Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Tara Dahal, National Open College , Sanepa

Introduction

Social change is a theme of international debate. Social change refers to a "modification in the social organization of a society in any of its social institutions or patterns of social life. Usually, it refers to a significant change in social behavior or a change in some larger social system rather than to minor changes within a small group. Thus social change refers to changes in the established patterns of social relationships--for example, in family, religions, or economic life" (Scott, 1999:384). There are several theories, concepts, and categories to explain social change. Questions concerning social change are fundamental issues for all academic disciplines including political sociology.

"Persistent change" is a major characteristic of modern societies, just as "continuity," "permanence" and "order" are the features of pre-modern societies. Yet, political sociologists do not agree on the mechanisms underlying social change observed in the last two centuries. It is therefore important to critically assess such current social transformations and many issues that have surfaced as the collapse of Soviet system, end of cold war, population explosion, the global AIDS issue, terrorism, social movements, the increasing pollution, the domination of the nation-state and people by transnational corporations and global trading blocks, new forms of North-South relations, imperialism, homogenization of global culture, the power of the worldwide news media, etc. mark fundamental change. Political sociologists assume that social change is often uneven, unforeseen and conflict-prone in the sense that it variously affects the social stratification. Causes of social change are: deprivation, inequality, population explosion, collective behavior, technological innovation, cultural diffusion, social movements, wars, etc. Technological, ideological and demographic shift bring changes in social organizations, politics and state-society relations. Such change may spring from bottom up or top down and integrative or disintegrative depending on the nature, capacity and motive of change agents. This paper deals with four main types of social change: the linear or evolutionary, the cyclical and the conflict or dialectical.

Theories of Social change

In linear model, change is gradual, cumulative, non-repetitive, developmental and usually permanent moving through a series of distinct and predictable phases. The evolutionary theories of social change are the product of modernity and rationality. Its adherents believe that all societies develop along predetermined paths that take them from inferior to superior forms, from simple to complex, undifferentiated to highly differentiated division of labor and from "primitive" to "civilized." To them technology is the primary cause of social change. Like Charles Darwin's approach to the evolution of species, evolutionary theorists assume that the rate of social change in society is slow, gradual and piecemeal. Social Darwinists explain that in the system of natural selection only the "fittest" survives. August Comte posited that societies have undergone into three phases of evolution--religious, philosophical and positivist or scientific. Herbert Spencer expounded that species evolve by a process of differentiation from the simple to the complex.

Ferdinand Tonnies discovered the transition of society from traditional community to rational society. Functionalist theory represented by Talcott Parsons formulated that society is like an organism with different parts corresponding to different institutions and functions to maintain social fabric. His theory maintains that a society capable of adjusting to environment tends to achieve harmony, stability, equilibrium and peaceful change. Emile Durkheim's model of social change involves a transition of society from simple division of labor (mechanistic solidarity) to complex division of labor (organic solidarity) and that unequal relations cause anomie-- absence of social norms. Vilfredo Pareto also developed an elite theory of social change and argued that society is governed by a small group of elites based on their enlightened self-interest. The takeover of old elites by new due to the former's degeneration leads to social change. Functionalist analysis of social change perceives change as "an adaptation of a social system to its environment by the process of mental differentiation and increasing social complexity. Proponents of modernization theory accept these tenets, as they assume a uniform and linear progression by which all societies advance to modernity" (Helweg, 2000:1225). Max Weber asserts that decline of substantial rationality in authority cause social change.

Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) also expounded evolutionary theory of social change. His book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1934) offers guides for social and economic change in contemporary economies. In his essays in "The Place of Science in Modern Civilization (1961), he offers a process of overcoming institutional rigidities. For him, social change is a process of institutional adjustment and transformation. Any human community may be viewed as an economic mechanism, the structural foundation of which is institutional. "These institutions are habitual methods of carrying on the life process of the community in contact with the material environment in which it lives" (1934,193). Institutions are "prevalent habits of thought with respect to particular relations and particular functions of the individual and the community" (190). Societies are under continuing pressure from changing circumstances to modify their structural fabric. "The readjustment of institutions and habitual views to an altered environment is made in response to pressure from outside" (193). The old ways are no longer sufficient to serve contemporary demands. Those who are shielded from the "action of the environment in any essential respect" will be slow to recognize the need for change, and may well resist efforts to modify structure.

He argues that the technology available to a society determines the character of its culture. New technology, however, does not automatically bring new systems of laws, moral attitudes, or education. But, it challenges old institutions. To him, institutions are products of the past process, adapted to past circumstances, and are therefore, never in full harmony with the needs of the present. Those who have a "vested interest'' in the old order resist technological progress because a new technology erodes vested ideas and interests, and reshapes institutions as per the changing needs of society.

The period of transition between an old order and new one is marked by recurring social conflicts. To him, the engine of history is the clash between advancing technology and retarding institutions. He did not believe in unilinear evolution of society and, consequently, accepted "the advantage of borrowing the technological arts rather than developing them by home growth." When technologies are borrowed from another society, they "do not carry over the fringe of other cultural elements that have grown up about them in the course of their development and use." For example, the Germans took over British machine technology "without the fault of its qualities."

While borrowing may accelerate the evolutionary growth of the borrowing country, it leads to relative decline in the competitive strength of the country of origin. This is "the penalty of taking the lead." An industrial system like that of England, which "has been long engaged in a course of improvement, extension, innovation and specialization, has in the past committed itself to what was at the time an adequate scale of equipment and schedule of processes." But such established equipment will be outdated as the process of industrialization proceeds. Hence outdated technologies are likely to exist alongside new equipment. There will be improvements, adaptations, and repairs but also an "inability to overcome" obsolete technologies.

Neil Smelser provides more general social and economic perspectives of change. Concerned with the effects of economic growth on social structures he distinguishes four processes: a) there is often a move from simple to complex technology, b) bringing a change from subsistence farming to cash crops, c) inducing a move from animal and human power to machine power, and d) a moving from rural settlements to urban settlements. To him, these processes do not occur simultaneously. Changes differ from one society to another depending on their inherent characteristics. He added "there was a variety of pre-modern starting points and the impetus to change would also vary, being crucially affected by tradition, thus leading to different paths towards modernization". National differences are always important, even in the most advanced stages of modernization, he concluded, "wars and natural disasters, can crucially affect the pattern of development" and social change.

For W. W. Rostow, the processes of change are simpler. He suggested that "all societies can be placed in one of five categories, or stages of economic growth." The first stage is traditional society where output is limited because of the inaccessibility of science and technology. Values are generally "fatalistic", and political power is fragmented among local feudals. The second stage is the preconditions for take-off. There are many new ideas favoring economic progress, education, entrepreunership and institutions capable of mobilizing capital and technology. Investment increases, especially in transport, communications and raw materials, with a general direction towards commercial expansion. It creates a "dual society" where traditional and modern elements coexist. The third stage is the take-off phase where agriculture is commercialized, there is a rise in productivity, because that is necessary to meet the demands of growing urban class. New elite groups push the industrial economy to new heights. The fourth stage is a phase towards the drive to maturity. In this phase, international trade expands, technology becomes more complex and there is a move away from heavy industry. Now production is not the outcome of social necessity but of the need of maximizing profits to survive in a competitive capitalist market. The fifth stage is a phase of high mass consumption. The leading economic sectors specialize in durable consumer goods and services. At this stage, economic growth makes sure that basic needs are satisfied, and the social focus changes to social welfare and security. Rostow's theory emerged as a response to revolutionary form of Marxist-Leninist movements and its purpose was to contain such movements through system stability and gradual change.

Conclusion

The process of social change is a historical project. It has been often problematized as a set of institutional and ideological relations. It is a key concept in the social sciences. In the old days, it is seen as an evolutionary progression of rising living standards. Now, social change is seen as a political strategy to manage development and transformation. It is also seen as to how society is organized into states and institutions, such as polity, markets and civil society to adapt to the goal of maximizing national welfare through rational and technological advances. But, the post-development paradigm now remains unsuccessful due to globalization, development of new motors of social change and now adaptation strategies. This has brought the question of change a very much contested one.