Chapter N0.

07

SOCIAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT

Social Change
The term social change is used to indicate the changes that take place in human
interactions and interrelations. Society is a web of social relationships and hence social
change means change in the system of social relationships.

These are understood in terms of social processes and social interactions and social
organization.
Auguste Comte the father of Sociology has posed two problems- the question of social
statics and the question of social dynamics, what is and how it changes. The sociologists not
only outline the structure of the society but also seek to know its causes also.

Factors of Change
PhysicalEnvironment:
Major changes in the physical environment are very compelling when they happen. The
desert wastes of North Africa were once green and well populated.

Climates change, soil erodes and lakes gradually turn into swamps and finally plains. A
culture is greatly affected by such changes although sometimes they come about so slowly
that they are largely unnoticed. Human misuse can bring very rapid changes in physical
environment which in turn change the social and cultural life of a people. Deforestation
brings land erosion and reduces rainfall. Much of the wasteland and desert land of the world
is a testament to human ignorance and misuse. Environmental destruction has been at least
a contributing factor in the fall of most great civilization. Many human groups throughout
history have changed their physical environment through migration. In the primitive
societies whose members are very directly dependent upon their physical environment
migration to a different environment brings major changes in the culture. Civilization makes
it easy to transport a culture and practice it in a new and different environment.
Population changes:
A population change is itself a social change but also becomes a casual factor in further
social and cultural changes. When a thinly settled frontier fills up with people the hospitality
pattern fades away, secondary group relations multiply, institutional structures grow more
elaborate and many other changes follow. A stable population may be able to resist change
but a rapidly growing population must migrate, improve its productivity or starve. Great
historic migrations and conquests of the Huns, Vikings and many others have arisen from
the pressure of a growing population upon limited resources. Migration encourages further
change for it brings a group into a new environment subjects it to new social contacts and
confronts it with new problems. No major population change leaves the culture unchanged.

Isolation and Contact:

Societies located at world crossroads have always been centers of change. Since most new
traits come through diffusion, those societies in closest contact with other societies are
likely to change most rapidly. In ancient times of overland transport, the land bridge
connecting Asia, Africa and Europe was the centre of civilizing change. Later sailing vessels
shifted the centre to the fringes of the Mediterranean Sea and still later to the north- west
coast of Europe. Areas of greatest intercultural contact are the centers of change. War and
trade have always brought intercultural contact and today tourism is adding to the contacts
between cultures says Greenwood. Conversely isolated areas are centers of stability,
conservatism and resistance to change. The most primitive tribes have been those who
were the most isolated like the polar Eskimos or the Aranda of Central Australia.

SocialStructure:
The structure of a society affects its rate of change in subtle and not immediately apparent
ways. A society which vests great authority in the very old people as classical China did for
centuries is likely to be conservative and stable. According to Ottenberg a society which
stresses conformity and trains the individual to be highly responsive to the group such as
the Zunis is less receptive to the change than a society like the Ileo who are highly
individualistic and tolerate considerable cultural variability. A highly centralized bureaucracy
is very favorable to the promotion and diffusion of change although bureaucracy has
sometimes been used in an attempt to suppress change usually with no more than
temporary success. When a culture is very highly integrated so that each element is rightly
interwoven with all the others in a mutually interdependent system change is difficult and
costly. But when the culture is less highly integrated so that work, play, family, religion and
other activities are less dependent upon one another change is easier and more frequent. A
tightly structured society wherein every person's roles, duties, privileges and obligations are
precisely and rigidly defined is less given to changes than a more loosely structured society
wherein roles, lines of authority, privileges and obligations are more open to individual
rearrangement.

Attitudes and Values:

To people in developed nations and societies change is normal. Children there are socialized
to anticipate and appreciate change. By contrast the Trobriand Islanders off the coast of
New Guinea had no concept of change and did not even have any words in their language to
express or describe change. Societies differ greatly in their general attitude toward change.
People who revere the past and preoccupied with traditions and rituals will change slowly
and unwillingly. When a culture has been relatively static for a long time the people are
likely to assume that it should remain so indefinitely. They are intensely and unconsciously
ethnocentric; they assume that their customs and techniques are correct and everlasting. A
possible change is unlikely even to be seriously considered. Any change in such a society is
likely to be too gradual to be noticed. A rapidly changing society has a different attitude
toward change and this attitude is both cause and effect of the changes already taking
place. Rapidly changing societies are aware of the social change. They are somewhat
skeptical and critical of some parts of their traditional culture and will consider and
experiment with innovations. Such attitudes powerfully stimulate the proposal and
acceptance of changes by individuals within the society. Different groups within a locality or
a society may show differing receptivity to change. Every changing society has its liberals
and its conservatives. Literate and educated people tend to accept changes more readily
than the illiterate and uneducated. Attitudes and values affect both the amount and the
direction of social change. The ancient Greeks made great contributions to art and learning
but contributed little to technology. No society has been equally dynamic in all aspects and
its values determine in which area-art, music, warfare, technology, philosophy or religion it
will be innovative.

Cultural Factor influences the direction and character of technological change Culture not
only influences our social relationships, it also influences the direction and character of
technological change. It is not only our beliefs and social institutions must correspond to the
changes in technology but our beliefs and social institutions determine the use to which the
technological inventions will be put. The tools and techniques of technology are indifferent
to the use we make of them. For example the atomic energy can be used for the production
of deadly war weapons or for the production of economic goods that satisfy the basic needs
of man. The factories can produce the armaments or necessaries of life. Steel and iron can
be used for building warships or tractors. It is a culture that decides the purpose to which a
technical invention must be put. Although technology has advanced geometrically in the
recent past, technology alone does not cause social change. It does not by itself even cause
further advances in technology. Social values play a dominant role here. It is the complex
combination of technology and social values which produces conditions that encourage
further technological change. For example the belief or the idea that human life must not be
sacrificed for wants of medical treatment, contributed to the advancement in medical
[Link] Weber in his The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism has made a
classical attempt to establish a correlation between the changes in the religious outlook,
beliefs and practices of the people on the one hand and their economic behavior on the
other. He has observed capitalism could grow in the western societies to very great extent
and not in the eastern countries like India and China. He has concluded that Protestantism
with its practical ethics encouraged capitalism to grow in the west and hence industrial and
economic advancement took place there. In the East, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and
Islam on the other hand did not encourage capitalism. Thus cultural factors play a positive
as well as negative role in bringing about technological change. Cultural factors such as
habits, customs, traditions, conservatism, traditional values etc may resist the technological
inventions. On the other hand factors such as breakdown in the unity of social values, the
diversification of social institutions craving for the new thoughts, values etc may contribute
to technological inventions. Technological changes do not take place on their own. They are
engineered by men only. Technology is the creation of man. Men are always moved by
ideas, thoughts, values, beliefs, morals and philosophies [Link] are the elements of
culture. These sometimes decide or influence the direction in which technology undergoes
change. Men are becoming more and more materialistic in their attitude. This change in the
attitude and outlook is reflected in the technological field. Thus in order to lead a
comfortable life and to minimize the manual labor man started inventing new techniques,
machines, instruments and devices.
Technological Factors:
The technological factors represent the conditions created by man which have a profound
influence on his life. In the attempt to satisfy his wants, fulfill his needs and to make his life
more comfortable man creates civilization. Technology is a byproduct of civilization .When
the scientific knowledge is applied to the problems in life it becomes technology. Technology
is a systematic knowledge which is put into practice that is to use tools and run machines to
serve human purpose. Science and technology go together. In utilizing the products of
technology man brings social change. The social effects of technology are far-reaching.
According to Karl Marx even the formation of social relations and mental conceptions and
attitudes are dependent upon technology. He has regarded technology as a sole explanation
of social change.W.F Ogburn says technology changes society by changing our environment
to which we in turn adapt. These changes are usually in the material environment and the
adjustment that we make with these changes often modifies customs and social institutions.
A single invention may have innumerable social effects. Radio for example has One of the
most extreme expressions of the concern over the independence of technology is found in
Jacques Ellul's 'the technological society'. Ellul claims that in modern industrial societies
technologism has engulfed every aspect of social existence in much the same way
Catholicism did in the middle ages. The loss of human freedom and the large-scale
destruction of human beings are due to the increasing use of certain types of technology
which has begun to threaten the life support systems of the earth as a whole.

Evolutionary Theories
Evolutionary theories are based on the assumption that societies gradually change from
simple beginnings into even more complex forms. Early sociologists beginning with Auguste
Comte believed that human societies evolve in a unilinear way- that is in one line of
development. According to them social change meant progress toward something better.

They saw change as positive and beneficial. To them the evolutionary process implied that
societies would necessarily reach new and higher levels of civilization.L.H Morgan believed
that there were three basic stages in the process: savagery, barbarism and
[Link] Comte's ideas relating to the three stages in the development of human
thought and also of society namely-the theological, the metaphysical and the positive in a
way represent the three basic stages of social change. This evolutionary view of social
change was highly influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of Organic Evolution.
Those who were fascinated by this theory applied it to the human society and argued that
societies must have evolved from the simple and primitive to that of too complex and
advanced such as the western society. Herbert Spencer a British sociologist carried this
analogy to its extremity. He argued that society itself is an organism. He even applied
Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest to human societies. He said that society has
been gradually progressing towards a better state. He argued that it has evolved from
military society to the industrial society. He claimed that western races, classes or societies
had survived and evolved because they were better adapted to face the conditions of life.
This view known as social Darwinism got widespread popularity in the late 19th century. It
survived even during the first phase of the 20th century. Emile Durkheim identified the
cause of societal evolution as a society's increasing moral [Link] viewed societies
as changing in the direction of greater differentiation, interdependence and formal control
under the pressure of increasing moral density. He advocated that societies have evolved
from a relatively undifferentiated social structure with minimum of division of labor and with
a kind of solidarity called mechanical solidarity to a more differentiated social structure with
maximum division of labor giving rise to a kind of solidarity called organic solidarity.
Cyclical theories:
Cyclical theories of social change focus on the rise and fall of civilizations attempting to
discover and account for these patterns of growth and [Link], Toynbee and
Sorokin can be regarded as the champions of this [Link] pointed out that the fate
of civilizations was a matter of destiny. Each civilization is like a biological organism and has
a similar life-cycle, birth, maturity, old-age and death. After making a study of eight major
civilizations including the west he said that the modern western society is in the last stage
i.e. old age. He concluded that the western societies were entering a period of decay as
evidenced by wars, conflicts and social breakdown that heralded their doom.

Toynbee:
Arnold Toynbee's famous book 'A study of History' (1946) focus on the key concepts of
challenge and response. Every society faces challenges at first, challenges posed by the
environment and later challenges from internal and external enemies. The nature of
responses determines the society's fate. The achievements of a civilization consist of its
successful responses to the challenges; if cannot mount an effective response it dies. He
does not believe that all civilizations will inevitably decay. He has pointed out that history is
a series of cycles of decay and growth. But each new civilization is able to learn from the
mistakes and to borrow from cultures of others. It is therefore possible for each new cycle
to offer higher level of achievement.

Sorokin:
Pitirin Sorokin in his book Social and Culture Dynamics - 1938 has offered another
explanation of social change. Instead of viewing civilization into the terms of development
and decline he proposed that they alternate of fluctuate between two cultural extremes: the
sensate and the ideational. The sensate culture stresses those things which can be
perceived directly by the senses. It is practical, hedonistic, sensual and materialistic.
Ideational culture emphasizes those things which can be perceived only by the mind. It is
abstract, religious concerned with faith and ultimate truth. It is the opposite of the sensate
culture. Both represent pure types of culture. Hence no society ever fully conforms to either
type. As the culture of a society develops towards one pure type, it is countered by the
opposing cultural force. Cultural development is then reversed moving towards the opposite
type of culture. Too much emphasis on one type of culture leads to a reaction towards the
other. Societies contain both these impulses in varying degrees and the tension between
them creates long-term instability. Between these types lies a third type 'idealistic' culture.
This is a desirable blend of other two but no society ever seems to have achieved it as a
stable condition.

Functionalist or Dynamic theories:

In the middle decades of the 20th century a number of American sociologists shifted their
attention from social dynamics to social static or from social change to social
[Link] Parsons stressed the importance of cultural patterns in controlling the
stability of a society. According to him society has the ability to absorb disruptive forces
while maintaining overall stability. Change is not as something that disturbs the social
equilibrium but as something that alters the state of equilibrium so that a qualitatively new
equilibrium results. He has stated that changes may arise from two sources. They may
come from outside the society through contact with other societies. They may also come
from inside the society through adjustment that must be made to resolve strains within the
system. Parsons speaks of two processes that are at work in social change. In simple
societies institutions are undifferentiated that is a single institution serves many functions.
The family performs reproductive, educational, socializing, economic, recreational and other
functions. A process of differentiation takes place when the society becomes more and more
complex. Different institutions such as school, factory may take over some of the functions
of a family. The new institutions must be linked together in a proper way by the process of
integration. New norms must be established in order to govern the relationship between the
school and the home. Further bridging institutions such as law courts must resolve conflicts
between other components in the system.

Conflict theories:
Whereas the equilibrium theories emphasize the stabilizing processes at work in social
systems the so-called conflict theories highlight the forces producing instability, struggle
and social disorganization. According to Ralf Dahrendorf the conflict theories assume that -
every society is subjected at every moment to change, hence social change is ubiquitous.
Every society experiences at every moment social conflict, hence social conflict is
ubiquitous. Every element in society contributes to change. Every society rests on constraint
of some of its members by others. The most famous and influential of the conflict theories is
the one put forward by Karl Marx who along with Engel wrote in Communist Manifesto 'all
history is the history of class conflict.' Individuals and groups with opposing interests are
bound to be at conflict. Since the two major social classes the rich and poor or capitalists
and the proletariat have mutually hostile interests they are at conflict. History is the story of
conflict between the exploiter and the exploited. This conflict repeats itself off and on until
capitalism is overthrown by the workers and a socialist state is created. What is to be
stressed here is that Marx and other conflict theorists deem society as basically dynamic
and not static. They consider conflict as a normal process. They also believe that the
existing conditions in any society contain the seeds of future social changes. Like Karl Marx
George Simmel too stressed the importance of conflict in social change. According to him
conflict is a permanent feature of society and not just a temporary event. It is a process
that binds people together in interaction. Further conflict encourages people of similar
interests to unite together to achieve their objectives. Continuous conflict in this way keeps
society dynamic and ever changing.