of control over food
production, lack of food surplus (which can be used for control), and an equal
gender contribution to kin and cultural survival.
Archeological evidence to date suggests that prior to 13,000 B.C; all human
beings were hunter-gatherers (see the Neolithic revolution for more
information on this transition). While declining in number, there are still
some hunter-gatherer groups in existence today. Such groups are found in
the Arctic, tropical rainforests, and deserts where other forms of subsistence
production are impossible or too costly. In most cases these groups do not
have a continuous history of hunting and gathering; in many cases their
ancestors were agriculturalists who were pushed into marginal areas as a
result of migrations and wars. Examples of hunter-gatherer groups still in
existence include:
The line between agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies is not clear cut.
Many hunter gatherers consciously manipulate the landscape through
cutting or burning useless (to them) plants to encourage the growth and
success of those they consume. Most agricultural people also tend to do
some hunting and gathering. Some agricultural groups farm during the
temperate months and hunt during the winter.
2) Pastoralist: A pastoralist society is a society in which the primary
means of subsistence is domesticated livestock. It is often the case that, like
51 | P a g e
hunter-gatherers, pastoralists are nomadic, moving seasonally in search of
fresh pastures and water for their animals. Employment of a pastoralist
subsistence system often results in greater population densities and the
development of both social hierarchies and divisions in labor as it is more
likely there will be a surplus of food. Pastoralist societies still exist. For
instance, in Australia, the vast semi-arid areas in the interior of the country
contain pastoral runs called sheep stations. These areas may be thousands
of square kilometers in size. The number of livestock allowed in these areas
is regulated in order to reliably sustain them, providing enough feed and
water for the stock. Other examples of pastoralist’s societies still in existence
include:
3) Horticulturalist: Horticulturalist societies are societies in which the
primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using hand tools.
Like pastoral societies, the cultivation of crops increases population densities
and, as a result of food surpluses, allows for a division of labor in society.
Horticulture differs from agriculture in that agriculture employs animals,
machinery, or some other non-human means to facilitate the cultivation of
crops while horticulture relies solely on humans for crop cultivation.
4) Agrarian: Agrarian societies are societies in which the primary means
of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using a mixture of human and non-
human means (i.e., animals and/or achinery). Agriculture is the process of
producing food, feed, fiber, and other desired products by the cultivation of
plants and the raising of domesticated animals (livestock). Agriculture can
refer to subsistence agriculture or industrial agriculture.
Subsistence agriculture is agriculture carried out for the production of
enough food to meet just the needs of the agriculturalist and his/her family.
Subsistence agriculture is a simple, often organic, system using saved seed
native to the eco region combined with crop rotation or other relatively
simple techniques to maximize yield. Historically most farmers were
engaged in subsistence agriculture and this is still the case in many
developing nations.
52 | P a g e
In developed nations a person using such simple techniques on small
patches of land would generally be referred to as a gardener; activity of this
type would be seen more as a hobby than a profession. Some people in
developed nations are driven into such primitive methods by poverty. It is
also worth noting that large scale organic farming is on the rise as a result of
a renewed interest in non-genetically modified and pesticide free foods. In
developed nations, a farmer or industrial agriculturalist is usually defined as
someone with an ownership interest in crops or livestock, and who provides
labor or management in their production. Farmers obtain their financial
income from the cultivation of land to yield crops or the commercial raising
of animals (animal husbandry), or both. Those who provide only labor but not
management and do not have ownership are often called farmhands, or, if
they supervise a leased strip of land growing only one crop, as
sharecroppers.
Agriculture allows a much greater density of population than can be
supported by hunting and gathering and allows for the accumulation of
excess product to keep for winter use or to sell for profit. The ability of
farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do
with material production was the crucial factor in the rise of surplus,
specialization, advanced technology, hierarchical social structures,
inequality, and standing armies.
In the Western world, the use of crop breeding, better management of soil
nutrients, and improved weed control have greatly increased yields per unit
area. At the same time, the use of mechanization has decreased labor
requirements. The developing world generally produces lower yields, having
less of the latest science, capital, and technology base. More people in the
world are involved in agriculture as their primary economic activity than in
any other, yet it only accounts for four percent of the world’s GDP. The rapid
rise of mechanization in the 20th century, especially in the form of the
tractor, reduced the necessity of humans performing the demanding tasks of
sowing, harvesting, and threshing. With mechanization, these tasks could be
53 | P a g e
performed with a speed and on a scale barely imaginable before. These
advances have resulted in a substantial increase in the yield of agricultural
techniques that have also translated into a decline in the percentage of
populations in developed countries that are required to work in agriculture to
feed the rest of the population. As the pie chart below indicates, less than
2% of
Americans are employed in agriculture today and produce sufficient food to
feed the other 98% of Americans.
5) Industrial: An industrial society is a society in which the primary
means of subsistence is industry. Industry is a system of production focused
on mechanized manufacturing of goods. Like agrarian societies, industrial
societies increase food surpluses, resulting in more developed hierarchies
and significantly more division of labor. The division of labor in industrial
societies is often one of the most notable elements of the society and can
even function to re-organize the development of relationships.
Whereas relationships in pre-industrial societies were more likely to develop
through contact at one’s place of worship or through proximity of housing,
industrial society brings people with similar occupations together, often
leading to the formation of friendships through one’s work when capitalized.
The Industrial Revolution refers to the first known industrial revolution, which
took place in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. What is sometimes
referred to as The Second Industrial Revolution describes later, somewhat
less dramatic changes resulting from the widespread availability of electric
power and the internal-combustion engine. Many developing nations began
industrialization under the influence of either the United States or the USSR
during the Cold War.
Today, industry makes up only a relatively small percentage of highly
developed countries’ workforce (see the pie chart above), in large part due
to advanced mechanization. The use of machines and robots to facilitate
manufacturing reduces the number of people required to work in industry by
increasing their efficiency. As a result, a single worker can produce
54 | P a g e
substantially more goods in the same amount of time today than they used
to be able to produce. This has also resulted in a transition in most highly
developed countries into a post-industrial or service.
6) Post-Industrial: A post-industrial society is a society in which the
primary means of subsistence is derived from service-oriented work, as
opposed to agriculture or industry. It is important to note here that the term
post-industrial is still debated in part because it is the current
state of society; it is difficult to name a phenomenon while it is occurring.
Post-industrial societies are often marked by:
an increase in the size of the service sector or jobs that perform services
rather than creating goods (industry)
either the outsourcing of or extensive use of mechanization in
manufacturing
an increase in the amount of information technology, often leading to an
Information Age
information, knowledge, and creativity are seen as the new raw materials of
the economy
Most highly developed countries are now post-industrial in that the majority
of their workforce works in service-oriented industries, like finance,
healthcare, education, or sales, rather than in industry or agriculture. This is
the case in the U.S., as depicted in the pie chart above. Post-industrial
society is occasionally used critically by individuals seeking to restore or
return to industrial development. Increasingly, however, individuals and
communities are viewing abandoned factories as sites for new housing and
shopping. Capitalists are also realizing the recreational and commercial
development opportunities such locations offer.
7) The Implications of Societal Development
As noted throughout the above discussion of societal development, changes
in the social structure of a society - in this case the primary means of
subsistence - also affect other aspects of society. For instance, as hunters
55 | P a g e
and gatherers make the transition into Pastoralism and horticulture, they
also develop a surplus in food stuffs. While it is common for people in the
developed world today to have lots of surplus food, we rarely consider just
how important that extra food is. To begin with, once a society has surplus
food that means more of their children will survive into adulthood.
Additionally, as food yields increase in agricultural societies, smaller
percentages of the population are required to produce the food for the rest
of the population. This frees up those people not engaged in food production
to specialize in other areas, like clothing or housing production. This results
in specialists: some people become experts in growing crops or
raising livestock while others become experts in clothing production, metal-
working, home construction, etc. That specialization leads to rapid increases
in technology as people are freed from having to spend the majority of their
time finding or growing their food and can then spend their time improving
at their specialty. The relationship between surplus and technology may not
seem obvious, initially, but surplus is clearly the forerunner of technological
development.
This is illustrated in the diagram to the right. The diagram shows societal
development along the top and the implications of societal development
along the bottom. The arrows running between the two rows illustrate the
fact that these relationships are very complex. For instance, specialization
not only results from agriculture but also from denser populations and
surplus and helps spur industry. The point being, these are interdependent
aspects of societal development that co-evolve. One additional outcome of
surplus that is included in the diagram is inequality. Inequality will be
discussed in much greater detail later in this book, but it is important to note
that as soon as there is surplus, there will be greater surplus for some
people. Those with more Surplus have an economic advantage relative to
those with less surplus as they have greater bargaining power and social
inequality is born.
B. Urbanization
56 | P a g e
Dear learner, how the process of urbanization causes social change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
Urbanization is important global change process that, like Lenski theory of
evolution of society, can also illustrate a linear evolutionary model of change.
Cities are ancient, but as recently as 1800 only 3 percent of the world’s
populations were urbanized. But, by 1985, over 70 percent of the world’s
population in the more developed nations and over 30 percent in the less
developed nations was 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:
1. A larger and more important market place where dwellers buy or essential
goods and services.
2. A center of political and administrative authority that regulate the market
and city life and often the rest of the surrounding country side as well,
and
3. A defined human community (administered by the authorities) of dwellers
having the status,
rights and duties of citizen ship.
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.
Ancient and medieval cities which date back to 3500 BC would include,
as examples, ancient Babylon, old Delhi, Tokyo, Rome, etc are 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.
57 | P a g e
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 were different from ancient and medieval cities in that
trade, shipping, craft production, and banking became primary sources of
economic production and wealth early 10th 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 are the head quarters of large multinationals firms and large
banks that manage world economy. Examples: New York, London, Mexico
city, and Los Angeles, etc. The very concept of “world city” is partly a
futuristic one, since; their characteristics as distinct type of urban formations
are not entirely clear. General summary of important features of the two
linear theoretical models is as follow;
The stages of societal evolution (hunting and gathering pastoral
horticultural agricultural industrial) represent “discontinues leaps” in
human history as new societal forms & models 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 in to new form
Both Lenski’s theory and the urban evolution model see technological
innovations 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
58 | P a g e
elements to a continuing base. Each society or city does not necessarily pass
through the same set of fixed stages.
3.2 Cyclical Models of Change
Dear learner, how do you describe the cyclical models of social 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 cNa 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 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 is gain to phrase such
cyclical theories not in term of moral cycles of recurring decades 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 (1930) who argues
that Western Europe civilization was in its twilight (the period of decline and
destruction) years and could be expected to be replaced by newer, more
rigorous civilizations. His major statement of this thesis, aptly titled, “The
decline of west” (1932).
Within sociology, the most influential cyclical theory was that of Pitirim
Sorokin (1889- 1968), who argued that the master “ cycles” 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 frame works. 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
59 | P a g e
western societies are dominated by materialism and hedonism. He
Anticipated the ultimate collapse of western materialism and return to a
more idealistic culture.
Medieval (Idealism) Renaissance & Reformation (Transition)
Social changes
in western
societies
Contemporary western
societies
Value culture (materialism &
Hedonism)
Transition
Figure 1. Sorokin model of social change
As you can see from Figure 1, 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. Dear learner,
for simplicity, patterns of cyclical change can take three forms. The first is
repetitive economic expansion and contraction. If the typical college
semester has a repetitive dynamic with each semester, the cycle seems to
be repeated process. The second is contemporary macro cyclical models
such as political and economical cycles in America-economic growth and its
depression. The third one is 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
60 | P a g e
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.
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 (1780s- 1820s).The second industrial cycle-
based on the development of iron and rail road’s (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).
2.3 Dialectical Models of Change
Dear learner, how do you describe the dialectical model of change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Dialectical models of change are more complex than either purely linear or
cyclical ones. They assume that social life has inherent stressors or
“contradictions,” which develop because every social development, even a
successful one, carried 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:-
61 | P a g e
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 away 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, until the whole 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) suggested a more contemporary “materialist” dialectical
perspective. He argues that the modern world system and the demise
(death, termination) 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 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 in culture.
Other dialectical theories depart more significantly from the materialist’s
view of the cause of change. Raymond Aron (1968), for instance, uses the
62 | P a g e
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 modern 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.
# Activity 7.
1. Distinguish the linear model of social change from the cyclic model of
social change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
2. What do you mean by the phrase “history repeats itself”?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
3. Explain the dialectical model of social change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Summary: Dear learner, we have now discussed theories of the case of
change (material causes, ideational causes, interacting causes)and three
models of the directions and patterns of social changes (linear, cyclic and
dialectical).How can they all have same validity? Part of the answer is that
different approaches focus on different units of analysis and level of
abstraction. For example, linear and cyclic models both focus on change over
time, but linear models concentrate on understanding cumulative and
63 | P a g e
development change in particular structure units( for example, civilization,
families, political economies). The dialectical models assume that there the
short term change is repetitive in that it involves the conflict between
“contradictory” aspects of society (variously conceived), but they also
assume that there is a long term direction to change which is the outcome of
those conflicts. With the exception of Marx, dialectical theorists have focused
more on identifying the contradiction that cause change rather than the long
range trajectories of change that are the outcomes of the dialectical process.
Another part of the answer has to do with the way that we use theory. We
tend to use theory in practical way by selecting the theoretical approach
most appropriate to explain the particular phenomena or problem in which
we are interested. In terms of this pragmatic approach to theory, there are
no true or false explanations (theories), but different approaches are more
useful or less useful depending on what we want to explain. Kenneth
Boulding (1970) has suggested that we will have more complete
understanding of social life when we understand the relationship between (1)
equilibrium processes, (2) cyclical processes, and (3) cumulative processes.
This is a large order, which includes not only understanding change
processes but the processes that serve to maintain, stability and persistence
as well.
) Self -Check questions Three
Part I: multiple Choices: Choose the best answer from the suggested
alternatives and
give the answer in the space provided.
______ 1. According to materialistic perspectives all are true but,
A. That material factors are the primary causes of social and cultural change
B. Change in social interaction and social organization ultimately produce
social change
C. The force of production is central in shaping society and social change.
64 | P a g e
D. Changes in the forces of production (technologies) erode the basis of the
old system and classes and open new possibilities.
_____2 Linear model of social change;-
A. assert the change that is cumulative, non repetitive, evolutionary, and
usually permanent
B. States that change never returns to the same point.
C. Depicts the evolution from preliterate to modern societies.
D. All of the above
_____ 3. Significant change takes place as an attempt to resolve the
accumulation of intolerable contradictions is the view of
A. Linear Models of Change
B. cyclical Model of change
C. Dialectical model of change
D. None
Part II Matching: Match items of column “A” with items in column
“B”.
“A” “B”
_____1. Max Weber A. Materialistic Perspectives
_____ 2. Karl Marx B. Idealistic Perspectives
_____ 3. Durkheim C. cyclical Model of change
_____4. Pitirim Sorokin D. Linear Models of Change
____ 5. Robert Ash E. Dialectical models of change
Unit Four - Contemporary Sociological Theories Of Social
Change
Introduction: Dear Students,
I am confident that you studied classical sociological theories in your
introductory courses of sociology and anthropology courses. In unit three of
65 | P a g e
this course, you also revised these theories and analyzed the causes and
patterns of social changes in respect of these classical sociological theories.
In this unit, you will analyze social change by using contemporary
sociological theories as a tool. Have a nice study time!
There are three different images of society and social change that provided
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. This unit has thus
three sections. Section one is about functionalist theory of social change, and
section two discuss conflict theory and finally in section three describes
interpretive theory of social change.
Objective: Dear learner, after accomplishing this unit you will be able to:-
understand the functionalist’ s view of social change;
know how conflict theory analysis social change and
Understand the interpretive theory of social change.
Section One: Structural Functionalism and Social Change:
An Overview
Dear learner, 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
mutually reinforcing to maintain stability, in the way that each functions and
66 | P a g e
in maintaining 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? In this section, you will learn how functionalists
view social change.
Objective: Dear learner, after successful completion of this section, you
will:-
Understand the assumption and contribution of functionalism in
describing social change;
define Parsons’ and Merton’ s theory of social change
identify the major weakness of functionalist theory of social change
and
Define mass society theory of social change.
1.1. Structural Functionalist Theory: Revised view
Dear learner, what do you think about the functionalist view of social
change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Before going to the detail analysis of functionalism and its historical
foundation, let us give you basic summary of the theory and you are
expected to revise your classical sociological theories.
FUNCTIONALISM (relates to linear development models of social change)
Theory of order and stability or Equilibrium theory: concept of stability is a
defining characteristic of structure, defines activities that are necessary for
the survival of the system, i.e. society has functional requisites or
imperatives where different functional requisites produce differentiated
structures that specialize in accomplishing the requisites.
67 | P a g e
Parson’s Evolutionary Theory - types of change:
System maintenance – most common: restoring a previous pattern of
equilibrium
Structural differentiation- very common: increasing differentiation of
subsystem units into patterns of functional specialization and
interdependence
Adaptave upgrading: new mechanisms of integration, coordination
and control are developed to incorporate the integrative problems by
having structural differentiation
Structural change – least common change: when key features of the
system, e.g. basic cultural values, goals, distribution
Key evolutionary universals that were evident in transition from pre-modern
to modern societies (describes modernism but does not explain it):
social stratification
bureaucratic organization
cultural legitimating of existing structural arrangements
money economy and markets
generalized or universalistic social norms
democratic associations
We hope the above summary has given you what functionalism is and how it
explains change. To be more descriptive, 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
integration).
Factionalist 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
68 | P a g e
strains. Since social system are all “ open” in varying degrees to their
environment, strains can be the result of ‘exogenous” discrepant cultural
items 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.
But 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 institutional 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. In an attempt to contain
or adapt to strain thus functional theorists argue that changes in the parts of
a system may balance each other so that there is no changes in the system
as a whole; if they do not, the entire system win probably changes. Thus,
while functionalism adapts an equilibrium perspective, it is not necessary a
static point of view. In this moving equilibrium of the social system, these
changes that do occur are seen as doing so in an orderly, not a revolutionary
way (Ritzer, 1988:224).
1.2. Parsons Theory of Social change
69 | P a g e
Dear learner, do you recall the general assumptions of functionalism and the
founding fathers of the theory? We guess you do remember.. The history of
functionalism and its dominance in sociology starts from the emergence of
sociology. As you recall your lessons on classical sociological theory and
social change, Comte, Spencer, and Durkheim were the classical contributors
of functionalist perspectives in explaining society and social changes. But
what was the relevance of their theory to contemporary sociological
theories? Do you recall the modern functionalists? Before proceeding to the
next section please try the following questions on the space provided.
Who do you think are the contemporary functionalist
sociologists?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
What are Parson’s functional requisites of society?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
The single greatest contributor, and practitioner, of structural functionalism was
Talcott Parsons (1902–1979). The heart of Parsons’s theory is built on the four
functional imperatives, also known as the AGIL system: Parsons (1951) states
functional requisites more abstract. He argues that there are four basic
functions that 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 relationships between the parts of the
system);and
Latency or “pattern maintenance” (providing cultural legitimacy for
the manner in which other functions are accomplished.
Complementing this are four action systems, each of which serve a functional
imperative: the behavioral organism performs the adaptive function; the personality
system performs goal attainment; the social system performs the integrative
function; and the cultural system performs pattern maintenance. Parsons saw these
70 | P a g e
action systems acting at different levels of analysis, starting with the behavioral
organism and building to the cultural system. He saw these levels hierarchically,
with each of the lower levels providing the impetus for the higher levels, with the
higher levels controlling the lower levels.
Parsons was concerned primarily with the creation of social order, and he
investigated it using his theory based on a number of assumptions, primarily that
systems are interdependent; they tend towards equilibrium; they may be either
static or involved in change; that allocation and integration are particularly
important to systems in any particular point of equilibrium; and that systems are
self-maintaining. These assumptions led him to focus primarily on order but to
overlook, for the most part, the issue of change. The basic unit of Parsons’s social
system is the status-role complex. Actors are seen as a collection of statuses and
roles relatively devoid of thought. Parsons’s interest was in the large scale
components of social systems, such as collectivities, norms, and values. Parsons
also thought that social systems had a number of functional prerequisites, such as
compatibility with other systems, fulfillment of the needs of actors, support from
other systems, inducing adequate levels of participation from its members,
controlling deviance, controlling conflict, and language.
Parsons was particularly interested in the role of norms and values. He focused on
the socialization process, whereby society instills within individuals an outlook in
which it is possible for them to pursue their own self-interest while still serving the
interests of the system as a whole. It was through socialization that Parsons
believed that actors internalized the norms of society. Physical or coercive systems
of control were seen as only a secondary line of defense. Less abstractly, Parson
is talking about the functions of (1) the economy, (2) the political system, (3)
the legal system, and (4) the diverse agencies that perpetuate culture. It is
important in binding and integrating 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.
Parsons (1966) developed an evolutionary theory of change that
distinguished between several types of change. According to him, first there
is system maintenance, which restores a previous pattern of equilibrium
(such as the rebuilding of a community after a disaster). This is certainly
71 | P a g e
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 “integrative 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
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, and 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. 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.
Parson’s 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 “ premodern” to “
72 | P a g e
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
1. Social stratification, 2. Bureaucratic
organization,
3. Cultural legitimization, 4. A money economy
and markets,
5. Generalized or “universalities “social norms, and 6. Democratic
associations
Dear leaner, you should know that these 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 premodern
societies discover them, or what causes 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 presence the “ key features” of the system or
transform them. In doing so he suffers what kinds of change will be most and
least common. Most common are system maintenance and differentiation
intermediate would b the development of new integrative and coordinative
mechanisms, and least common are new abstract values and systems of
cultural legitimization.
The cultural system is at the very pinnacle of action systems. For instance,
Parsons believed that culture had the capability of becoming a part of other
systems, such as norms and values in the social system. Culture is defined
as a patterned, ordered system of symbols that are objects of orientation to
actors, internalized aspects of the personality system, and institutionalized
patterns. The symbolic nature of culture allows it to control other action
systems.
73 | P a g e
The personality system generates personality, defined as the organized
orientation and motivation of action in the individual actor, built by need-
dispositions and shaped by the social setting. Again Parsons presents a
passive view of actors. In order to deal with change, Parsons turned to a form
of evolutionary theory, focusing on differentiation and adaptive upgrading.
He suggested three evolutionary stages: primitive, intermediate, and
modern. This perspective suffers from a number of flaws, primarily because
it sees change as generally positive and does not deal with the process of
change, but rather points of equilibrium across periods of change.
One way that Parsons does inject a real sense of dynamism into his theory is
with the concept of the generalized media of interchange. Although this
concept is somewhat ambiguous, it can be thought of as resources,
particularly symbolic resources, for which there is a universal desire (e.g.,
money, influence, or political power). The suggestion that individuals might
act to influence the social distribution of such resources (as media
entrepreneurs) adds dynamism to what is often seen as a static theory.
1.3. Robert Merton’s Theory and Social Change
Another contributor for the contemporary functionalist theory is the work of
Robert Merton. Before reading the following section, please write what you
know about Robert Merton on the following space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merton (1910–2003) attempted to rectify some of the weaknesses
within structural functionalism. Specifically, he criticized the underlying
assumptions of functionalism and added complexity to how structural
functionalism dealt with the relationship between structures and functions.
Dispensing with the notion that all parts of the system are functional, highly
integrated, and indispensable, he created a system of concepts to deal with
the ways in which structures may be related to the whole. For instance, he
suggested that some social facts might be dysfunctional, meaning they may
have negative consequences for other social facts. Overall, he thought that it
74 | P a g e
was possible to have an idea of the balance of a structure by taking into
account dysfunctions, functions, and non functions. He also added additional
complexity by asserting that this sort of analysis may be performed at
various levels of functional analysis, as “functions” might be a matter of
perspective. For instance, slavery was functional for some and dysfunctional
for others.
Merton was also concerned with the intended and unintended functions of
structures, or manifest and latent functions, and their unanticipated
consequences. He added nuance to structural functionalism by noting that
dysfunctional structures can exist within systems, depending on their
relationship to other systems. Thus not all structures are positive, nor are all
of them indispensable. Merton also took up Emile Durkheim’s (1857-
1917) notion of anomie. He suggested that when individuals cannot act in
accordance with normalized values or realize normalized goals because of
the obstacles created by social structures, it produces deviant behavior. One
of the Merton’s contributions in social change can be understood from his
theory of deviance. According to this theory, individuals readjust the wider
social values and norms which are considered by the larger structure as
“deviance”. So, deviance is an attempt to social change which is
“dysfunctional” to the larger society but eventually changes how the
structure works.
1.4. Neo-functionalism and Social Change
As you will learn in Sociological Perspectives –II, the more recent functionalist
theories of social change define society not as an “ equilibrating system “
but as a “ tension management system “ (Moore, 1974:11). Neo
functionalism was an attempt by theorists such as Jeffrey Alexander,
among others, to revive the stronger tenets of structural functionalism. Neo
functionalism attempted to synthesize portions of structural functionalism
with other theories. It highlighted the interactional patterning of the
elements that constitute society, attended to both action and order,
understood integration as a possibility rather than as fact, adopted various
75 | P a g e
portions of Parsons’ s action systems, and traced the process of social
change that resulted from differentiation within action systems.
Olsen (1978) describes this amended functionalist theory of change as an
“adjustment perspective, which is as neo-functionalist theory on social
change. Whenever stresses or strains seriously threaten the key features of
an organization whatever they might be the organization will…..initiate
compensatory actions to counter these disruptions in an attempt to preserve
its key features. If the compensatory activities successful defend the
threatened key features, then whatever changes do occur will be confined to
other less crucial feature …when disruptive stresses and strains or their
resulting conflicts are so severe and prolonged that compensatory
mechanisms cannot cope with them; the key organizations 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)
1.5. Criticisms of Structural/Functionalism Theory on Social
Change
Dear learner, we hope that you understood the functionalism theory and its
application on social change. What do you think are its limitation/criticisms?
Please write you answer on the following space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as its contribution, structural/functionalism was not out of
limitation. There are a number of criticisms of structural functionalism: it is
ahistorical; it is unable to deal effectively with the process of change or
conflict; and it is conservative. It is viewed as ambiguous and lacking in
adequate methods. Structural functionalism inhibits certain forms of
analyses, such as comparative analysis. Structural functionalism has also
been described as both illegitimately teleological and tautological. The
former implies that structural functionalists rely too heavily on the notion
that social structures have purposes or goals. This notion is posited to justify
76 | P a g e
the existence of particular structures without adequate theoretical reasons
or empirical backing. Tautology suggests that the conclusion of a theory
makes explicit what is implicit in the premise of the theory. Thus, structural
functionalism defines the whole in terms of the parts and the parts in terms
of the whole. One of the weaknesses of functional theory is that it deals
mainly with gradual evolutionary change that enhances the survivability of
the system in question. It is less able to deal with rapid or discontinuous
change, or change involving fundamental transformation of the system or
the emergence of new values. Functionalist’s theory of change would have a
great difficulty explaining a coup d’état, a revolution. Or for example, the
rapid collapse of state socialism in the 1990s. More abstractly, it understands
change as reasons 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 theory’s frame of reference and hence, unpredictable.
The theory is still a theory of order and stability that has been amended to
account for change.
After the 1960s, in which functionalism (especially in its Parsonian variety)
came under strong attack, there was in the 1980s a revival in neo
functionalist theorizing in sociology. In America, the most articulate
spokesman for this was Jeffery Alexander (1985) who builds on Parsons but
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 dissensus as being as “natural “as equilibrium and consensus.
Neofunctinalism focuses on social change in the processes of differentiation
within the social, cultural and personality systems. Thus, change is not
productive of conformity and harmony but rather individuation “and
institutional strain” .
1.6. Mass society Theory
Dear learner, how do you explain the mass society theory of social change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
77 | P a g e
A recurring image of social change in those perspectives is the emergence of
mass societies in which small scale and local systems are increasingly
superseded by large scale and “massive “economic, political and social
frameworks. Social differences are increasingly not based on the traditional
differences of culture and community life, but on bureaucratic specialization
and the complex division of labor in large scale systems. Put abstractly, the
evolution of societies involves the transition from traditional societies with
strong solidarity based an tradition and personal relationships to mass
societies with weak solidarity resulting from cultural pluralism and
impersonal social relationships (Tonnies, 1963).
Individuals come to be oriented more and more to large scale bureaucratic
structures rather than traditional systems (family, community ) for
employment information entertainment health care and the like, mass
workers, mass media and mass politics which increasingly from the
connecting and controlling modes of socialization ,are the hallmark of “
modernity. Much functional theorizing, particularly the Parsonian variety has
viewed modernism and mass society as a benevolent trend for the quality of
human life. But functionalism, in both its classical and contemporary forms
has also contained a profound critique of mass society and “ modernity” It
has argued that along with modernity comes the erosion of traditional life
and culture, and the replacement of local community with bureaucratic and
anonymity.
As the traditional bonds of kinships community and religion attenuate, social
cohesion is increasingly dependent on the much weaker and impersonal ties
of functional interdependency between for many “ free” individuals in the
division of labor. The bureaucratic structures of mass societies therefore
subvert the traditional structures that provide meaning and orientation for
individuals leaving persons disoriented or anomic (Durkheim, 1982). The
declining trust in leaders and institutions and such diverse countertrends as
the resurgence of Evangelical Christianity , new forms of intolerance the new
age movements and postmodernism can all be understand as functions “
78 | P a g e
strains” or as symptom of more profound discontent and anomic that attend
the transition to modernity and the mass society.
# Activity ….
1. What are the major assumptions of functionalist perspectives in social
change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
2. Explain Parsons Theory of social change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
3. Discuss Merton’ s concepts such as dysfunction, non function, overt
functions and latent functions in relation to social change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
4. Discuss neo-functionalist theory of social change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
5. What is “Mass Theory?” Discuss its assumptions and features
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
6. Mention the six evolutionary universals’ ’ discovered in different societies
that made transition to the modern societies possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Two: Conflict Theory and Social Change: An
Overview
Associated primarily with the work of Ralf Dahrendorf (1929–), conflict
theory arose primarily as a reaction against structural functionalism and in
many ways represents its antithesis. Where structural functionalism sees a
near harmony of purpose from norms and values, conflict theory sees
79 | P a g e
coercion, domination, and power. Dahrendorf saw both theories as
addressing different situations, depending upon the focus of the study.
According to Dahrendorf, functionalism is useful for understanding
consensus while conflict theory is appropriate for understanding conflict and
coercion. For Dahrendorf the distribution of authority was a key to
understanding social conflict. Authority is located not within people but
within various positions. Authority is created by the expectation of certain
types of action associated with particular positions, including subordination
of others and subordination to others. Various positions of authority exist
within associations. The fault lines that spring up around competing loci of
authority generate conflicting groups. The conflict between these groups
pervades their interaction, with the result that authority is often challenged
and tenuous.
Much as Merton looked at latent and manifest functions, Dahrendorf
identified latent and manifest interests, or unconscious and conscious
interests. The connection between these two concepts was a major
problematic for conflict theory. Dahrendorf posited the existence of three
types of groups: quasi- groups, interest groups, and conflict groups.
Dahrendorf felt that, under ideal circumstances, conflict could be explained
without reference to any other variables.
Conflict theory has been criticized for being ideologically radical,
underdeveloped, and unable to deal with order and stability. Both
functionalism and conflict theory share the weakness of being able to explain
only portions of social life.
Randall Collins developed a form of conflict theory that focuses far more on
micro-level interactions than does Dahrendorf. It criticized previous conflict
theories and theories of stratification as “failures,” and attempted to focus
on the role of individual action in the process of stratification. His theory of
stratification is rooted in Marxist, phenomenological, and ethno
methodological concerns, focusing on material arrangements and
exploitation in real-life situations. Collins extended his theory to deal with
80 | P a g e
various dimensions of stratification, such as gender and age inequality, as
well as looking at stratification within formal organizations. Are you ready to
explain social change in terms of conflict theory? Please write the major
assumption of the theory and its implication on social change on the
following space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Dear learner, generally, conflict theories of change argue that the inherent
scarcity of certain goods and values is the source of strains and
contradictions in social 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. In this section conflict
theory of change from classical Marxist theory, neo- Marxist, Ralph
Dahrendorf and its criticism will be discussed.
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this section you will be able to:-
describe Marxist view of social change
distinguish the Marxist view of social change from that of neo-Marxist view
of social change,
Mention the criticisms reflected towards conflict theories of social change.
2.1 Marxist and Neo-Marxist theory of social change
Dear learner, how Marxist analyses social change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
For classical Marxist theory, conflict is rooted in economic inequality. 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
81 | P a g e
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
derivates of economic conflict.
When disillusion, disbelief, and cynicism about the dominant symbols of
society become with spread, 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. Classical Marxist though conceived
of historical change as the accumulation of contradictions that resulted in
radical and discontinuous transformations. Indeed, it was a limitation of
Marxist theory that it treated change other than total system transformation
as having little significance.
2.2 . Ralph Dahrendorf Theory of Social Change
Dahrendorf has considerably modified classical Marxism along the lines
mentioned above. However, he shares a number of assumptions about
society and change with Marx, as follows.
1. Conflict and “malintegration” are viewed by both as pervasive and normal
conditions within society (in contrast with the functionalists assumption
about the normality of “equilibrium “and social integration).
2. Such conflict is presumed by both to be caused by opposing “interests”
that inevitably occur in the structure of society.
3. Opposing interests are viewed by both as “reflection” of differences in the
distribution of power among the dominant and subjugated groups.
4. For both, interests tend to polarize into two conflict groups.
5. Both thinkers view conflict as dialectical, so that the resolution of one
conflict creates a new set of opposed interests, which under certain
conditions, will generate further conflict.
6. Social change is seen by both as a pervasive feature of social system
resulting from the dialectic of conflict between various interest groupings
within any system.
82 | P a g e
But unlike Marx, Dahrendorf (1959) argues that it is not control of the means
of production, per se (by or in itself), but social control in general that is the
broadest base of conflict in social systems. This shift in a basic assumption
has important implication for differentiating his conflict theory from classical
Marxism. Specifically, Dahrendorf (1959) suggests that any established
social system from small to large scale is an “imperatively coordinated
association” having roles and statuses and rules that embody power
relationships. Some clusters of roles have power to extract conformity from
others.
Furthermore, power relationships in established systems tend to be
institutionalized as authority, in which power to control becomes invested
with “normative rights” to dominate others. Dahrendorf terms such systems
“imperatively coordinated associations.” For example, parents have
authority over children, teachers over student’s correctional officers over
prisoners and so forth. Any system can be viewed as having two collectives
which represent (1) those with an interest in maintaining authority and
control, and (2) those whose interest is in training control and redistributing
or renegotiating rights to authority. Such connectives are not necessarily
organized structures in which people are aware of such interests, but they
always have potentials to become so. Children in families and students in
schools for example do not always test the boundaries of parental and
pedagogical authority but given their subordinate positions they are
inherently likely to do so on occasion. Dahrendorf (1959) terms these
collectives defined by either subordinate or super-ordinate positions in social
controls systems, as “ quasi groups” with “manifest” interests meaning that
they have the potential to become aware of their interest in maintaining or
correct such collectives with manifest interests can become organized as “
latent” interest groupings, which are organized and aware of their interests
relating to the other collectivity.
83 | P a g e
The organization of manifest interest groups from collectivities with latent
interests is not automatic but depends upon the presence or absence of
several factors. These include;
1. the possibility of communication about issues relating to authority,
2. the existence of political freedom of association and
3. The availability of material, technical administrative and ideological
resources.
In most societies and structures the superordinant collectives are more likely
to be self - conscious, “ manifest” interest groups, as aware of their
commonalties position in the system and interest in maintaining that position
Those in subordinate categories live under conditions that make it more
difficult for them to evolve from a latent interest grouping in to a manifest
one , because they are less likely to possess adequate material or technical
resources to facility such organization and mobilization. Perhaps more
important, they are less likely to clearly understand their circumstances,
partly because their “interests “ are clouded and disguised by ideas and
ideologies promulgated by the dominant groups. Thus, the organization of
manifest from latent groups is always problematic, particularly for
subordinate collectivities. The development of a manifest interest group
means that a group has the potential to organize and mobilize for conflict
with other groups in the system about the distribution of authority (and the
rights, obligations, and resources connected to authority).
Dahrendorf argues that conflict may or may not result in change, and may
result in change of different types. Conflict can produce stability as an
ongoing stalemate, in which there are no winners between groups that are
bound in conflict relationship. It can result in the defeat of established power
of insurgent groups. It can result in total or partial system change regarding
the redistribution of rights, resources and authority.
2.3 Criticism against Dahrendorf theory of Social Change
Dahrendorf’ s theory of social change can be criticized on at least five
grounds.
84 | P a g e
First it doesn’t deal adequately with change that takes place in the absence
of conflict (for example, some technological change). “Significant” change is
viewed only as that involving the redistribution of authority, and resources,
in spite of their weakness; functional theory defined a variety of significant
change.
Second, societies and groups are viewed as having dichotomous authority
relations, rather than a continuous gradation of such relationships, which
often the case in large, complex systems. Third, Dahrendorf’s theory speaks
more of institutionalized roles on authority than of non- institutionalized
power relationships.
Fourth, while Dahrendorf avoid the narrowness of the classical Marxian
emphasis on economic roots of change, the Marxian analytic categories’
(opposed economic interest groups) are conceptually and empirically clearer
than are Dahrendorf’ s “ quasi groups in imperative coordinated
associations” . Finally, in spite of its root in Marxism, Dahrendorf’s theory has
much in common with Parsonian functionalism. Both theories deal with
institutionalized roles and authority more than power.
#Activity 9
1. Argue the central them of the conflict theory of social change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
2. Mention and discuss the major assumptions Dahrendorf shares about
society and change with Marx.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Discuss the criticism made against Dahrendorf‘s assumptions of social
change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
85 | P a g e
Section Three: Interpretive Theory and Social Change: An
Overview
Dear learner, 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 called “symbolic theories “or a “ Social definition paradigm” in
sociology. They derive from the insights of Max Weber, who argued that 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 them. Sociology is, therefore, “ the
interpretive understanding” of social action (Verstehen was the German term
for this).
Objective
Dear learner, after you finish this section you will be able to:-
Define & describe the interpretive theory of social change;
Identify the major criticism of interpretive theory of social change.
3.1 Interpretive Theories and social Change
Dear learner, how interpretive theory explains 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”; when humans may discard, modify, or create symbols that are more
satisfactory new ideas, values and ideologies. This 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.
86 | P a g e
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 accordingly. The alteration of definitions of the situation to be
comprehends with alterations in “external realities “is by no means
automatic. The essence of meaning social change for interpretive theory is
when actors redefine situational and act upon such revised meanings and
redefinitions. This is a very 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, alliteration, 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.
The actual change process begins with claims making by spokes parsons 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 together relevant
persons and groups in a manner consistent with the interest and
perspectives of the claim-makes. This process is defined as altercasting.
Whether or not such claims are widely accepted depends on the claims
making agents having the power to disseminate their view to others without
87 | P a g e
significant challenge by other claim makers. Most claim 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,
altercasting involves getting someone to represent the role of the sinful, and
it is unlikely that “ civilians” accept this role persevering.
Finally, successful claims making involves access to important structures and
facilities that control the definition of social reality. Access implies power and
resources; hence, other things being equal the higher status group 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 judicial system is to
adjudicate competing claims and promulgate polices and laws regarding
them. Government authorities may decide infavor of one of several dominant
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 implies in the attempt of various groups to transform social
definitions and meanings, along with the action patterns associated with
such changes in meaning.
3.2 Criticism of Interpretive Theory of Change
Dear learner, what do you think is the weakness of interpretive theory?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
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 lines of action become understood as
unsatisfactory and in need of modification? Second interpretive theory
88 | P a g e
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 unclosed 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 factor (why do certain groups have greater
access to the shaping of public opinion than others?). Finally, and perhaps
the most telling criticism of interpretive theory on social change, according
to the theory, cannot be understood apart from the popular redefinition of
society.
#Activity 10
Explain the major differences between interpretive theories of social change
form conflict.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Summary:
The important point is that for both functionalist and conflict theories is that
structure is the starting point for a sociological analysis of change. But for
interpretive theories change itself (interaction process, negotiation) is the
starting point and structure is the always temporary –by product indict 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 structure
theories do very well.
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 alliteration which
produces strains and innovations that deal with such strains. Change is
usually conceived as differentiation and the elaboration of new integrative
89 | P a g e
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.
) Self test questions Four
Part I: Multiple Choice: Choose the best answer from the suggested alternatives
and
write the answer on the space provided.
______1. Which one of the following is incorrect?
A. Parsons developed a revolutionary theory of change that distinguished between several
types of change.
B. More recent functionalist theories of social change define society not as an “ equilibrating
system “ but as a “ tension management system.
C. One of the weaknesses of functional theory is that it deals mainly with gradual
evolutionary change that enhances the survivability.
D. Neofunctinalism focuses on social change in the processes of differentiation within the
social, cultural and personality systems
______ 2. Which of the following is true?
A. Dahrendorf argues that conflict may or may not result in change, and may result in
change of different types.
B. Dahrendorf’ s theory of social change doesn’ t deal adequately with change that takes
place in the absence of conflict.
90 | P a g e
C. Dahrendorf’ ’ s theory speaks more of institutionalized roles on authority than of non
institutionalized power relationships.
D. All
________3. For conflict theory
A. Change is usually conceived as differentiation and the elaboration of new integrative
mechanisms.
B. Change can be found in the perception of “ trouble” with the existing situation.
C. sources of change in structured inequality which produces a struggle to control scarce
resources (authority, power)
D. All
______ 4. Which of the following statement is wrong?
A. Interpretive theories argue that meaningful change does not occur automatically when”
external conditions change.
B. Unlike other theories, interpretive theory does not tell us much about the “ structural”
sources of social change.
C. For interpretive theory, social change involves the collective reconstruction of social
reality.
D. None of the above
Part II. Short Answer
1. Parsons (1951) states the functional requisites for social change. And discuss the four
basic functions that the society (or any of its sub systems) must be concerned with for its
survival.
2. Parsons argues that there were some key “evolutionary universals’ ’ discovered in
different societies that made transition to the modern societies possible. Thus the six”
evolutionary universals” include.
Unit Five - Paradigms of Social Change: Modernization,
Development and Evolution
Introduction: Dear learner, in preceding unit you learned about the
general theory of social change. Social change has been a recurrent topic of
social thought since the 18th century. From Comte, and Spencer up to
Durkheim and Lester Ward, the classical authors of social science have
reflected on the trajectories and dynamics of human societies. After the
91 | P a g e
Second World War, the emergence of a world society has challenged
sociology and social anthropology, political science and economics into new
sustained research. Today, with intensely felt globalization and the
breakdown of once firmly held ideas about the future, the social sciences are
requested to reexamine their conceptual and analytical tools. Three
paradigms have guided investigations of social change: modernization,
development, and evolution. Confronting these paradigms, this module asks:
How do different conceptualizations of social change compare? What are
they mainly interested in and what are their corresponding blind spots? How
and why has social scientists’ reasoning about social change itself changed?
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this unit you will be able to:-
understand the modernization paradigm of social change;
analyze the development paradigm of social change;
understand the evolution theory of social change; and
know the difference among theses paradigm of social change
Section One: The Modernization Paradigm of Social
Change: An Overview
Dear learner, modernization theory bolstered by greater emphasis on
international integration and the power of external forces to induce rapid
change. This section describes modernization theory of social change and
discus the criticism reflected against this theory.
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this section you will be able to:-
define the term modernization,
describe modernization paradigm of social change, and
Point out the critics of modernization paradigm of social change.
1.1 The Concept of Modernization
Dear learner, define by your own words the term ‘modernization’?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
92 | P a g e
Modernization is a concept used in sociology and politics. It is the view that a
standard, teleological evolutionary pattern, as described in the social
evolutionism theories, exists as a template for all nations and peoples.
Modernization in the specific sense adopted by the modernization theorists
of the 1950s and 1960s has been defined in three ways: historical,
relativistic and analytical.
In the historically definitions, it is synonymous with westernization or
Americanization. It is seen as the movements towards historically specific,
localized and dated societies. It is the process of changing towards those
types of social, economic, and political systems that have developed in
Western Europe and North America from the seventeenth century to the
nineteenth century and have then spread to other European courtiers and in
the nineteenth and twentieth century’s to the South American, Asia and
African continents. Approaches of this sort are most vulnerable to the fallacy
of ethnocentrism. This danger is partly avoided by the relativistic definitions
which do not invoke specific spatial or temporal parameters but focus on the
substances of the process, whenever and wherever it occurs. Again, two
examples may be provided. In relativist sense, modernization means
purposeful emulation of standard which are considered modern either by the
population at large or by its enlightened segments or ruling elites. By these
standards may vary. The epicenters of modernity i.e. the location of leading,
reference societies in which the achievements perceived as modern are most
common, are not fixed once and for all. They are historically changeable.
The analytical definitions become more specific than that, trying to delineate
the dimensions of a modern society purposefully implanted in pre-modern,
traditional settings. Some of them focus on structural aspects. Thus Neil
Smelser describes modernization as a complex, multidimensional transition
embracing six areas. In the economic realm it means: (1) rooting
technologies in scientific knowledge,(2) moving from subsistence farming to
commercial agriculture,(3) replacing human and animal power with
inanimate energy and machine production,(4) spreading of urban forms of
93 | P a g e
settlements and spatial concentration of the labor force. In the political
arena, modernization signifies the transition from tribal authority to systems
of suffrage, representation, political parties and democratic rule.
In sphere of education, it involves the elimination of illiteracy and growing
emphasis on knowledge, trained skills and competences. In the religious
sphere, it indicates secularization. In family life, it is marked by a diminished
role of kinship ties and greater functional specialization of the family. In the
domain of stratification, modernization means emphasis on mobility and
individual achievement rather than on ascription.
1.2 Modernization Paradigm of Social Change
According to theories of modernization, each society would evolve inexorably
from barbarism to ever greater levels of development and civilization. The
more modern states would be wealthier and more powerful, and their
citizens freer and having a higher standard of living.
One finds generalizations about individual modernization, adoption of
attitudes in favor of personal choice for marriage, divorce, choice of work,
migration, and views of authority. One also may observe organizational
adaptation, with formal organizations transforming their roles in a market
environment where a civil society is gaining ground and individuals are free
to enter and leave. Likewise, state authority becomes subject to checks and
balances, limited in creating monopolies and denying access to the outside
world. If modernization theory emphasized competition among nations that
would oblige, sooner or later, domestic adjustments, globalization theory
stresses the powerful effects of the flow of resources, information, and
people across national boundaries. The urgency of meeting the competition
is accelerating, but the fundamental changes identified by modernization
theory continue to occur.
According to the Social theorist Peter Wagner, modernization can be seen as
processes, and as offensives. The former view is commonly projected by
politicians and the media, and suggests that it is developments, such as new
data technology or dated laws, which make modernization necessary or
94 | P a g e
preferable. This view makes critique of modernization difficult, since it
implies that it is these developments which control the limits of human
interaction, and not vice versa. The latter view of modernization as
offensives argues that both the developments and the altered opportunities
made available by these developments are shaped and controlled by human
agents. The view of modernization as offensives therefore sees it as a
product of human planning and action, an active process capable of being
both changed and criticized.
This was the standard view in the social sciences for many decades with its
foremost advocate being Talcott Parsons. Hegel also viewed it as a
"development of the rational and universal Mind towards self-consciousness
and freedom." This theory stressed the importance of societies being open to
change and saw reactionary forces as restricting development. Maintaining
tradition for tradition’s sake was thought to be harmful to progress and
development. Proponents of Modernization lie in two camps, optimists and
pessimist. The former view what a modernizer would see as a setback to the
theory (events such as the Iranian Revolution or the troubles in Lebanon) as
temporary setbacks, with the ability to attain "modernism" still existing.
Pessimists would argue that such non-modern areas are incapable of
becoming modern.
By the 1950s, the puzzling experience of drastic social change that had
given birth to sociology almost a century earlier was all but forgotten. The
notion of progress that by then dominated American sociology saw
modernity as the solution to all past problems and as the promise of a
perfect society. The theory of modernization took from Weber only the
comforting elements of his notion of rationalization and ignored all its ill-
effects. Indeed, Weber’s thesis on the doom of democracy all but
disappeared from the sketchy translation of his work (Weber, 1956).
Modernization was conceived as the logical outcome of the inherent strength
of rationality. Due to its attractive accomplishments in all spheres of social
life, modernization was expected to wipe away any remnants of irrationality.
95 | P a g e
Theorists of modernization predicted that superstition, magic, and traditions
standing in the way of rationality and progress would gallantly yield to
modern scientific and technological methods and organizations.
The path of triumphant modernization would start in the pre-modern world in
that area of the social system that first comes in contact with the
"developed" world: trade and economic relations. The economic organization
of "developed" societies would leave an imprint in the economic organization
of the "underdeveloped" societies. It would call for an increasing orientation
towards the supposedly rational goals of the marketplace. The rest of the
path to modernity would see, one by one, every aspect of social and cultural
life adjusting to the needs of the rational economic system. Social scientists
adhering to the theory of modernization called such a path development. It
was meant to repeat -in a rather accelerated fashion- the triumph of
modernity in the West.
1.3 Critics of Modernization
Dear learner, what do think are the weakness of modernization theory of
social change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
The idea of modernization theory of social change came under strong
criticism at the end of the 1960s and in the 1970s. It was attacked both on
empirical grounds, as contrary to historical evidences, and on theoretical
grounds based on untenable assumptions. On the empirical side it was
claimed that modernizing efforts most often did not produce the results they
had promised.
Critics of this theory, both from the left and the right, repeat the accusations
rose against modernization theory. Many on the left see it as justification for
neo-imperialism leading to unfair results, including one-sided gains and
negative consequences for cultural diversity and the environment. On the
right, there is continued fear that compromises will have to be made with
others who follow different models, watering down national distinctiveness or
96 | P a g e
sovereignty. Instead of comparing different approaches to globalization and
accepting the need for all sides to adjust as competition proceeds in
unpredictable ways, many prefer either to reject the process as inherently
flawed or to insist that control by only one party must be ensured.
As seen in a half century of modernization theory, politicized approaches to
far-reaching questions of social change as well as narrow rejection of
generalized social science analysis leave many critics unprepared to keep
the focus on how to draw on empirical evidence and comparisons to keep
improving existing theory. This approach has been heavily criticized, mainly
because it conflated modernization with Westernization. In this model, the
modernization of a society required the destruction of the indigenous culture
and its replacement by a more Westernized one.
Technically modernity simply refers to the present, and any society still in
existence is therefore modern. Proponents of modernization typically view
only Western society as being truly modern arguing that others are primitive
or unevolved by comparison. This view sees unmodernized societies as
inferior even if they have the same standard of living as western societies.
Opponents of this view argue that modernity is independent of culture and
can be adapted to any society. Japan is cited as an example by both sides.
Some see it as proof that a thoroughly modern way of life can exist in a non-
western society. Others argue that Japan has become distinctly more
western as a result of its modernization. In addition, this view is accused of
being Eurocentric, as modernization began in Europe with the industrial
revolution, the French Revolution and the Revolutions of 1848, and has long
been regarded as reaching its most advanced stage in Europe (by
Europeans), and in Europe overseas (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
etc). Anthropologists typically make their criticism one step further
generalized and say that this view is ethnocentric, not being specific to
Europe, but Western culture in general.
On the theoretical side, the underlying evolutionist assumptions were found
unacceptable. The possibility of multilinear developments, following various
97 | P a g e
paths of modernization rather than one single track, was indicated. The
different starting points of the process of modernization of these societies
have greatly influenced the specific contours of their development and the
problems encountered in the course of it.
# Activity 11
1. Describe modernization paradigm of social change by taking some
practical examples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
2. Point out the critics of modernization paradigm of social change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Section Two: Development Paradigm of Social Change: An
Overview
Dear student, social change was at the core of the foundation of sociology as
a discipline. The preoccupation with social change, moreover, prompted the
early sociologists to conceive of developmental schemes to account for the
transformation of society. We should bear in mind that the impressive
advances of biology during the 19th century, coupled with the impact of
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, must have paved the way for the
conception of society as an entity that goes through a succession of
developmental stages. This section tries to explain the development
paradigm of social change and discuss its shortcomings in explaining social
change
Objective : Dear learner after you finish this section you will be able to:-
describe the development paradigm of social change;
describe the dependency theory of social change;
define the world system theory of social change; and
mention some of the shortcomings of development paradigm of social
change
98 | P a g e
2.1 Development Approach to Social Change
Dear learner, what is development, how do you define?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
For a while, the developmental approach to the study of social change was
circumscribed to the analysis of the Western European nations in which
sociology was founded - namely, Germany, France, and England. Later on,
however, development studies also came to mean the contrasting analyses
of Western, modern societies and their non- Western, traditional counterpart.
In the same manner that Darwin sailed off to Patagonia in search for current
evidences of evolution, the studies of "primitive societies" brought back by
the anthropologists of the English school reinforced the developmental
approach on social evolution. This approach came to view those "primitive"
societies as the first links in the chain of social development and the
Western, modern societies as the last, mature, and final stage.
Of course, the qualifier "primitive" used for those non-Western societies
announced their ethnographers’ Western bias. Condescendingly, the
emerging Western social science was characterizing non-Western societies
as immature and as the living examples of the stages already undergone by
Western societies. Western social scientists thus implied that the logical
development path for the "primitive" societies meant to replicate the series
of stages traversed by the supposedly more mature Western societies.
Its leading proponents, Talcott Parsons, reintroduced the developmentalist
scheme of the classical sociologists. His image of society was one of a
system immersed in a constant process of increased differentiation. What he
meant by differentiation was a process whereby the tasks necessary in a
society to guarantee its survival are performed by an increasing number of
substructures (or institutions). Rather than overlapping or duplicating their
functions, new institutions take over fragments of the activities formerly
performed by a single, less differentiated (that is, specialized) institution.
Such a multiplicity of tasks to be performed by an increasingly large number
99 | P a g e
of institutions requires interdependence as well as coordination. The
coordination is made possible by a shared system of values as well as by an
increasingly differentiated subsystem of society that deals with the
attainment of society’s goals. The interdependence, on its turn, is facilitated
by parallel differentiation processes that are taking place simultaneously in
every substructure of society. Concomitantly, every newly differentiated
substructure (that is, institution) of society becomes internally differentiated
so as to take care of the four functional prerequisites of every social system
namely, adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency of tensions.
The micro sociological preoccupation of American sociologists that preceded
structural functionalism was captured by a new challenge. Parsons’ four
functional requirements as well as his pattern variables are applicable to
both the social and the personality systems. The goal turned out to find a fit
between the functional requirements of the social system and the
individual’s orientations and personality system. Microsociological followers
of Parsons thus attempted to study the process whereby innovations that are
necessary for the modernization of society were adopted by individuals who
still lived in "premodern" societies.
Economic development, a process of rapidly growing significance In the area,
also has Westernizing effects. Industrialization has begun in many of the
countries, and everywhere there is evidence of economic change. These
programs, chiefly in agriculture, education, public administration, and
industrial productivity, have elevated the standards of living in the
participating countries and have imported Western technology. While the
effect of the interplay between levels of economic development and political
patterns is as yet unclear, it is undoubtedly true that Westernization of the
economy has significant repercussions on the political scene (Gabriel Almond
et al, 1960).
A more serious doubt concerning the infallible path to development came
from the premodern world. It did not originate in sociology, but it was voiced
by an influential economist. For Raúl Prebisch, an Argentinean who directed
100 | P a g e
the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America in Santiago,
Chile, the current international division of labor precluded the
"underdeveloped" countries from catching up with the "developed" ones.
According to Prebisch (1950), "developing" countries chiefly produce and
export primary products, whereas "developed" countries are the exclusive
exporters of manufactured goods. Prebisch maintained that such a division
of labor between "developing" -or periphery-and "developed" -or core-
countries was far from being mutually beneficial. Rather, he claimed that
primary products follow a trend of declining prices compared to the rising
prices of manufactured goods. Such a deterioration of the terms of trade for
primary products, according to Prebisch, would offset any increase in the
"developing" countries' productivity.
His recipe as to encourage the industrialization of "developing" countries. He
proposed policies that would give the local private sectors incentives to
invest in the manufacturing of industrial goods rather than to import and to
distribute such products locally. Chief incentives would be protectionist
measures to ban or tax very heavily imported manufactured goods. In fact,
this practice of import substitution industrialization had been taking place in
the countries of the Latin American region with the most developed
economic infrastructure (e.g., Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Mexico) since the
1930s depression. In the 1940s the war economy efforts of the industrialized
countries prevented the export of manufactured goods to non-industrial
countries, thus furthering the chances of industrialization attempts in the
region. Prebish's recommendations thus did not "cause" import substitution,
but they were instrumental in justifying its protectionism from a changing
world.
The promise of import substitution industrialization as a spring-board to
economic development, however, was short lived. By the end of the 1950s,
Latin American economists realized that the manufacturing of products for
final consumption still posed the problem of trade deficits for developing
societies. In fact, capital goods -such as machines, dies, tools- and highly
101 | P a g e
refined materials -such as petrochemical derivatives were not produced in
developing nations at a level enough to satisfy the needs of local industry.
Such trade deficits seriously limited the growth capacity of an industry that
was dependent on the availability of foreign exchange resources. The
desarrollista (Spanish for "developmentalist") school was of the opinion that
it was incumbent upon the State to invest in economic infrastructure and to
firmly draw policies that would encourage private investment in capital
goods production.
The developmentalist school was also concerned with the growing disparities
between the economically developed centers of developing nations and the
backward, poor areas of those same countries. In order to lessen such
disparities and to spread development throughout the developing world,
developmentalists recommended that, wherever possible, state
industrialization policy creates "poles of development" outside the industrial
centers.
2.2 Dependency Theory of Development
Dear student. What comes to your mind when we say “Dependence theory of
development” ? Of course, in ordinary English, dependency connotes some
kind of relationship among two groups in which one (subordinator) is
dependent on the super group (superior) on some bases. Now, what do you
think such concept symbolizes on development? Are there such identified
groups in development perspectives? Write your answer on the following
space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
If Prebisch and the developmentalists were doubtful that the Western path to
development would triumph in the developing world, they were of the
opinion that development could and should happen with due state
intervention. A new school of thought was emerging in the early 1960s in the
developing world, however, that saw very little room for maneuvering left to
the initiatives of the State in developing countries. This new way of thinking
102 | P a g e
the problem of development maintained that underdevelopment entails a
stagnation situation that developing nations cannot overcome because they
are dependent upon industrialized nations that benefit from the disparities
between development and underdevelopment. The major factor preventing
development, according to this dependency school, is the structural
phenomenon of dependence whereby "the economy of certain countries is
conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which
the former is subjected. According to this school of thought,
underdevelopment is not simply a stage that predates development, as the
evolutionist scheme of the modernization theory states. Rather,
underdevelopment is the historical consequence of dependence: poor
countries are "underdeveloped" because they have been colonized by
countries whose development and further enrichment is based on the
pilferage of the former (André, 1968). The "classical" dependence entailed
not only the extraction of mineral resources or the establishment of
plantation economies that not only distort the economic and cultural
lifestyles of the indigenous populations, but also the exploitation of the
indigenous population's labor.
In contradistinction to the increasing political and economic participation of
the working class in the "developed" Western societies, the working poor
remains excluded from an enjoyment of economic gains and political
participation in the dependent societies. The increasing economic
participation of the Western working-classes responded to the logic of the
need of an expanding consumer market. Wage increases translated there in
a growth of the demand for consumer products. The logic of dependence,
however, is outwardly oriented and precludes the expansion of the internal
market. The interest of agricultural exporting businesses is to maintain the
cost of production low. Because the market is outside -in the core countries-
there is no point in encouraging an expansion of the domestic market in the
form of higher wages. Therefore, development is impossible for a country
103 | P a g e
whose economy is dependent upon the economy of a developed -or core
country.
The dependency school insisted that the only way out of the periphery is by
breaking away from a structure of dependence. Since the state is controlled
by the upper classes in periphery societies, and since those classes benefit
with the maintenance of the structure of dependence, the reforms Prebisch
and the developmentalists recommended in the form of state intervention
would do little to foster development. The only way out of this structural
stagnation that limits economic growth and socio-economic development is,
for the dependency school, a revolution that would bring an end to private
ownership of capital, and which would foster central planning of the
economy: a socialist revolution. Industrialization, economic growth, and
capital accumulation in the periphery were thus ruled out by the early
propounders of the dependency school on the grounds that dependence
leads to an irreversible economic stagnation. The rapid process of
industrialization in some of the nations of the "dependent periphery",
however, called the attention of some of the scholars associated with the
dependency school. The 1970s saw an interesting revision of the notion of
dependence from within the dependency school.
"Capital accumulation took place in the periphery even under conditions of
’classic dependence,’ that is, the export of primary products in exchange for
manufactured goods. The process of accumulation as it is currently occurring
in countries such as Brazil is, however, of a different order. It is different
because it includes a substantial degree of industrialization, and also the
more complex internal division of labor and increased productivity that this
implies Peter Evans (1979). Peter Evans has labeled this type of economic
growth "dependent development" because he did not consider that the kind
of accumulation he analyzed in Brazil has eliminated dependence. Even with
industrialization, this new generation of dependence analyses suggests,
foreign capital plays an increasingly thorough penetration.
104 | P a g e
The dependent character of development stems from the fact that the most
fundamental decisions as to where -and in what- to invest be still made in
the core countries, at the headquarters of transnational corporations.
Therefore, if the rising price of labor in the core countries justifies the export
of industrial capital to the periphery in order to take advantage of the
cheaper periphery labor, dependency is still in place regardless of whether
the products that labor produces are agricultural or industrial ones. The
focus of the dependency school is on the structure of dependence as
experienced by dependent societies. The unit of analysis in the studies
undertaken by dependency theorists is the dependent societies of the
periphery. That the dependency theory takes the perspective of dependent
societies is no doubt related to the historical circumstance that
this theory was born, in the periphery, of periphery social thinkers. Another
theoretical framework that shares many of the concerns of the dependency
school, and which also analyzes the process whereby the core countries
short-change the countries of the periphery, is the world systems theory. The
world systems theory was inspired by the work of dependency theorists, but
it was entirely conceived in core countries. Rather than taking the
perspective of the dependent, periphery societies, the world systems theory
focuses on the system of world relations as its object of study.
2.3 The World System Theory of social Change
Dear leaner, the term “system” shows some kind of integration among the
different components. You can relate it to your biological organs such as
digestive system, circulatory system … in which each system has
independently specialized organs but integrated with other organ in the
system to fully function. In the system, there is input output relationship
among the different organs and one organ cannot independently exist. Then,
how do you describe the world system theory of social change having this
concept?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
105 | P a g e
The world systems theory considers the modern capitalist world system as
the -so far- last in a series of world systems. Immanuel Wallerstein (1983), a
leading proponent of this theoretical perspective, characterizes the modern
capitalist world system as one where the prevailing system's drive is the
accumulation of wealth insofar as it can be used to accumulate more wealth.
Such accumulation of capital thus becomes the preeminent objective of the
modern capitalist world system. A continuous process of capital
accumulation requires the conversion of wealth into capital. Such conversion,
in its turn, requires the development of an ever expanding market where
everything becomes a commodity. Without the commodification of
everything, the process of capital accumulation was never completed before
the modern capitalist times. The modern world system involves an
international division of labor in the form of a commodity chain whereby
items necessary to produce other products are sold and bought as
commodities. The latter products also go in the production of further
products, and for that purpose they are sold and bought as commodities.
Dear learner, in your Sociological Perspectives, we hope that the term
“commoditization” explains the exploitative relationship between the two
Marx’s classes. What is” commodification” for Wallerstein?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
The logic of capital accumulation, however, requires that the process of
commodification is not complete. The process of capital accumulation is
enhanced by the persistence of non-wage (i.e., non-commodified) labor in
the periphery, which is also where the more labor-intensive links of the
commodity chain prevail. Non-wage labor includes the household production
for self-consumption or sale in a local market. Such non-wage labor, if part of
a semi-proletarian household, elicits a lesser need for cash both because the
procurement of certain goods and services is satisfied inside the household
rather than in the marketplace, and because the extra income generated by
the sale in the local market of household-produced items brings additional
106 | P a g e
cash. That additional cash will be used to cover the cost of survival of all the
members of the household -including the ones who receive wages in the
labor market. This means that the recipients of wages in a semi-proletarian
household can afford to hire their labor out for far lower wages than those
received by workers whose households are proletarian rather than semi-
proletarian. In consequence, the cost of production, survival, and
reproduction of wage-labor is borne in good part by non-wage labor. Insofar
as most nonwage labor is located in the periphery, the international division
of labor in the form of a commodity chain implies that vast resources and
wealth which is generated in the periphery is centripetally sucked by the
core.
The world systems theory sees the world as an international stratified
system with core (rich) countries, periphery (poor) countries, and the
countries of the "semi-periphery" (middle-class). The relative position of each
country in such an international system of stratification may vary over time.
Countries that were part of the semi-periphery at the turn of the Century -
like Germany, Canada, or Japan- are now well established among the core
countries. Countries that today are part of the semi-periphery -such as the
"newly industrializing countries" (NICs): South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Singapore, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico- may ascend to the core, remain in
the semi-periphery, or descend to the periphery.
The performance of each individual country does not alter the fact that there
is a system of international inequality whereby the growth of the core
countries is supported by a centripetal transfer of surplus (i.e., resources and
wealth) from the periphery to the core. Since that time the capitalist world-
economy has expanded to include the whole population of the globe. The
process of uneven development has caused upward and downward mobility
within the system at the same time as the overall core/periphery hierarchy
has been reproduced (Volker, 1985).
For dependency theory, as already discussed above, the deterministic
external character of dependence is such that, despite of variations in the
107 | P a g e
internal conditions from country to country, there is no real escape from the
externally imposed under development. By focusing on the world system as
a whole as the unit of analysis, rather than on individual dependent societies
-as the dependency school does- the world systems theory overcomes some
important shortcomings of the dependency school. Most notably, the world
system perspective theorizes that the stratification between core and
periphery is maintained (i.e. reproduced) even if individual countries move
up or down the hierarchy.
2.4 Critics of Development paradigm of Social Change
Some of the critiques against the dependency school, however, have also
been pointed out as weaknesses of the world systems perspective. One
important theoretical flaw attributed to both dependency and world systems
positions is their characterization of the periphery (and even the sixteenth
century Western European societies) as capitalist rather than
precapitalist( Ernesto,1979) Whether the periphery is characterized as
capitalist or precapitalist is theoretically linked to how capitalism is defined.
Although deriving many of their concepts and theoretical propositions from
Marxism (and Lenin’s theory of imperialism), both dependency and world
systems perspectives focus on the unevenness of the distribution of wealth
between core and periphery (Robert Brenner, 977). Marx, however, pointed
out that what characterizes each mode of production are their corresponding
relations of production (rather than relations of exchange and distribution
that take place in the marketplace). For Marx, the relations of production
refer to the organization of the productive activities in society, with special
reference to the class divisions that determine asymmetric relations in the
workplace.
From a Marxist viewpoint, the problem with the relations of exchange and
distribution in the marketplace is that they depict the relations between
capital and labor as contingent upon the laws of supply and demand that
impersonally regulate the price of labor. This way, the intrinsically
exploitative relationship between the class of the capitalists and the class of
108 | P a g e
the proletarians becomes obscured by the appearances of the marketplace.
In order to overcome such appearances, thereby, it becomes necessary for
Marxists to emphasize the political conflict of classes -in the class terms of
control of the division of labor, work environment, and the appropriation of
the product of labor.
Dear learner, discuss how Karl Marxist theory and World system theory
differed in explaining the causes of dependency?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to modern Marxist critics, both the dependency and world systems
perspectives emphasize the relations of exchange and distribution in the
process of capital accumulation. This emphasis views the process of
accumulation of capital as a consequence of a (monopolistic) control over
the marketplace: those who are able to control the marketplace are able to
short-change all other economic agents. The main thrust of both theories
focuses on the inequality resulting from the exchanges between core and
periphery. This marketplace approach stresses the core/periphery conflict of
interests as more relevant than the (Marxist) emphasis on class conflict. The
ensuing Marxist criticism is that such a stress on the core/periphery (or
geographical) conflict prevents the analysis of class conflicts. Such a stress,
they claim, leads to depict the national bourgeoisie (i.e., the local owners of
capital) as hurt in their attempts at accumulating capital. This would make
the national capitalists natural allies of their nations’ working class in the
interest of overcoming their dependence on the core. This type of criticism,
therefore, dwells on which is the main contradiction: class or geographical
region? Dependency as well as world system theorists emphasize the
contradictions between the geographical regions of core and periphery -also
emphasized by Prebisch. Marxists, on the other hand, emphasize class
contradictions in the analysis of social change.
The early 1980s saw the advent of two new Marxist directions in the analysis
of development. One direction tries to overcome both the tendency to label
109 | P a g e
the entire world capitalist, and the modern/traditional dualism espoused by
the modernization theory. The articulation of modes of production analysis
conceives of the possible coexistence of (and mutual interconnections
among) more than one mode of production in a single society (or social
formation). Usually one mode of production (and its corresponding ruling
class) becomes the dominant one.
The character of the interconnection (or articulation: interaction, linking,
relationship) among the modes of production within the social formation
depends upon which mode of production becomes dominant. This mode of
production approach does not propose general laws that enable to predict
the course of social change in the different "social formations". Rather, its
propounders suggest a strategy for the analysis of development and
underdevelopment (Norma S etal, 1982).
The other Marxist direction concentrates on the class aspects of the relations
of production. The class analysis approach proposes to study social change
in terms of the relations of production. The strategy it pursues is to
concentrate on the processes that lead to the formation of classes as well as
to focus on the alliances and conflicts between classes on the national and
international level. Some authors within this direction emphasize the process
of internationalization of capital accumulation as the approach to understand
international relations. Since the capitalist exploitation of the working class
results in the process of accumulation of capital, they reason, modern
international economic relations should be analyzed in terms of the logic of
capital accumulation in the advanced stages of capitalism.
In the words of one of the proponents of this approach, increasingly the
dynamics of the world capitalist economy cannot be understood with
reference to a single nation or group of nations. Productive decisions are now
made on a global scale. For this approach, thus, it is not the asymmetrical
relations between "core" and "periphery" what matters, but the exploitative
relations that enable international capital to continue accumulating.
#Activity 12
110 | P a g e
1. Describe the modernization theory of social change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
2. Discuss the major criticism of modernization theory of social change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
3. How do you explain the critics that modernization theorists have an
ethnocentric view towards the values and norms of developing courtiers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Section Three: Evolution Theory of Social Change: An
Overview
Dear learner, one of the historical tendencies particularly salient in area of
social change is evolution. This is the crucial notion for comprehending social
change; it provides the first image of social transformation, which was to root
itself in sociological theory as well as in common sense, and to remain
popular until our own day. The concept of growth provides the core of the
sociological idea of evolution, foundational for an influential theoretical
school in the study of social change, known as sociological evolutionism. Let
us illustrate the classical formulation of sociological evolutionism the work of
four representatives: Comte, Spencer, Durkheim and Ward. In addition you
will learn about the common core of evolutionary theory and its weakness.
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this section, you will be able to
list the three stages in the evolutionary concepts of Comte,
describe Herbert Spencer and the naturalistic concept of evolution,
describe Emile Durkheim and the sociological concept of evolution,
define Lester Ward and the evolution of evolution, and
identify the common core & weaknesses of evolutionary theory of
social change,
3. 1 Auguste Comte and the Idealist Concept of Evolution
111 | P a g e
By his famous “law of the three stages”, Comte has described social change
in society in evolutionary process. He says the driving force of historical
change is found in the domain of the mind and the sprit; in the ways in which
people approach and comprehend reality, the assumptions and methods
they apply in the effort tom explain, predict and control the world. The
quality and quantity of knowledge mastered by a society persistently grow.
This central trait of society influences or determines all other aspects of
social life; economic, political,, military.
According to Comte, the human race goes through three stages: theological,
metaphysical and positive. In the first stages, people invoke supernatural
entities and powers as responsible for earthly events. They refers to sprits or
souls embedded in objects, plants, animals (fetishism, animism), then to a
multitude of gods responsible for various phases of life (polytheism), and
finally to a single omnipotent god (monotheism). The second, metaphysical
stage comes when people replace gods with abstract causes and essences,
fundamental principles of reality as conceived by reason. The idea of
sovereignty, rule of law and legal government dominate in political life. The
third, positive stage is reached when people invoke laws based on empirical
evidence, observation, comparison and experiment. This is the stage of since
and industrialization. This history is the story of changes in the mind and
society which match and mirror each other.
3.2 Herbert Spencer and the Naturalistic Concept of Evolution
Spencer conceives of evolution as the underlying, common principle of all
reality, natural and social like. This communality is due to the fact that all
reality is basically material, consisting of matter, energy and movement.
Then he defines evolution as a change from an incoherent homogeneity to a
coherent heterogeneity, accommodating the dissipation of motion and
integration of matter.
In brief, evolution proceeds by means of structural and functional
differentiation: (1) from simplicity to complexity,(2) from amorphousness to
articulation of parts,(3) from uniformity, homogeneity to specialization,
112 | P a g e
heterogeneity and (4) form fluidity to stability. To underline the direction in
which this evolutionary process moves Spencer introduces the first polar,
dichotomous typology of societies. These are called the military and
industrial society.
3.3 Emile Durkheim and the Sociological Concept of Evolution
In his most famous book the Division of labour, Durkheim assert that the
main direction of evolution is seen as the growing division of labour,
differentiation of tasks, duties and occupational roles as society moves
forward in time. This tendency is related to demographic factors: growing
population results in growing demographic density and brings growing moral
density, meaning the intensity of interaction, complexity of social
relationships or briefly the quality of social bond. Following Spencer’s
strategy, Durkheim propose another dichotomous typology of societies
based on the difference qualities of social bonds: Mechanical solidarity is
rooted in similarity of undifferentiated functions and tasks; organic solidarity
is rooted in the complementaritiy, cooperation and mutual indispensability of
highly diversified roles and occupations. The typology is treated as a
chronological scheme, depicting the initial point and the end-point of social
evolution, history moves from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity.
3.4 Lester Ward and the Evolution of Evolution
A very interesting idea is added to the history of evolution, by an American
classic of the field, Lester Ward, in his Dynamic Sociology (1883). Ward
claims that the mechanism of evolution is not constant but itself changes in
time. In its wide sweep, evolution embraces also the very mechanism of
evolution. The most important borderline divides the period of spontaneous,
natural evolution (genesis) from the relatively recent period of human, goal
oriented evolution ( telesis).The later is being guided by the awareness and
purposefulness of human actors.
Evolution starts as ‘cosmogenesis’ embracing the entire universe. At some
moment the phenomenon of life appears and a new evolutionary
mechanisms of ‘biogenesis’ emerge and supplements the continuing
113 | P a g e
cosmogenesis. At some moment, human beings appear, and another
evolutionary mechanism rooted in mind and consciousness starts to operate
together with the former two, supplementing the cosmo and biogenesis.
Finally, human beings attain a new form of organization, society and since
that time the new mechanism of social evolution adds itself to all earlier
ones.
3.5 The Common Core of Evolutionary Theory
In the work of classical evolutionists the specific images of social and
historical change gradually took the shape. In spite of differences between
authors, all seemed to accept a number of common assumptions which
provide the core of evolutionary theory of social change.
a) The object undergoing change is taken to be the whole of human society,
humanity, and mankind; it is treated as a single, most comprehensive whole.
b) The focus on the changes such as an organic whole, of the social system.
If the changes in elements, components or subsystems, are considered, it is
only from the perspective of their contribution to the overall evolution of
society.
c) The change of society is treated as ubiquitous, as natural, necessary and
inescapable trait of social reality. If stability and stagnation are observed,
they are interpreted as blocked, arrested and treated as exceptions.
d) Because it applies to a single entity, society as a whole evolutionary
change is treated as a single, all-encompassing process, which may be
perceived or studied a totality, at its own highest level of abstractions.
e) Evolutionary change is perceived as a gradual, continuous, incremental
and cumulative. The overall all movement of evolution is smooth and
involves no radical discontinuities, breakdowns or accelerations, and
f) Evolutionary change is taken to be tantamount with progress; it results in
the constant improvement of society, the betterment of human life.
3.6 Weakness of Classical Evolutionism
In the above discussion, we listed some of the assumptions about
evolutionary analysis in sociology and social change. However, all the
114 | P a g e
assumptions listed above are highly contestable. The assumptions that all
human society as the entity undergoing evolutionary change was put in
doubt by the growing evidence of tremendous plurality, variety,
heterogeneity of human populations. The over-integrated, organic image of
society was undermined by the common observation of conflicts, stains and
tensions; the notorious dysfunctionality of some segments or aspects of
society. It was noticed that the overwhelming proportion of social change are
limited in scope and have the character of change in ,occurring within the
same social type, rather than between different social types. Therefore the
focus on the much more rare fundamental changes of the whole social
system was found to be unwarranted. It was also emphasized that only a
fraction of changes in could be immediately related to changes of as their
prerequisites or co-determinants.
The gradual, incremental vision of change does not fit into the extremely
pervasive experiences of discontinuities, mutations and thresholds. The
historical evidence also speaks against simplicity of monocausality. The
neglect of exogenous causation of social change manifest in such
phenomena as conquest, colonization, diffusion, cultural contact,
environmental changes and natural calamities. Under the concentrated fire
and of all those and similar arguments, classical evolutionism lost its focal
place in the theory of social change
3.7 The Place of Darwinian Theory
Dear learner, in your high school biology, you learnt the very known
quotation of evolution “ Survival of the Fittest” by Charles Darwin. The
advocates of this evolutionary perspective are called “Darwinists” and their
view is called “Darwinism” . In sociology, this Darwinism was introduced by
H. Spencer, who primarily known for explaining the completion and
succession among different social groups, and we call the sociological
application of Darwinian Theory as “Social Darwinism”. Darwinian dynamics
are only one of five classes of dynamic processes that are of interest to
biologists and social scientists. The others are:
115 | P a g e
(1) Developmental processes. Developmental biologists study the dynamics
of cell differentiation, and tissue and organ growth, in the embryo.
Psychologists have concentrated on behavioral development, both in the
sense of anatomical maturation and in the sense of learning and other
developmental responses to variable environments. In the special case
complex societies, both human and non-human, there are also large-scale
developmental processes. When a new city, corporation, or beehive forms, a
set of existing institutions are used to charter the new organization, which in
turn self-organizes using special mechanisms for instituting a new
organizational “individual.” The units of analysis are individual and sub
individual, and the time scale is one generation, and the multi- individual
organizational analogs thereof.
(2) Game dynamics. Individuals must make dynamic adjustments to each
other’s behavior, for example finding a place in a dominance hierarchy.
Members of the same social group, other co specifics and other competitors,
and predators and prey may all play "games" with each other. In some
solitary species, these dynamics may be relatively simple and even
unimportant. In social species they are complex and important. Dynamic
social adjustments are extra-ordinarily important in human societies, more
important than in other complex animal societies because potential and
actual conflicts of interest are stronger in human societies than in more
perfected ultra-social animals like ants, bees and termites.
In our societies market mechanisms and political systems can create very
large-scale complex game dynamics that dynamically integrate entire
societies, even the world. If hidden and unhidden hands are working
correctly, conflicts between private and public interest are minimized in such
dynamical systems. Economists have raised the study of market dynamics
and game theory to a very high art indeed, and their concepts and methods
have been imported into many social science disciplines to good effect.
Coleman’s (1991) is perhaps the most ambitious of these. The typical foci of
attention in studies of game dynamics are individuals and small groups, but
116 | P a g e
ranging up to much larger units in the human case. The time scales of
interest are matter of hours to a generation.
(3) Ecological processes. Populations grow, compete, prey upon one another,
extend their ranges or go locally extinct. Collections of species on the
landscape (ecologists' "communities") can change rather dramatically due to
these processes. In the human case, our demographic dynamics are
extremely important. Populations grow, shrink and migrate. Our renewable
resources and domesticated species have population dynamics linked to
human dynamics. Typical units of analysis are populations, and the time
scales of interest are a few to many generations. Demographers,
geographers, resource biologists, and agronomists are among the scientists
that investigate these sorts of dynamics.
(4) Geochemical dynamics. The earth itself is a dynamic system. On the very
long term, the luminosity of the sun changes, the earth cools, and the
continents drift. On the human evolutionary time scale, local geological
catastrophes impact populations, soils weather, harbors silt up, and climates
change. Geologists and climatologists have revolutionized our understanding
of these processes in the last quarter century. If any change process is more
ultimate than natural selection, it is the evolution of the physical earth.
Independently of anything organisms have done, the geochemistry of the
earth creates the raw environment to which organisms adapt as best they
can. Even without any changes in culture or genes, life on earth would be
dynamic. Of course, none of these dynamic processes operates entirely
autonomously. All of them impact Darwinian processes, and biotic and
cultural evolution affect most of them in turn. Humans are now a significant
geochemical player; witness our effects on greenhouse gasses in the
atmosphere and our major role in the earth’s nitrogen budget. What is
striking about this list of processes is that processes 1-3 are each the subject
of a large body of sophisticated research by social scientists. In biology,
evolution is also quite well covered. In the social sciences, evolutionary
dynamics have been relatively quite neglected. Only a few scientist- lifetimes
117 | P a g e
of work have so far been invested in the Darwinian approach to cultural
evolution and related investigations. Historical happenstance plays a
significant role in cultural evolution, including, it seems, the evolution of the
sciences!
Our basic claim in this chapter is that cultural evolutionary processes drove
the evolution of human ultra-sociality. Cultural transmission itself has
adaptive advantages in highly variable environments. Some of these
processes have the effect of making group selection on cultural variation
possible and the use of cultural cues to structure populations common. As
cultural group selection began to produce primitive patterns of in-group
cooperation and out-group hostility, human cognitive capacities, presumably
coded in large measure by genes, responded to adapt people to living in
culturally defined cooperative groups.
The multi- level nature of the human evolutionary process is a recipe for a
messy co evolutionary game. Human individuals are in the position of having
strong claims on their allegiance from a hierarchical series, or even a cross-
cutting complex, of organizations ranging from our families to culturally
define in groups as large as our country. In many circumstances, the benefits
of cooperation induced by culture greatly outweigh the genetic fitness costs,
but the costs have to be paid. A relatively few and simple gene-culture co
evolutionary process generates the bewildering variety and rapid dynamics
of human political institutions. Our social cognition is adapted to manage, as
best it can, lives lived in an inherently conflict-ridden and unstable social
environment, albeit one in which much of the instability arises because
large-scale cooperation, supported by altruistic motives, is common. The
very large scale and deeply hierarchical structure of modern societies
presses the envelope of what is psychologically possible for an animal
originally adapted to live in much simpler societies, much as modern
mathematical, literary and athletic training explore the outer limits of human
minds and bodies.
118 | P a g e
Unless we are badly misled by our data, the levers of Spencerian selection
that are currently deployed to guide the evolution of liberal democratic
societies rest on a foundation of cultural values that is evolving in
uncontrolled and unpredictable directions. As Darwinian anthropologists, the
idea that humans are still fundamentally wild animals, subject to the dictates
of natural selection, is a stirring prospect. The dynamism and diversity of
human cultures make up a splendid tapestry, even stained as it is with spilt
blood. That tapestry is the main subject of our adopted discipline,
anthropology, and the sole excuse for its existence. As liberal democrats, the
lack of interest of so many of our colleagues all the social science disciplines
about the processes underlying uncontrolled evolutionary dynamism of our
species is frightening.
We are moved much less by either sentiment than by our anthropologists’
curiosity, and by the conviction that curiosity about how cultural evolution
works will have a greater impact on how things turn out than either
celebration Identify the five classes of Darwinian dynamic processes that are
of interest to biologists and social scientists.
#Activity 13
1. Explain the evolutionary theory of social
change.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
2. Identify the five classes of Darwinian dynamic processes that are of
interest to biologists and social scientists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
The theory of modernization may not have remained popular, but its
message endures: states reorganize in an increasingly competitive
environment; the quest for international power and economic growth leads
to substantial changes in domestic policies; societies continuously adjust to
economic growth and global integration; and the result is growing
119 | P a g e
convergence. Globality is also unavoidable problem of contemporary world. It
brings both dangers and hopes of social change. Modernization, in specific
sense adopted by the modernization theories of the 1950s and
1960s, has been defined in three ways: historical, relativistic and analytical.
In historical sense it is synonymous with westernization. It is seen as the
movement towards historically specific, localized and dated societies.
Historically modernization is the process of change towards those types of
social, economic and political systems that have developed in Western
courtiers. One is most general, synonymous with all kinds of progressive
social change, when society moves ahead along some accepted scale of
improvement. This usage is full relativist in a historical sense and can apply
to all historical periods.
The analytical definitions become more specific, trying to delineate the
dimensions of a modern society purposefully implanted in pre-modern,
traditional settings. Some of them focus on structural changes. It involves
changes in the economic, political arena, educational system and religious
aspects. Above all the most specific meaning modernization refers to
backward or underdeveloped societies and describing their effort to catch up
with the leading, most developed countries coexisting with them at the same
historical period within the global society.
The idea of modernization came under strong criticism at the end of the
1960s and in the 1970s. It was attacked on empirical grounds, as a contrary
to historical evidence, and on theoretical grounds, as based on untenable
assumptions. On the empirical side it was claimed that modernizing efforts
most often did not produce the results they had promised. There were also
numerous pathological side effects of modernization.
Destroying traditional institutions and life-ways often produced social
disorganization, chaos and anomie. On the theoretical side, the underlying
evolutionist assumptions were found unacceptable. As we remember, the
sociological evolutionism of Comte or Spencer predated the formulation of
evolutionary theory in biology, and in particular it’s most influential
120 | P a g e
statement by Charles Darwin. Both classical evolutionism in sociology and
most neo evolutionist schools have followed the Spencerian image of
organic growth rather than the Darwinian image of natural selection. They
share the belief that the Darwinian model reveals fundamental analytical
similarities between the biological and socio-cultural process of evolution.
) Self test questions FivePart I: Multiple Choices: Choose the best answer from the suggested alternatives and write the answer on the space provided.
______1. Poor countries are "underdeveloped" because they have been colonized by countries whose development and further enrichment is based on the pilferage of the former is the argument ofA. Modernization paradigmB. Dependency theory of developmentC. Evolutionary theory of social changeD. Globalization paradigm_______2. According to Immanuel Wallerstein the world system theory of social change;A. The world as an international stratified system with core (rich) countries, periphery (poor) countries.B. The relative position of each country in an international system of stratification may vary over time.C. Theorizes that the stratification between core and periphery is maintained (i.e., reproduced) even if individual countries move up or down the hierarchy.D. All________3Which one is incorrect statement?A. Like Marx both the dependency and world systems perspectives emphasize the relations of exchange and distribution in the process of capital accumulation.B. Karl Marx views the process of accumulation of capital as a consequence of a (monopolistic) control over the marketplace.C. Marxist criticism that dependency and world systems stress on the core/periphery (or geographical) conflict prevents the analysis of class conflicts.D. Dependencies as well as world system theorists emphasize the contradictions between the geographical regions of core and periphery.Part II. Short Answer1. Outline the Darwinian five classes of dynamic processes that are of interest to biologists and social scientists2. What are the three paradigms of social change?
121 | P a g e
Unit Six - Forces and Agents of Social Change: Social
Movements and
Globalization
Introduction: Dear learner, welcome to the last unit of this module. As
we discussed in previous units, social change comes through individuals as
well as holistic transformations of social systems, collectively known as social
institutions. Look for example, what happened in your locality on social
interaction due to wider and interrelated changes in different social
institutions? The best example is the changes brought by advanced
communication technologies such as mobile and internet.
In this unit, we deal with on force of social change which is a collective
attempt by individuals having common kinds of interest. Social movements
are loosely organized collectivities acting together in a non institutionalized
manner in order to produce change in society. By considering change as
criteria, we can also construct different types of social movements. Social
movements differ in the scope of intended change. Some are related to
limited purpose, aiming to modify some aspect of society without touching
its core institutional structure. Others are related to general goals. Social
movements differ in the quality of intended change. Some emphasizes
innovations; strive to introduce new institutions, new laws, and new beliefs.
Other movements turn to the past. Social movements differ with respect to
the targets of intended change. Some focus on a change of social structure,
others on changing individuals. Social movements differ with respect to the
vector of intended change. For most movements the vector is positive for
other negative. Different types of movements are found to dominate in
different historical epochs. This enables us to distinguish two comprehensive
types most relevant for modernity, the old or new. In this unit discusses
122 | P a g e
definition and types of social movements in section one and in the second
section, the relation of new social movements with social change will be
discussed in detail.
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this unit you be able to;-
Understand the concept of social movements
Know the different types of social movements
Appreciate the extent of the existing relationship between social movement
and social change.
Section One. The Concept and Types of Social Movements:
An Overview
Dear student, in the last unit of your introduction to sociology, you learnt
what social change and how social movement is defined with all its types.
Before going to the full reading of this section, write what you remember in
the course about the definitions and types of social changes on the following
space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The adequate definition of social movements must differentiate these
phenomena from other categories of social forces. Perhaps the common and
most emphasized facets of all definition is the imitate link between social
movements and social change. Thus, social movements come in all shapes
and sizes; they present a tremendous variety of forms. So, this section tries
to define social movements and discuses its types.
Objective: Dear learner, after you finish this section you be able to;-
Define social movements ; and
Mention the different types of social movements
Discuss the theories of social movements
Explore the factors declining the social movement
123 | P a g e
Unlike the spontaneity of the collective behaviors social movements intend
to direct social change. These movements encompass a diversity of issues.
Contemporary movements include efforts to draw attention to the rights of
the disabled, animal rights, environmental activism, abortion (pro-choice and
pro-life), AIDS activism, gay rights, civil rights, patients’ rights, rights of
those who choose to be childfree, gun control, the right to die (i.e.,
euthanasia), Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD), the open-source
software movement, and women’ s liberation, to name just a few.
Sociologists are interested in how these movements form, why they arise,
the forms they take and their life cycle, what change occurs, and the
outcomes of that change.
Social movements work to accomplish their goals through actions that
disrupt the established status quo, authority, and culture. Movement
participants develop a sense of collective identity that bolsters their sense of
having a shared cause and helps sustain their efforts, thereby sustaining the
movement (Tarrow 1994). Some movements are fairly short-lived and either
die out or accomplish their goals (e.g., local efforts to stop the construction
of a nuclear power plant or prison). Other movements have long lives, some
having adherents who participate for their entire lives (e.g., the NAACP)
(Klandermans 2000, 246).
1.1. Formation of Social Movements
It is difficult to identify the beginning of most social movements as they are
occurring. However, sociologists have suggested a number of factors that
may be behind the birth of a social movement. These factors include the
relative deprivation of one group to larger society, social unrest,
dissatisfaction, a sense of injustice, ideology or beliefs, social stresses (such
as a crisis or cultural lag), resources, organization, and an orientation toward
change. Some factors seem to play a larger role in the formation of one
social movement and less in others.
However, social movements all involve collective action of people who work
to enact some type of change they feel would be preferable in the social
124 | P a g e
structure. Freeman (1999, 19–20) studied four social movements of the
1960s and 1970s to better understand what is required for the formation of
social movements. Her analyses of the civil rights, student protests, welfare
rights, and women’s liberation movements prominent during this period
identify four elements that are essential for a social movement to form. She
finds that there must be (1) a preexisting communications network that can
be (2) co-opted to disseminate the ideas of the movement, along with (3)
crises that spur involvement in the cause and (4) an effort to organize
interested groups into a movement. Freeman’s analysis of the civil rights
movement illustrates these elements. Churches and black colleges provided
a communications network that predated the civil rights movement.
Students and church members shared common experiences of racism and
discrimination that led them to be receptive to the message of the
movement when presented to them through these familiar and trusted
networks. Emerging leaders, consisting of a number of church ministers,
began to speak to these shared experiences and provide avenues for social
action.
Participation in social movements became, in Freeman’s word, logical. In
Montgomery, labama, when Rosa Parks(was an African-American civil rights activist,
whom the U.S. Congress called "the first lady of civil rights", and "the mother of the freedom
movement".[1] ) refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger, those
hearing the civil rights message had the spark to ignite action. While Martin
Luther King Jr. served as spokesperson, the ensuing Montgomery bus boycott
was then largely organized by E. D. Nixon, a Pullman car porter and activist
with the already established NAACP.
Social movements also use tactics designed to encourage a sense of
community and belonging during difficult periods. Music, for example, can be
utilized for this purpose. The civil rights movement’ s theme was the song
“We Shall Overcome,” a piece that traces its roots back to two gospel songs
sung by slaves. The song also aided in recruitment and garnering support for
the cause.
125 | P a g e
1.2. Types of Social Movements
Dear learner, what are the criteria used for constricting types of social
movements?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Sociologists have no one single way to classify social movements. Some
classifications consider movement goals or methods employed to achieve
those goals. Herbert Blumer (1969) classified social movements as general
or specific. General movements involve a change of values across society—
for example, changes in the views and status of women brought about by
the women’ s movement. These movements are not sharply focused on
methods, which may actually be diffuse, with different branches of the
movement supporting different activities (letter-writing campaigns, sit-ins,
hiring a lobbyist, etc.). Specific movements have a more well-defined focus—
for example, the antiabortion movement.
One commonly cited classification is provided by David Aberle (1966). He
divides social movements into four types, broadly based on who they seek to
change (individuals or society) and the extent of the change sought (small or
sweeping).
Alternative social movements focus on partial change at the
individuallevel. Movements advocating birth control provide an example of
this type of movement.
Redemptive social movements seek a total change of individuals.
Movements that aim to bring a state of grace to adherents are redemptive
movements (e.g., born-again Christians). Like transformation movements,
discussed below, they reject at least some features of the current society.
Reformative social movements seek a partial change of society. Women’
s suffrage and child-labor laws fit this definition by seeking to reform voting
laws and the status of women as well as the situation of children.
Transformative social movements support a total change of society.
Examples include millenarian and revolutionary movements.
126 | P a g e
Another type of social movement is the reactionary social movement,
sometimes called a countermovement. Countermovements organize in
response to the changes brought about by other social movements.
Members perceive a threat from these changes and seek to protect their own
established positions. For example, in response to the animal-rights
movement, a countermovement has arisen defending targets of animal
activism, such as factory farms and recreational hunting (Munro 1999).
To be briefer, social movements differ in the types of change they pursue
and the amounts of change they aim for.
Redemptive movements –do not attempt to change society, their efforts
target individuals, many redemptive movements are religious movements
seeking to convert individuals, for example, Evangelism.
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 specific aspect of life of
reproductive aspect.
Reformative movement –aims to change society. Nationally organized
group actively lobbies for strict national and state legislation. What it seeks
is a limited but specifically defined, change in societal norms, not just in the
behavior of individuals. For example, criminalizing an act- rapist. The goal is
not to radically change the structure of society but to reform a specific
institution and change societal norms towards the desired change –
adjustment.
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 asocial that is
completely different from the existing form. By considering change as
criteria we can also construct different types of social movements.
127 | P a g e
1. Social movements differ in the scope of intended change. Some are
related to limited purpose, aiming to modify some aspect of society without
touching its core institutional structure. Examples are: Pro –and anti-abortion
movements, movement for animal rights demanding bans on
experimentation. Other movements attempt deeper changes, reaching the
foundation of the social organization. It produces transformation of society
rather than merely changes in society. We call these radical movements.
Examples are the civil right movements, the anti-apartheid movements and
national liberation movements.
2. Social movements differ in the quality of intended change. Some
emphasizes innovations; strive to introduce new institutions, new laws, and
new beliefs. Their orientation is to the future. We may call them progressive
movements. The best example is women’s liberation movements. Other
movements turn to the past. They seek to restore institutions, laws and other
ways of life which were already established but later eroded in the coursers
of history. We may call them conservative movements.
3. Social movements differ with respect to the targets of intended change.
Some focus on a change of social structure, others on changing individuals.
Structured –directed movements take two forms. Sociopolitical movements
attempt changes in politics, economics, class and stratification hierarchies.
Sociocultural movements address more intangible aspects of social life,
promoting in beliefs, creeds, values and norms.
4. Social movements differ with respect to the vector of intended change. For
most movements the vector is positive: such movements attempt to
introduce some change, to make a difference. There are also occasions when
movements are mobilized to prevent change.
5. Different types of movements are found to dominate in different historical
epochs. This enables us to distinguish two comprehensive types most
relevant for modernity. The movements dominating the early phases of
modernity were focusing on economic interests, their members generally
recruited from single social class. These are called old social movements.
128 | P a g e
Examples are trade union, labour and farmers movements. With the
development of modernity, some authors witness the emergence of another
type of social movements. These are appropriately labeled as new social
movements. Prototypical cases include the ecological, peace and feminists
movements. Although there are many similarities between social movements
and countermovements, their differences are important. As Johnson (1999)
points out, since countermovements are protecting some already established
economic and political interests, the resources are likely in place to facilitate
their emergence and growth. Additionally, since they are responding to
changes brought about by social movements, counter movements borrow
the rhetoric of those movements but twist it to support their opposing goals.
Operation Rescue, an antiabortion movement that blockaded access to
clinics that included abortion among their family-planning services, serves as
an example of these tactics (Johnson 1999). Operation Rescue was devised
as a part of a larger effort by right-wing Christian organizations to close
abortion clinics nationwide. Beginning with a blockade at a New Jersey clinic
in 1987, activists attempted to deny clinic access by surrounding clinic doors
and windows. They prayed, sang religious and/or civil rights hymns, heard
inspirational speeches, and utilized tactics including picketing, tying up clinic
phone lines, and distributing “wanted posters” of clinic physicians. When
arrested, activists went limp so that police had to carry them away.
Operation Rescue activists co-opted familiar rhetoric from progressive
movements of the 1960s. They called themselves the “ civil rights
movement of the eighties,” calling for “ civil rights for the unborn” and “
equal rights for unborn women.” They sang freedom songs, held sit-ins, and
cultivated media comparisons to the nonviolent tactics of the civil rights
movement. As a result of a combination of injunctions, escalating violence
attributed to their activists, and legislative and court action targeted to
allowing clinic access, the countermovement was forced to refocus activities
in new directions, such as picketing physicians’ offices, homes, and other
places they frequented. Although, as Johnson notes, the movement did focus
129 | P a g e
attention on fetal rights and reduce the number of abortion facilities and
physicians for a period of time, it did not achieve a recriminalization of
abortion or significantly reduce public support for abortion. Some groups also
actively seek to avoid social change.
The Amish generally hold to their traditions, but social forces such as farm
economics and a growing need to find employment outside of the Amish
community are pressuring them to modernize. While they see change as
neither good nor evil, they do see it as potentially tempting young people
and pulling them away from traditional sources of solidarity within the Amish
community. However, the Amish have accommodated some planned
changes through careful and deliberate selection (Savells 2001). For
example, some dairy farmers have generators in their barns to keep
commercially sold milk cool per health-department standards. Batteries that
provide taillights at night on horse-drawn transportation are also allowed as
a safety measure.
1.3. Decline of Social Movements
A number of factors, including world events, movement ideologies and
chosen tactics/strategies, and movement organization, interact to influence
the history of social movements. Frederick D. Miller (1999) identified four
oftenlinked reasons why social movements decline: success, failure, co-
optation, and repression. The movement may achieve its goals. Such was the
case for the women’s suffrage movement. However, most movements have
multifaceted agendas— for example, the civil rights movement. These
movements may achieve some goals but find they must continue to work
toward others. In an unusual case of a movement re-creating itself to
address a different issue, the current March of Dimes organization began as
a movement working to fight polio. After the development of the polio
vaccine, the movement recreated itself to target birth defects, premature
birth, and low birth weight. The movement can end due to organizational
failures. Strategies can be ineffectual, factional disputes can develop, or the
movement may become so internally focused encapsulated in Miller’ s
130 | P a g e
terminology) that it loses touch and appeal with those outsiders it needs to
survive and attract as new members. Stoper’ s study (1999) of the Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), a 1960s movement founded to
coordinate civil rights sit-ins, finds that the group moved on to organizing
black voter registration and even seating black Mississippi delegates at the
1964 Democratic National Convention. However, after apparent successes,
the group faced several crises and organizational problems that resulted in
its demise.
Leaders may also be enticed with rewards that serve their own interests
rather than those of the movement. This diverts the leader’s attentions away
from the goals of the movement. If leaders are rewarded for their position in
the movement with more money or intangible benefits (e.g., status) than
they could get from other occupations, their interest may become in
maintaining their position rather than advancing the goals of the movement.
Robert Michels (1962) argued that long-term political leaders’ interests turn
to maintaining their positions rather than advancing causes. Powerful
interests may repress a movement by using tactics such as bringing criminal
Sanctions against members and leaders; infiltrating the movement with
spies; harassing, attacking, or threatening members or recruits; and
spreading false information.
Governments have attempted to repress anarchist movements in various
countries, for example. Although efforts at repression may have the effect of
strengthening the solidarity and resolve of the movement, it may also
destroy the movement.
1.4. Theories of Social Movements
There are a number of theories about how and why social movements arise
and the paths they take. In searching for explanations, sociologists have
developed several theories.
Two older perspectives are deprivation theories and mass-society theory.
According to deprivation theories, social movements arise when people
feel deprived of something that others have or that they feel others have
131 | P a g e
(Merton 1968). Expectations, rather than absolute measures, are the key to
whether or not people feel deprived. The slight (or perceived slight) may be
a range of situations from poor working conditions to standard of living to
racial preferences.
Social isolation is the key to mass-society theory. Proponents of this
perspective argue that modern society is alienating, immoral, apathetic, and
discourages individuality, and that in this context, socially isolated people
are attracted to social movements for personal reasons. Joining gives them a
sense of importance and intent. This makes them easily manipulated and
easily influenced to join movements (Kornhauser 1959; Giner 1976; Melucci
1989). Both of these perspectives have received mixed support in the
research, finding some support and much criticism. Newer theories focus on
collective action and tying individual experience to the movement’s goals.
Resource-Mobilization Theory
Sociologists have developed a different approach to understanding social
movements that draws from our understanding of both collective action and
organizations. Resourcemobilization theory recognizes that social
movements need to generate adequate, and often substantial, resources to
achieve their goals (Zald and Ash 1966). The resources they need to muster
are extensive. They include money, membership, office facilities and
equipment, communication processes, political influence, and a skill base
with expertise in organization, leadership, and marketing the cause.
Successes and limits are set by the resources a movement is able to
mobilize. These resources are mobilized through the efforts of social-
movement organizations
(SMOs) -formal organizations that seek social change by achieving a social
movement’s goals. These SMOs can be studied just as sociologists study any
formal organizational system (Gamson 1975; Jenkins 1983). Rather than
being loose or chaotic confederations of people with similar interests,
successful SMOs follow a bureaucratic structure in regard to leadership and
administration. They are goal-oriented and see political participation as
132 | P a g e
rational. There may be more than one SMO in a social movement. The civil
rights movement, for example, has included the NAACP, the SNCC, the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS), the Black Panthers, and a number of other groups
(Appelbaum and Chambliss 1995, 545– 46). Because these SMOs are
competing for limited resources and the same potential members and
support bases, systems exist in which SMOs interact with each other and
with other groups that have desired resources.
Examining these interrelationships has provided an important step in the
need for a theory that explains “panoplies and cascades of movements
rather than single movements in isolation” (Collins 1999, 37). SMOs may find
the need to cultivate conscience constituents, people outside of the
movement who provide resources but do not directly benefit from its goal
accomplishment (Mc-Carthy and Zald 1973). Social movement “industries”
may even arise to garner support for the cause.
Resource-mobilization theory points out the importance of resources to
SMOs. However, critics question whether it adequately accounts for those
who have only occasional involvement in movements and how much
members and leaders are really willing to invest in personal costs to the
organization. Randall Collins notes that sociologists need to have a much
better understanding of two areas. In his view, one of these major areas of
study still remains in regard to mobilization. “First, what causes interests to
be mobilized in the first place? And second, what determines the extent to
which the entire array of mobilized movements is fragments or consolidated?
. . . [R]esource mobilization theory . . . [has been able] to offer a fair answer
to the first question. The second remains on the agenda” (Collins 1999, 38).
1.5. New Social Movements
Since the 1960s, new social movements have arisen that focus on
“bringing about social change through the transformation of values, personal
identities and symbols” (Scott 1990, 18). The men’s movement, the
environmental movement, and the gay-rights movement all fit within this
133 | P a g e
classification (Melucci 1980; McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1988). These new
social movements are set apart from older movements by several features
Scott 1990). Unlike older movements, they are not primarily political. As
such, they do notchallenge the state and social structures directly. Rather,
they are located in, and defend, civil society. Also unlike older movements,
they do not rely on formal and hierarchical organizational structures. New
movements utilize networking and grassroots mass-mobilization efforts to
change cultural values and lifestyle alternatives. They emphasize personal
autonomy and link personal experience to the ideology of the movement
(Scott 1990, 21). For example, the women’s movement encourages women
to empower themselves and understand how their own daily lives are
shaped, and can be improved, by the movement’s concerns.
Some observers, however, have argued that the differences between old and
new social movements, especially their political efforts and organizational
forms, are not as great as some theorists have suggested. The activist
organization AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP) is a new social
movement that formed in 1987 in response to federal policy and
pharmaceutical companies that discriminated against people with HIV/AIDS.
The organization’s efforts have included some traditional tactics, such as
demonstrations and sit-ins. However, it has also focused on changing cultural
perceptions and attitudes.
Education and attention-getting tactics, including throwing condoms in
public, are some of the strategies used. Efforts have resulted in changes in
public policy (e.g., an improved drug-testing and accelerated approval
process, getting more women and minorities into clinical trials). Community
activists now work with the National Institute of Health’s AIDS Clinical Trials
Group (NIH ACTG). Characteristic of new social movements, members
themselves develop new skills, knowledge, and values. They become more
educated on science and medicine, develop social skills, and become more
assertive in dealing with their own health and health care professionals
(Brashers et al. 2002).
134 | P a g e
#Activity 14
1. What are social movements?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
2. Discuss the different types of social movements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Section Two: Globalization and the Internet as Agents of
Social Change
Social movements take place around the world. Many movements focus on
issues within a specific nation and seek to address concerns within that
nation. For example, two decades of a fish workers’ movement in India has
fought to protect the traditional fishing industry and the local marine
environment (Chakraborty 1999). However, social movements may also
embrace globalization in their causes. The environmental movement’s “Think
Global, Act Local” slogan provides an example (Held et al. 1999, 376–413).
Global culture is also carried by various social movements (Berger 2002),
with some movements occurring in numerous countries, adjusting their
tactics and goals to fit differing cultures. The women’s movement, for
example, has gone global, with supporters in each country working within
their own cultural context and limitations. Arabic women have sought equal
rights with men within the context of Islam (O’Kelly and Carney 1986).
Objectives: After completing this section, the students will
Understand the influence of globalization on social movements
Explore the actors in globalization
Analyze the new forms of social movements with specific examples
Dear students, before going to readings of this section, please
1. Write the about globalization and its relation with social movements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
135 | P a g e
2. What are the factors for, and agents of globalization and social
movements?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which are private
organizations or groups of citizens that work against destructive government
or large organizations, engage in collective action on a large scale (Boli and
Thomas 1997, 62). Many of these NGOs focus on human-rights issues. The
women’ s movement has also learned to work with NGOs such as the United
Nations (United Nations 2001). Among other movements teaming with NGOs
are the environmental movement Greenpeace and campaigns to ban land
mines (Roth 1998). This allows the movements to leverage the resources
and influences of the NGOs. However, one review of the research concludes
that social movements, with the possible exception of the environmental
movement, have not been largely successful at transcending international
borders (Klandermans 2000).
The Internet has provided a global and decentralized venue for the new
social movements to operate and organize (Bell 2001, 173). For example, a
Webbased attack on the sportsequipment company Nike focusing on the
treatment of workers outside of the United States led to revised corporate
policies (Hamon 1998). The Internet also provides extended opportunities to
gain support and financial resources that did not previously exist. One aspect
of Ron Eyerman’ s (2002) look at music and social movements concluded
that the Internet has opened up a new and extremely lucrative source of
revenue for white supremacist groups. As he explains, “find one another, and
movements can coordinate their meetings and other activities.
For underground and illegal organizations, such as white power groups, the
Net has permitted the sale and distribution of compact discs, newsletters
and magazines, as well as identifying symbolic items such as T-shirts,
buttons and so forth. This has become a multimillion-dollar industry in
Sweden, which is a world leader in the distribution of white power compact
discs, sold primarilythrough the Net” (Eyerman 2002, 449). The Internet
136 | P a g e
provides extensive networking and communication opportunities
conveniently and at minimal cost.
Another example of collective action online is the Robert S. Jervey Place, a
low-income public-housing development in Wilmington, North Carolina. A
task force turned to the Internet as part of a Jervey Place redevelopment
project after the relationship between residents and the local housing
authority became strained. Residents went online to learn about architecture
and urban planning, and found architects and lawyers to assist in designing
the housing community in ways that would best fit their needs. They even
designed a Web site on the redevelopment project, complete with history,
culture, and status reports (Mele 1999, 22–23). A very effective use of the
Internet for social action has been demonstrated by MoveOn.org. Billed on
their Web page (http://www.moveon.org) as an organization “working to
bring ordinary people back into politics,” Move On.org builds electronic
advocacy groups. One of their causes leading up to the
March 2003 start of Operation Iraqi Freedom was an antiwar movement,
“Win without War.” MoveOn.org’s “Win without War” campaign used the
Internet to build a coalition of 32 organizations, including the NAACP, Sierra
Club, and National Organization for Women (NOW), and others representing
millions of Americans who favored allowing the UN weapons inspectors in
Iraq over waging war. They also organized an antiwar Virtual March on
Washington on February 26, 2003. Over 400,000 people registered to
participate in advance. By the close of business on that day, more than 1
million phone calls, faxes, and e-mails had been directed to representatives
in Washington, D.C. Just a month before, another group known as Act Now to
Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) had primarily used the Internet, e-mail,
and telephones to organize antiwar demonstrations in 25 countries, along
with “transportation from more than 200 U.S. cities in 45 states for the rallies
in Washington and San Francisco” (CNN 2003).
MoveOn.org was also active in the 2004 US presidential campaign and has
tackled issues as wide-ranging as Federal Comunications Commission rules
137 | P a g e
on media control, working to save old growth forests, and overtime pay for
American workers. Recent forms of social movements should be
distinguished from the new social movements of the 1960s and 1970s. New
social movements responded to new political opportunity structures created
by the growth of consumption, changes in political regulation, and new forms
of antagonisms produced by economic reorganization. In contrast to the
labor movement, they developed in confrontation with institutional
opponents (especially the state), were concerned with ``life politics,'' and
took the form of networks. Recent forms of collective action give more
importance to identity, are more globally oriented and involve resistance to
new forms of domination and exclusion produced by social restructuring.
They also have a different relationship to institutions.
Balancing non-negotiable principles with attempts to achieve concrete
results, they embody the ambivalence of collective action in late modernity.
Processes of domination increasingly require actors' consent so that they
also offer the possibility of the construction of political public space. Social
movements continually challenge the institutions of late modernity that they
are also helping to define.
Section Three: New Social Movements and Social Change:
Overview
The form and nature of the old/early social movements are now changing in
their type and concern. The New Social Movements (NSM) is the currently
significant social movements putting new agendas in front with new
approaches. Environmental concern and these issues which are cross-cutting
are their features and this section is devoted to analysis this issues. The
section discusses the nature of new social movements and new collective
actions. It relates how social change is ignited through social movements
and the basic outlooks on social changes and modernity.
Objectives; After completing this section, the students will
138 | P a g e
Understand the meaning and concerns of new social movement
Analyze the new forms of collective action in social change
Explore Social Movements and Modernity as a paradigm of social
changes
With the advent of late modernity, and even more so with the recent
changes linked to market globalization and the growing role of information
and new technologies in management of the social sphere, reflexivity has
become a strategic component of action. This has led to greater uncertainty
regarding the path collective action will take, prompting a number of
questions that neither the actors nor researchers can side step. What can we
learn from these new, recent forms of collective action or these ‘‘new’’
contemporary social movements, which are different from the new social
movements of the 1960s and 1970s ± even though they are pursuing the
social and cultural criticism undertaken by the latter ± in distancing
themselves still further from the labor movement? What essentially
characterizes them? Are they more able than the new social movements to
integrate objectives of democratization in keeping with the pluralism typical
of late modernity?
From the outset, it is important to underscore the double contextual change
in regard to collective action that has occurred in recent years. First, we can
say that the discourse and representations emphasized by the new social
movements of the 1960s and 1970s no longer entirely coincide with the new
demands of social integration. Whether in terms of cultural values or the
democratization of public management, the ideology of these movements
sometimes seems out of place for the challenges of the 1990s, which stem
primarily from increasing globalization and growing social exclusion. The
other important aspect with regard to contextual change is the
institutionalization of collective action. Never before in history have the
resources available to social actors enabled them to reach such a level of
organization (Friedman and McAdam 1992), indeed institutionalization of
collective action(della Porta and Diani 1999). This is why some research ers
139 | P a g e
do not hesitate to speak of ‘‘movement industries’’ (Zald 1992) and a
‘‘movement society’’ (Tarrow 1994). These categories and the analyses to
which they refer apply here equally well to the environmental movement,
the women’s movement, and other social movements such as urban
movements. At the same time, the relations that movements and their
actors maintain with institutions are different. This is inducing us to re-
examine the traditional view of institutions as a field of action and
intervention and, in fact, the accepted definition of institutions. Finally, it
should be noted that along with the density of collective actors involved in
action ± collective action as an intervention model has spread to all activity
sectors, resulting in a veritable democratization of its tactics and strategies
± we have also seen the institutionalization of the area of social movements
as a research field.
Over the past fifteen years, the sociology of social movements has gained a
growing influence within sociology and all the social sciences. In this regard,
the concerns shared by actors and researchers are producing cumulative
effects in terms of the social, cultural, cognitive, and political recognition of
this area of study, which is primarily an area of social and political interest.
These contextual changes are spawning fundamental questions on at least
three different levels. On a first level, we see tensions emerging between; on
the one hand, the material forms of collective action and, on the other hand,
the conceptual categories that enable us to understand them. The primary
reason for these tensions is that social movements are first and foremost
theoretical constructs (Melucci 1989). Their impact lies in the societal
significance that it is possible to attribute to them, which depends on our
ability to identify the parameters essential to the construction of this specific
type of collective action within a given social or historical context. At the
same time, however, social movements can only exist through the concrete
social actors that drive them. Beyond interpretative schemas and analytical
categories, the materiality of collective action is grounded in conflicts, in
140 | P a g e
relations of domination experienced in everyday life by social actors who
mobilize and choose to engage in concrete struggles (Maheu 1995).
On a second level is the problem of relations between, on the one hand,
action or forms of action and, on the other hand, the systems of constraints
± and/or opportunities ± with which actors interact. Given the important role
that actors play in contemporary social movements, these movements must
be understood from the starting point of action (Melucci 1989). However, in
starting from the viewpoint of actors, their involvement, their beliefs, the
networks or coalitions that they form ± which are proving to be key
dimensions of action ± we risk overestimating the impact of mobilizations.
Hence the importance of also taking into account the systems of constraints
and the context within which mobilizations occur (Pickvance 1985).
Moreover, due to the very nature of contemporary social movements,
especially their characteristic ambivalence, and they’re both opportunistic
and conflictual relations with institutions, we must consider their structural
conditions of existence (Maheu 1995). The actors remain deeply dependent
on social relations whom they help to construct and define.
Finally, on a third level is the confrontation between, on the one hand, a
sectorial sociology that targets the specific problems of collective action and,
on the other hand, an approach that regards societal issues from the
perspective of social movements. The contribution of the first viewpoint is to
provide concrete knowledge on movements, their cycles, their strategies,
their organizational forms. But it risks overvaluing the importance of
movements in relation to social change. The second viewpoint is less
concerned with concretely analyzing the processes inherent in collective
action and more with understanding the phenomena of social de-structuring
and restructuring. And here we have the opposite risk. The danger is a loss
of knowledge on the specific nature of social movements.
Our hypothesis is that it is essential to maintain these tensions in order to
grasp, beyond their complexity, the social, cultural, and political impact and
significance of the recent forms of collective action. These tensions to a large
141 | P a g e
extent reflect the ambivalence of contemporary social movements. At the
same time, they represent a challenge for the sociology of social movements
which must find a balance between, on the one hand, actors, action and a
sectorial sociology and, on the other hand, concepts, social systems, and a
more global sociology.
2.1 New Social Movements
Just as the labor movement of the nineteenth century and early twentieth
century highlighted the evils and impasses of industrial capitalism, in
challenging the specific forms of domination inherent in class relations, so
the new social movements of the 1960s and 1970s took note of the changes
that had occurred on the level of consumption and in political regulation.
Thus, the emergence of new forms of mobilization in the 1960s, in both
Europe and North America, around issues related to lifestyles or living
conditions and social integrity and milieus of belonging ± whether defined in
ethnic, sexual, cultural, or geographic terms ± corresponded to new political
opportunity structures while simultaneously reflecting the new antagonisms
sparked by the growth of the productive forces of the second industrial
revolution (Eder 1993).
Although the new social movements of the 1960s and 1970s were similar to
the labor movement in placing at the heart of social concerns a moral
protestation (Touraine 1997) defined in terms of either justice or democracy,
they were nonetheless different in many ways.
First, unlike the labor movement, which was a class-based movement, the
new social movements called upon a collective identity which varied
according to the diverse interests and experiences of the actors. These
actors also helped to create a collective unit that could only develop through
confrontation with institutional opponents, especially the state, and with a
system of domination reinforced by liberal cultural values. Next, the action of
142 | P a g e
the new social movements coincided with a life politics which fostered a self
actualization embedded in the experience of authenticity and the exercise of
freedom in a world where reflexivity is playing a growing role (Giddens
1990). This is in contrast to ‘‘emancipatory politics’’ which was the
distinctive feature of the labor movement and which primarily sought to
shatter the contradictions of capitalism.Finally, on the organizational level
and at the level of action, the new social movements did not hesitate
to re-examine or move away from rigid hierarchical organizational models
inherited from the more traditional forms of collective action (Tarrow 1994).
This is why they more readily assumed networked forms which are
fragmented and submerged in everyday life, playing the role of veritable
cultural laboratories (Melucci 1989: 60).
According to some observers (Cohen and Arato 1992), the new social
movements essentially sought to politicize civil society in trying to escape
from representative political institutions and their bureaucratic control, which
had grown as the State’s economic and social role expanded. Thus, in
resorting to unconventional political action (Kuechler and Dalton 1990), the
actors in these movements politicized new issues ± related to the body,
sexual differences, cultural choices, ethnic particularities, and so on ± which
helped to broaden the traditional definition of politics. In emphasizing
nonnegotiable principles of action, because they were confronted with
irreducible conflicts, involving subjectivity especially, they were nonetheless
part of a modern critique of modernization.
Hence the need for them to participate, with other social actors, in forging
sociopolitical compromises. In contrast to those who claim that social
movements are incapable of negotiating because they have nothing to offer
in exchange for the concessions that might be made to them (Offe 1997:
105), it seems to us that in reiterating their beliefs regarding irreducible
conflicts, these actors are renewing their capacity for intervention and are
succeeding in introducing changes, as recent research has shown (Masson
1998; SeÂguin 1998).
143 | P a g e
2.2 New Forms of Collective Action
Even though the newness of the new social movements has never been
unanimously acknowledged, most researchers have recognized that these
movements differed from the labor movement in a number of ways, whether
in their organization, their means of action, or their representation of social
change. Whereas the labor movement was a pivotal movement in the
industrial age, able to bring together a homogeneous political representation
and unified action strategies, the new social movements were more diverse,
more heterogeneous, more able to adapt to various contexts, and primarily
focused on direct democracy and a conception of politics defined in terms of
alternatives or self management.
The more recent forms of collective action ± those that have emerged since
at least the early 1990s in most developed countries, and many developing
nations ± would come to amplify these characteristics and differences in
relation to the labor movement. However, in some respects, in their
discourse, representations, or action models, these new forms of collective
action are unlike the new social movements. This does not mean that they
do not continue to resort to the repertoire of collective action developed by
the new social movements and even, we might add, to a certain extent by
the labor movement.
Most of the time, however, when these new forms of collective action return
to these repertoires, they introduce different contents, values, and demands
for action. Recent forms of collective action are more complex, more diverse,
more fragmented than new social movements. Unlike the labor movement,
they are not trying to create a new vision of society, just as, unlike many of
the new social movements, they are not attempting to bring together forms
of organization and action based on self-actualization.
They more strongly integrate the ambivalence that is inherent in collective
action in the context of late modernity. The importance given to identity and
of taking identity into account in action has proven to be more acutely
influenced by the context within which social relations are mediated,
144 | P a g e
however they are defined: resistance in the face of new forms of domination
or exclusion, including social struggles against new forms of poverty;
involvement in various processes of social restructuring and social
recognition, which first of all means taking ethnic and cultural differences
into account; participation in defining a cosmopolitan citizenship. A good
example of this concern is the World March of Women in the Year 2000 that
reflected a new planetary consciousness.
The World March of Women in the Year 2000 involved three different levels
of action. The first level is action expressing solidarity by signing support
cards. The second level involved the mobilization of women’s movements in
each country in which demonstrations are taking place connected to their
local reality, even though everywhere the issue of poverty against women
should be raised. The third level took the form of world rallies or
demonstrations. All these actions started on March 8 of the year 2000 and
ended in October of the same year with the world events. This overall
mobilization pursues several goals: promoting equality between men and
women, improving women’s quality of life, demonstrating women’s ongoing
determination to change the world, contributing in a concrete way to the
elaboration of a cosmopolitan citizenship. The recent forms of collective
action are thus attempting not so much to develop solidarity as to express
resistance or explore various forms of social recognition, which better satisfy
the individual or subjective expectations of the actors (Ion 1994). They seek
not so much to assert a principle as to achieve concrete results. Fighting for
a long-term cause is subordinated to achieving short-term or medium-term
results. In this spirit, actors do not hesitate to counterbalance non-negotiable
principles in the context of agreements negotiated with opponents who
readily become partners (Hamel 1993). In this regard, the example of recent
urban movements is worth mentioning. In many European as well as North
American cities, since the beginning of the 1990s, these movements have
experienced new types of confrontation with the political elite and the state
as cities are undergoing structural adjustments to the new world economic
145 | P a g e
order while facing the erosion of welfare policies. On the one hand,
grassroots organizations do not hesitate to use resources coming from
governmental workfare programs in order to help recentimmigrants,
unemployed youth, women, or simply members of poor community
neighborhoods integrate into the labor market while, on the other hand, they
challenge this type of institutional solution by indicating its limitation in
terms of resolving issues of social inequalities and by provoking, in many
cases, its redefinition to improve sociopolitical solutions to the needs of local
communities. In order to better understand recent changes in the forms of
collective action, it is helpful to consider both the contextual and structural
aspects in relation to which they are defined and the specific dimensions of
their field of action.
Foremost among the structural changes to which recent forms of collective
action have had to adapt are the sociotechnological and sociopolitical
changes triggered by the processes of globalization. As a central feature of
late modernity, the processes of globalization, which can be associated with
the rise of the information society and the growth of new information
technologies (Castells 1996), are sparking a profound reassessment of the
regulatory mechanisms previously developed and controlled by the State
(Giddens 1990). This is prompting, in particular, the emergence of a ‘‘new
political culture,’’ in the words of Ulrich Beck (1992), which is forcing the
political elite to discard the illusion of a central authority able to run society.
Spiralling changes on an economic and informational level are resulting in an
unravelling of the old political±institutional arrangements or compromises.
State regulatory bodies are losing their effectiveness and their legitimacy,
both from above, in favor of supranational authorities, and from below, in
favor of local government organizations. This is why they must rethink the
traditional views of control and the restrictive regulatory approaches that
went along with them. Hence the increasing need to come to terms with all
social forces. In the context of a late modernity open to the pluralism of
interests and identities, the general interest can no longer be unilaterally
146 | P a g e
decreed by the political center. If, on an external level, the political sphere is
still organized in a hierarchical way, on an internal level, it is increasingly
being subjected to various processes of democratization that are changing
relations of power and altering the rules of the game. In other words, the
processes of political decisionmaking less and less often stem from a pre-
established representation or a preexisting model that would need to be
implemented to counter social resistance, but rather from a process of
collective action that is also a learning process, in the course of which
compromises are forged. The existence of this new political culture, which is
setting up tension between a model of centralized governance and
participatory management, is an issue that concerns not only policymakers
but also leaders and militants in social movements. The latter in fact find
themselves involved on a daily basis ± whether in running community
services, denouncing new forms of poverty or environmental degradation, or
promoting a new conception of citizenship ± in a series of transactions,
exchanges, or experiments that are helping to create an open political public
space. They are thus participating in approaches or practices that are
redefining the status of their action.
As globalization generates profound changes in regulatory models and the
political sphere, it is also affecting work as a central value in our societies,
resulting in a growing social exclusion that is in turn unleashing a spiral of
destabilization and uncertainty. In this context, the strategic role of
information is fostering increasing reflexivity. But actors do not all have the
necessary resources for their social recognition and integration. And this can
be better understood by considering the main dimensions of the field of
action. Given that social actors' recognition in and through the social sphere
coincides with increased individualization (Taylor 1994) ± the authenticity of
which can indeed only be assumed through greater subjectivity and greater
individual and social responsibility ± but for which access to the necessary
resources has become more and more restricted or unpredictable, how can
these actors mobilize? If the new social movements made it possible for
147 | P a g e
individual and collective identities to converge while at the same time
encouraging the recognition of personal competencies, what can we say in
this regard about the new forms of collective action? Are they capable of
responding to the increasing uncertainties of late modernity? To what extent
can they overcome the growing non-correspondence between institutional
systems and systems of action, given that institutions are less and less able
to provide a stable framework for learning, normalization, and integration?
First, it is the very great diversity of social mobilizations and collective action
approaches, and indeed their democratization that is surprising. Over the
past ten years, as never before, social actors have mobilized. These
mobilizations are often local and limited. They sometimes bring together
actors belonging to ethnic or cultural communities. In a few cases, they
involve mass demonstrations against unpopular social policies. In many
cases, they represent corporatist struggles or movements to protect special
interests, for example, in the case of environmental issues when they seek to
stop projects that threaten the quality of life of local communities. In the
case of struggles involving the ‘‘excluded,’’ whether represented by the
unemployed, the homeless, or political refugees seeking asylum, actors find
it difficult to form united movements due to their position and their relative
lack of resources (HeÂrault and Lapeyronnie 1998). The ethical and political
impact of these struggles is nonetheless significant. Such struggles,
however, require us to refer to the content and very definition of a social
movement.
Like the labor movement and the new social movements, recent forms of
collective action herald a space of social stratification of a different nature
than that which characterized the configuration of social relations during the
second industrial revolution or the age of expansion of the welfare state
(Maheu 1995). In recent years, social actors have been confronted with
processes and forms of domination that are more insidious than in the past.
Like never before, these involve mechanisms of individualization (Beck 1994)
and require the actors' consent. They are more of the nature of
148 | P a g e
`governmentality'' to use the expression of Foucault (1986), than of social
control. This being said, approaches that call upon collective action, even
when they have broken away from traditional means of political action, are
not all in the nature of a social movement. We consider that social
movements bring together groups of actors who challenge or contest
entrenched social practices, the usual forms of decision-making, authorities,
and established policies, which are simultaneously an expression of and a
means of maintaining relations of inequality, domination, or exclusion. Social
movements put forward demands concerning several aspects of our ways of
living in society. Through organizational forms and specific action strategies,
they engage in behaviors that illustrate social conflicts and contest areas of
change and social stratification characteristic of our societies. This
conception of social movement can help us to assess various forms of
collective action and evaluate their contribution to processes of social
restructuring, in taking into account their inherent tensions and
ambivalences.
2.3. Social Movements and Modernity: A New Outlook
What aspects should we emphasize to increase our understanding of
collective action and social movements? The trend toward institutionalization
characterizing recent forms of collective action (Scott 1990) has also meant
an intensification of the ambivalent relationship that actors in movements
maintain with institutions. The question of the specific political nature of
forms of collective action undoubtedly remains one of the most controversial.
Within the sociology of social movements one finds viewpoints that differ not
only regarding the ability of actors in movements to bring their demands
onto the political stage but also regarding their rejection of established
politics. Although the legitimacy of social movements and their ability to
intervene on the public and political stage alongside parties and pressure
groups is universally recognized, there is no consensus as to their status.
Whereas for some observers the unconventional political action of
movements helps in the long term, and in an unexpected way, to stabilize
149 | P a g e
the political order (Kuechler and Dalton 1990), others feel that their action
retains a disruptive quality.
Another problem is the relative inability of social movements to change
relations of power. This has led some researchers to underscore their
fragmentation or organizational weakness and their localism (Fainstein and
Hirst 1995).
Others note that social movements are increasingly channeled by political
administrative mechanisms that affect the content and forms of
action.However, although these contextual elements may induce movements
to emphasize self limiting representations of politics, they do not explain the
significance of radical cultural demands in relation to ethical issues involving
the autonomy and social recognition of actors. This requires us to more
closely examine the ambiguities and ambivalences of collective action. In
this respect, we must again stress the heterogeneity of movements. Some
movements choose to make more radical demands than others. But when
collective action helps to define social structures and social relations, it also
involves conflictual normative choices. In other words, actors in social
movements constantly challenge the institutions that they are also helping
to redefine (Maheu 1996).
In these approaches, the position of the actors fluctuates between a
resistance identity that seeks to combat exclusion and a proactive approach
emphasizing an identity centered in specific projects. In the first case, the
approach is primarily defensive, whereas the second more strongly calls
upon the creativity of individuals as subjects. While they use the resources
available to them, new forms of collective action also distance themselves
from institutional choices developed by elites, in continually reiterating the
moral bases of their action. Consequently, it is no longer only the political
impact of social movements that is at issue but also the limits of politics as a
system of action and of representation and regulation. In developing within a
‘‘new political culture’’ new forms of collective action are entering into
increasingly complex systems of interaction that combine solidarity and
150 | P a g e
individualization in the face of growing tensions between the globalized
economy and the cultural refuge of community (Touraine 1997). At the same
time, movements are questioning the effectiveness of traditional forms of
state regulation.
However, in several ways, institutional forms of politics are still present in
representations of action. In large part, they continue to structure
communities and political networks. From this perspective, if analyses of
collective action from the standpoint of contentious politics (McAdam,
Tarrow, and Tilly 1996) still help us to understand the most visible aspects of
the relations between social movements and political institutions, they do
not enable us to comprehend what underlies them. In particular, they fail to
examine the many processes, both contradictory and complementary ±
more broadly social than specifically political ± that actors develop in their
relations with institutions. This is brought to light by analyzing relations with
institutions from the standpoint of the ambivalence of collective action and
its main components (Hamel, Lustiger-Thaler, and Maheu 1999).
In intervening in contested areas of change, the new forms of collective
action exhibit first and foremost a social stratification characteristic of our
societies. They highlight the central issues in relation to which social
compromises Social are being redefined, contributing to the definition of
public-political social spaces. In the context of late modernity, social divisions
are being reinforced by the fragmentation of identities and cultures. The
resulting conflicts are triggering confrontations that cannot always be linked
to social movements. This is the case in corporatist struggles or defensive
struggles revolving around identity or environmental issues, as in the
example of the ‘‘NIMBY’’ movements.
Beyond their heterogeneity, fragmentation or scattered nature, and to the
extent that they can be associated with new forms of collective action that
are similar to social movements, these confrontations are at the heart of
today’s ongoing social and political restructuring. The practices that are
emerging in this respect are helping to transform representations of the
151 | P a g e
public-political social space as a place of transaction and mediation, while
defining this space from the perspective of an issue upon which sociopolitical
compromises can be based. In recent years, collective action has engaged in
various approaches of resistance and expression, all of which involve, to a
greater or lesser degree, new relations with institutions and
institutionalization. In this regard, we must go beyond a conception that
primarily understands social movements from the perspective of a specific
type of institution of civil society based solely on a public interest orientation.
In conclusion, one can say that the future of collective action is more and
more deeply rooted in new conflictual relations with institutions. From this
point of view, the institutionalization of collective action is in no way a
homogeneous, alternative, or transitory process. It instead corresponds to
the construction of a space of confrontation, communication, and
experimentation. For actors involved in mobilizations against various forms
of social exclusion, collective action is defined in relation to three major
institutional dimensions, namely, the possibility: (1) of making choices;
(2) of negotiating their milieus of belonging and expressing
individual preferences; and
(3) of satisfying their need to be recognized for what they are. On
each of these levels, social exclusion involves both the context ± structural
dimensions ± and the field of action, especially the subjectivity of the actors.
For collective action, this results in tensions that can only be overcome
through choices that enable actors both to express a fundamental identity
and to forge compromises.
Summary
Social movements, collective actions for common ends, undergone change in
their concern and methods. Recent forms of collective action are more
complex, more diverse, more fragmented than new social movements.
Unlike the labor movement, they are not trying to create a new vision of
society, just as, unlike many of the new social movements, they are not
attempting to bring together forms of organization and action based on self-
152 | P a g e
actualization. They more strongly integrate the ambivalence that is inherent
in collective action in the context of late modernity. The importance given to
identity and of taking identity into account in action has proven to be more
acutely influenced by the context within which social relations are mediated,
however they are defined: resistance in the face of new forms of domination
or exclusion, including social struggles against new forms of poverty;
involvement in various processes of social restructuring and social
recognition, which first of all means taking ethnic and cultural differences
into account; participation in defining a cosmopolitan citizenship.
New social movements responded to new political opportunity structures
created by the growth of consumption, changes in political regulation, and
new forms of antagonisms produced by economic reorganization. In contrast
to the labor movement, they developed in confrontation with institutional
opponents (especially the state), were concerned with ‘‘life politics,’’ and
took the form of networks. Recent forms of collective action give more
importance to identity, are more globally oriented and involve resistance to
new forms of domination and exclusion produced by social restructuring.
They also have a different relationship to institutions. Social movements
continually challenge the institutions of late modernity that they are also
helping to define. There are different on how the social movements work and
bring change; not only regarding the ability of actors in movements to bring
their demands onto the political stage but also regarding their rejection of
established politics. Although the legitimacy of social movements and their
ability to intervene on the public and political stage alongside parties and
pressure groups is universally recognized, there is no consensus as to their
status. Whereas for some observers the unconventional political action of
movements helps in the long term, and in an unexpected way, to stabilize
the political order others feel that their action retains a disruptive quality.
Another problem is the relative inability of social movements to change
relations of power. This has led some researchers to underscore their
fragmentation or organizational weakness and their localism. Others note
153 | P a g e
that social movements are increasingly channeled by political administrative
mechanisms that affect the content and forms of action. In this respect, we
must again stress the heterogeneity of movements. Some movements
choose to make more radical demands than others. But when collective
action helps to define social structures and social relations, it also involves
conflictual normative choices. In other words, actors in social movements
constantly challenge the institutions that they are also helping to redefine_
)Self test questions Six
1. What are the difference between New Social Development and the early labor
unions?
A. NSMs are not targeting particular groups B. NSMs are to address
holistic human elements
C. NSMs are trespassing in their geographical concern D. All of the above
E. A & B
2. Globalization and social changes;
A. Are related as the former is a means to the latter
B. Sharing ideas and resources downsized barriers in culture and geography making
ease way for change
C. Draw away human’s capacity to understand change
D. All of the above E. None of the
above
3. All are the influence of globalization in social movement and hence social change,
except;
A. Intensifying and facilitating communication
B. Creating social network to exchange interests and ideas
C. Updating information and creating informed citizens
D. Economic fluidity and consumerism E.
None of the above
Reference
André Gunder Frank( 1968) Development and Underdevelopment in Latin
America.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
154 | P a g e
Boehm, C. 1993. Egalitarian society and reverse dominance hierarchy.
Current
Anthropology 34:227–254.
Bongaarts, J. and S.C. Watkins. 1996. Social interactions and
contemporary fertility transitions. Population and Development Review 22:
639-682.
Chirot, Daniel. 1986. "The Rise of the West," American Sociological Review
50:2.
Coleman, J. S. 1991. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Durham, W.H. 1991. Coevolution: Genes, Culture and Human Diversity.
Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Easterlin, R.A. 1995. Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness
of all? J.Econ. Behavior and Organization 27: 35-47.
Emile Durkheim ( 1982). The Rules of Sociological Method; edited and
with an introduction by Steven Lukes. New York: The Free Press.
Endler, J.A. 1986. Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Ernesto Laclau (1979) Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory. London:
Verso.
George I. Blankstein, "The Politics of Latin America" in Gabriel Almond and
James S. Coleman, The Politics of Developing Areas. Princeton: Princeton
University
Press, 1960, pp.468-469.
Giddens, Anthony (Ed.) (2001) The Global Third Way Debate. Cambridge :
Polity (publisher).
Lenski, R. E (1982). Evolution and Event in History and Social Change.
Mansbridge, J.J. (ed.) (1990). Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Max Weber (1905) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Unwin
Hyman, London & Boston
155 | P a g e
Max Weber’(1956) Economy and Society. German
Nelson, R.R. and S.G. Winter. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Norma S. Chinchilla and James L. Dietz(1982) "Toward a New
Understanding of
Development and Underdevelopment", in Ronald H. Chilcote (ed.),
Dependency
and Marxism. Toward a Resolution of the Debate. Boulder: Westview Press,
pp. 138-147
Peter Evans(1979) Dependent Development; The Alliance of Multinational,
State, and Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968) Social cycle theory retrieved on Oct 25, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory
Raúl Prebisch(1950) The Economic Development of Latin America and Its
Principal Problems. New York: United Nations.
Robert Brenner (1977)The Origins of Capitalist Development: A critique of
Neo- Smithian Marxism", in New Left Review, 104, 25-92.
Roof, W.C. and W. McKinney.( 1987). American Mainline Religion: Its
Changing Shape and Future. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Smith, T.W. (1991). Are Conservative Churches Growing? General Social
Survey:
Social Change Report No. 32.
Sober, E. and D.S. Wilson. (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and
Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Steward, J.H. (1955). Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of
Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Sztompka ,Piotr (1994). The sociology of Social Change.Wiley Blackwelll.
Volker Bornschier and Christopher Chase-Dunn(1985) Transnational
Corporation and Underdevelopment. New York: Praeger.
156 | P a g e
Wallerstein, Immanuel (197) The Rise and Future Demise of the World
Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis. Comparative Studies
in Society and History
William F. Ogburn (1963) Social Change with Respect to Culture and
Origin.
Williams, G.C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
157 | P a g e
