Sociology

optional
(upsc)
paper -01
lecture- 92
by-
RAMA
SHARMA
 Unit- 10
Social Change in
Modern Society
 syllabus
Sociological theories Development and
of social change. dependency.

Agents of social Education and social

change. change.

Science, technology
and social change.
 What is Social change ?
• The word “change” denotes a difference in anything
observed over some period of time. Social change,
therefore, would mean observable differences in any
social phenomena over any period of time.
• Social change involves alteration of the social order of a
society. It may include changes in social institutions,
social behaviours or social relations.
• Social change may refer to the notion of social
progress or sociocultural evolution, the philosophical
idea that society moves forward by evolutionary means.
It may refer to a paradigmatic change in the socio-
economic structure, for instance the transition
from feudalism to capitalism, or hypothetical future
transition to some form of post-capitalism.
 1. Jones, “Social change is a term used to describe variations in,
or modifications of, any aspect of social processes, social
patterns, social interaction or social organisation.”
2. Mazumdar, H. T. “Social change may be defined as a new
definitions fashion or mode, either modifying or replacing the old, in the
life of a people, or in the operation of a society.”
of 3. Gillin and Gillin, “Social changes are variations from the
accepted modes of life; whether due to alteration in
social geographical conditions, in cultural equipment, composition
of the population or ideologies and whether brought about by
change diffusion or inventions within the group.”
4. Davis, By “Social change is meant only such alterations as
occur in social organisation, that is, structure and functions of
society.”
5. Merrill and Eldredge, “Social change means that large
number of persons are engaging in activities that differ from
those which they or their immediate forefathers engaged in
some time before.”
 MacIver and Page. “…Our direct concern as sociologists is with social relationships. It is the change
in these relationships which alone we shall regard as social change.”
 M. D. Jenson. “Social change may be defined as modification in ways of doing and thinking of
people.”
 Koenig, S. “Social change refers to the modifications which occur in the life patterns of a people.”
 Lundberg and others. “Social change refers to any modification in established patterns of inter
human relationships and standards of conduct.”
 Anderson and Parker. “Social change involves alteration in the structure or functioning of social
forms or processes themselves.”
 Ginsberg, M. “By social change, I understand a change in social structure e.g., the size of a society,
the composition or balance of its parts or the type of its organisation.”
• On the basis of these definitions, it may be concluded that social change
refers to the modifications which take place in the life patterns of
people. It does not refer to all the changes going on in the society. The
changes in art, language, technology; philosophy etc., may not be
included in the term ‘Social change’ which should be interpreted in a
narrow sense to mean alterations in the field of social relationships.
• Social relationships are social processes, social patterns and social
interactions. Thus, social change will mean variations of any aspect of
social processes, social patterns, social interactions or social
organisation. It is a change in the institutional and normative structure
of society.
Four Levels of
Action:
• Will Grant of the Pachamama Alliance describes "Four
Levels of Action" for change:
1. individual
2. friends and family
3. community and institutions
4. economy and policy
• Grant suggests that individuals can have the largest
personal impact by focusing on levels 2 and 3
 Sources of social change
• Change comes from two sources.
1. One source is random or unique factors such as climate, weather, or
the presence of specific groups of people.
2. Another source is systematic factors. For example, successful
development generally has the same requirements, such as a stable
and flexible government, enough free and available resources, and a
diverse social organization of society.
On the whole, social change is usually a combination of systematic
factors along with some random or unique factors.
 Types of change

• Social changes can vary according to speed and scope and impetus. Some research on the various types of social
change focuses on social organizations such as corporations.
• Different manifestations of change include:
1. Fabian change - gradual and reformist incremental amelioration after the manner of the Fabian Society
2. radical change - improvements root and branch in the style of political radicalism
3. revolutionary change- abrupt, radical and drastic change, with implications of violence and of starting afresh
(perhaps most popular as a political bogeyman)
4. transformational change - a New-age version of radical change, and thus difficult to define
5. continuous change, open-ended change - change (allegedly) for the sake of change
6. top-down change - reliance on leadership
7. bottom-up change- reliance on the huddled masses
 Nature of Social Change:

(i) Social change is a universal phenomenon:

Social change occurs in all societies. No society remains completely static. This is true of all societies,
primitive as well as civilized. Society exists in a universe of dynamic influences.
The population changes, technologies expand, material equipment changes, ideologies and values take
on new components and institutional structures and functions undergo reshaping. The speed and extent
of change may differ from society to society. Some change rapidly, others change slowly.
(ii) Social change is community change:
Social change does not refer to the change in the life of an individual or the life patterns of several
individuals. It is a change which occurs in the life of the entire community. In other words, only that
change can be called social change whose influence can be felt in a community form. Social change is
social and not individual.
(iii) Speed of social change is not uniform:
While social change occurs in all societies, its speed is not uniform in every society. In most societies it
occurs so slowly that it is often not noticed by those who live in them. Even in modern societies there
seems to be little or no change in many areas. Social change in urban areas is faster than in rural
(iv) Nature and speed of social change is affected by and related to time
factor:- The speed of social change is not uniform in each age or period in
the same society. In modern times the speed of social change is faster today
than before 1947. Thus, the speed of social change differs from age to age.
The reason is that the factors which cause social change do not remain
uniform with the change in times. Before 1947 there was less
industrialization in India, after 1947 India has become more industrialized.
Therefore, the speed of social change after 1947 is faster than before 1947.
(v) Social change occurs as an essential law:- Change is the law of
nature. Social change also is natural. It may occur either in the natural
course or as a result of planned efforts. By nature we desire change. Our
needs keep on changing. To satisfy our desire for change and our changing
needs social change becomes a necessity. The truth is that we are anxiously
waiting for a change. According to Green, ‘The enthusiastic response of
change has become almost a way of life.”
(vi) Definite prediction of social change is not possible:- It is difficult to make any prediction
about the exact forms of social change. There is no inherent law of social change according to
which it would assume definite forms. We may say that on account of the social reform
movement untouchability will be abolished from the Indian society; that the basis and ideals of
marriage will change due to the marriage laws passed by the government; that industrialization
will increase the speed of urbanisation but we cannot predict the exact forms which social
relationships will assume in future. Likewise it cannot be predicted as to what shall be our
attitudes, ideas, norms and values in future.
(vii) Social change shows chain-reaction sequence:- A society’s pattern of living is a
dynamic system of inter-related parts. Therefore, change in one of these parts usually reacts on
others and those on additional ones until they bring a change in the whole mode of life of many
people. For example, industrialism has destroyed the domestic system of production.
• The destruction of domestic system of production brought women from the home to the
factory and the office. The employment of women meant their independence from the
bondage of man. It brought a change in their attitudes and idea. It meant a new social life for
women. It consequent affected every part of the family life.
(viii) Social change results from the interaction of a number of factors:- Generally, it is thought that a
particular factor like changes in technology, economic development or climatic conditions causes social
change. This is called monistic theory which seeks to interpret social change in terms of one single factor.
But the monistic theory does not provide an adequate explanation of the complex phenomenon of social
change. As a matter of fact, social change is the consequence of a number of factors. A special factor may
trigger a change but it is always associated with other factors that make the triggering possible.
The reason is that social phenomena are mutually interdependent. None stand out as isolated forces that
bring about change of themselves. Rather each is an element in a system. Modification of vale part
influences the other parts and these influence the rest, until the whole is involved.
(ix) Social changes are chiefly those of modification or of replacement:- Social changes may be broadly
categorised as modifications or replacements. It may be modification of physical goods or social
relationships. For example, the form of our breakfast food has changed. Though we eat the same basic
materials which we ate earlier, wheat, eggs, corn, but their form is changed. Ready-to-eat-cornflakes, breads,
omelets are substituted for the form in which these same materials were consumed in yester years.
There may also be modifications of social relationships. The old authoritarian family has become the small
equalitarian family, the one room school has become a centralized school. Our ideas about women’s rights,
religion, government and co-education stand modified today.
Change also takes the form of replacement. A new material or non-material form supplants an old one
Horses have been replaced by automobiles. Similarly, old ideas have been replaced by new ideas. The germ
theory of medicine has replaced older views of the cause of disease. Democracy has replaced aristocracy.
 • From the ensuing discussion it appears that social change can be categorized to
two types:

Types • (1) Evolutionary Social Change

• (2) Revolutionary Social Change.

of (1) Evolutionary Social Changes:

• Evolutionary changes occur in course of a long period slowly and gradually and

Social
through evolutionary process. Such changes are not very drastic or remarkable.
They proceed gradually like the process of conditioning and people learn to
adjust with such changes gradually.

Change
• Examples:-
i. Earlier many people did not pay tax, but now people have developed
the mind set to pay tax considering it as legal and are paying tax
voluntarily.
ii. Doing various jobs outside the domestic front, which were not
acceptable several decades back for women is now accepted. Women
going for higher education, studying in coeducational institutions, do
join army, navy and airforce, for becoming pilots, going to space to join
politics, doing various jobs which were earlier meant for men only.
 (2) Revolutionary Changes:
• It is the opposite of evolutionary change. When the changes in
various sectors of our social system occur suddenly, drastically
and sufficiently so as to differentiate it from gradual, slow change,
Types it is called revolutionary social change.
• The change in other words is great in degree, remarkable. The
of changes are such that they change the whole social order and the
course or style of living, conduct and concept of do’s and donts.
Social They are a matter of kind which occur due to some movement,
revolution war, rapid technological changes, due to sudden change

Change in social events.

• They occur very quickly and within a short period or short
duration. Let us take some examples. The changes in social
structure and social system which occurred after various famous
revolutions like the French, the Russian, the Chinese and the
American Revolution and more recently the revolutionary changes
that occurred or are still occurring in various Afro-Asian countries
occur due to revolutions and movements India’s freedom
movement or revolution for independence from ‘British Raj’ is a
case of revolutionary movement.
 Social Change and Social Evolution

 Social change is an ever-present phenomenon everywhere. When we speak of social change, we suggest so far no
law, no theory, no direction, even no continuity. Social change occurs in all societies and at all times. No society
remains completely static. The term ‘social change’ itself is wholly neutral, implying nothing but differences that
take place in human interactions and interrelations.
 In explaining this concept of social change, modern sociologists from time to time used different words and
expressions. Evolution is one of them. Many social theorists form Herbert Spencer to Sumner applied this
conception of evolution in various ways to the interpretation of social change. But many modern theorists,
particularly American, have abandoned the idea that social change takes place by evolutionary stages.
 Evolution describes a series of interrelated changes in a system of some kind. It is a process in which hidden or
latent characters of a thing reveal themselves. It shows not merely what happens to a thing but also what happens
within it.
 Evolution is an order of change which unfolds the variety of aspects belonging to the nature of changing object.
We cannot speak of evolution when an object or system is changed by forces acting upon it from without.
 The change must occur within the changing unity. Evolution is a process involving a changing adaptation of the
object to its environment and a further manifestation of its own nature. Consequently, it is a change permeating
the whole character of the object, a sequence in which the equilibrium of its entire structure undergoes
modification.
• According to Maclver, evolution is not mere change. It is an immanent process
resulting in increased complexity and differentiation. He writes, “the Kernel of
organic evolution is differentiation, a process in which latent or rudimentary
characters take a distinct and variable form within the unity of the organism.”
• Maclver further says, evolution or differentiation manifests itself in society by-
(a) a greater division of labour resulting in great specialization
(b) an increase in the number and variety of functional associations,
(c) a greater diversity and refinement in the means of social communication.

“When these changes are proceeding, society is evolving”, concludes Maclver.

Agents of social
change
 • There are four agents of change that social scientists recognize:
a. Technology,
b. Social institutions,
c. Population, and
4 agents d. The environment

of social  Some would say that improving technology has made our lives easier.
Imagine what your day would be like without the Internet, the automobile,
or electricity.
change  There are other agents of social change like-
• Teacher (Teacher of any level)
• Media (print and electronic)
• Opinion leaders (formal & informal)
• Innovations/ Research (concepts, ideas, findings)
• Religious institutions (Mosque, churches etc.)
• And You
 • Some would say that improving technology has made our lives
easier. Imagine what your day would be like without the Internet,
the automobile, or electricity.
• In The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman (2005) argues that
technology is a driving force behind globalization, while the other
forces of social change (social institutions, population,

Technology
environment) play comparatively minor roles.
• He suggests that we can view globalization as occurring in three
distinct periods. First, globalization was driven by military
expansion, powered by horsepower and wind power. The countries
best able to take advantage of these power sources expanded the
most, and exert control over the politics of the globe from the late
fifteenth century to around the year 1800.
• The second shorter period from approximately 1800 C.E. to 2000
C.E. consisted of a globalizing economy. Steam and rail power
were the guiding forces of social change and globalization in this
period. Finally, Friedman brings us to the post-millennial era. In
this period of globalization, change is driven by technology,
particularly the Internet (Friedman 2005).
 technology

• But also consider that technology can create change

in the other three forces social scientists link to social
change.
• Advances in medical technology allow otherwise
infertile women to bear children, which indirectly
leads to an increase in population.
• Advances in agricultural technology have allowed us
to genetically alter and patent food products, which
changes our environment in innumerable ways.
• From the way we educate children in the classroom
to the way we grow the food we eat, technology has
impacted all aspects of modern life.
 • Each change in a single social institution leads to changes in all
social institutions. For example, the industrialization of society meant
that there was no longer a need for large families to produce enough
manual labor to run a farm.
• Further, new job opportunities were in close proximity to urban

Social
centers where living space was at a premium. The result is that the
average family size shrunk significantly.

Institutions • This same shift toward industrial corporate entities also changed the
way we view government involvement in the private sector, created
the global economy, provided new political platforms, and even
spurred new religions and new forms of religious worship like
Scientology.
• It has also informed the way we educate our children: originally
schools were set up to accommodate an agricultural calendar so
children could be home to work the fields in the summer, and even
today, teaching models are largely based on preparing students for
industrial jobs, despite that being an outdated need.
• A shift in one area, such as industrialization, means an interconnected
impact across social institutions.
 • Population composition is changing at every level of
society. Births increase in one nation and decrease in
another. Some families delay childbirth while others start
bringing children into their folds early.
• Population changes can be due to random external forces,
like an epidemic, or shifts in other social institutions, as
Population described above. But regardless of why and how it
happens, population trends have a tremendous
interrelated impact on all other aspects of society.
• In the United States, we are experiencing an increase in
our senior population as baby boomers begin to retire,
which will in turn change the way many of our social
institutions are organized.
• For example, there is an increased demand for housing in
warmer climates, a massive shift in the need for elder care
and assisted living facilities, and growing awareness of
elder abuse.
 • There is concern about labor shortages as
boomers retire, not to mention the knowledge
gap as the most senior and accomplished
leaders in different sectors start to leave.
Further, as this large generation leaves the
workforce, the loss of tax income and pressure
on pension and retirement plans means that the
population financial stability of the country is threatened.
• Globally, often the countries with the highest
fertility rates are least able to absorb and attend
to the needs of a growing population. Family
planning is a large step in ensuring that families
are not burdened with more children than they
can care for. On a macro level, the increased
population, particularly in the poorest parts of
the globe, also leads to increased stress on the
planet’s resources.
 • Turning to human ecology, we know that
individuals and the environment affect each
other. As human populations move into more
vulnerable areas, we see an increase in the
number of people affected by natural disasters,
The and we see that human interaction with the
environment increases the impact of those
Environment disasters. Part of this is simply the numbers: the
more people there are on the planet, the more
likely it is that some will be affected by a natural
disaster.
• But it goes beyond that. Movements like
350.org describe how we have already seen
five extinctions of massive amounts of life on
the planet, and the crisis of global change has
put us on the verge of yet another.
 The Environment
• According to their website, “The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us
we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350
ppm” (350.org).
• The environment is best described as an ecosystem, one that exists as the interplay of multiple parts including
8.7 million species of life. However dozens of species are going extinct every day, a number 1,000 times to
10,000 times the normal “background rate” and the highest rate since the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years
ago.
• Changes in the natural environment can also lead to changes in a society itself. We see the clearest evidence of this when a
major hurricane, an earthquake, or another natural disaster strikes. Three recent disasters illustrate this phenomenon. In April
2010, an oil rig operated by BP, an international oil and energy company, exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, creating what
many observers called the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history; its effects on the ocean, marine animals, and the
economies of states and cities affected by the oil spill will be felt for decades to come.
• In January 2010, a devastating earthquake struck Haiti and killed more than 250,000 people, or about 2.5% of that nation’s
population. A month later, an even stronger earthquake hit Chile. Although this earthquake killed only hundreds (it was
relatively far from Chile’s large cities and the Chilean buildings were sturdily built), it still caused massive damage to the
nation’s infrastructure. The effects of these natural disasters on the economy and society of each of these two countries will
certainly also be felt for many years to come.
Modernization

• Modernization describes the processes that increase the amount of

specialization and differentiation of structure in societies resulting in the move
from an undeveloped society to developed, technologically driven society (Irwin
1975). By this definition, the level of modernity within a society is judged by the
sophistication of its technology, particularly as it relates to infrastructure, industry,
and the like. However, it is important to note the inherent ethnocentric bias of
such assessment. Why do we assume that those living in semi-peripheral and
peripheral nations would find it so wonderful to become more like the core
nations? Is modernization always positive?
• One contradiction of all kinds of technology is that they often promise time-saving benefits, but
somehow fail to deliver. How many times have you ground your teeth in frustration at an
Internet site that refused to load or at a dropped call on your cell phone? Despite time-saving
devices such as dishwashers, washing machines, and, now, remote control vacuum cleaners,
the average amount of time spent on housework is the same today as it was fifty years ago and
the dubious benefits of 24/7 e-mail and immediate information have simply increased the
amount of time employees are expected to be responsive and available.
• While once businesses had to travel at the speed of the U.S. postal system, sending something
off and waiting until it was received before the next stage, today the immediacy of information
transfer means there are no such breaks.
• Further, the Internet bought us information, but at a cost. The morass of information means that
there is as much poor information available as trustworthy sources. There is a delicate line to
walk when core nations seek to bring the assumed benefits of modernization to more traditional
cultures.
• For one, there are obvious pro-capitalist biases that go into such attempts, and it is short-
sighted for western governments and social scientists to assume all other countries aspire to
follow in their footsteps. Additionally, there can be a kind of neo-liberal defense of rural cultures,
ignoring the often crushing poverty and diseases that exist in peripheral nations and focusing
only on a nostalgic mythology of the happy peasant.
• It takes a very careful hand to understand both the need for cultural identity and preservation
as well as the hopes for future growth.
 Theories of
Social Change

The five theories of social change are as follows:-

1. Evolutionary Theory
2. Cyclical Theory
3. Economic (Mandan) Theory of Social Change
4. Conflict Theory
5. Technological Theory

Top 5 Theories of Social Change – Explained

(yourarticlelibrary.com)
Prominent
theories
of
social
change
• Among the theories of social change we shall study the theories regarding:
(i) The Direction of Social Change:
• Early sociologists viewed the culture of primitive peoples as completely static, but this was
abandoned with the appearance of scientific studies of preliterate cultures. Anthropologists
now agree that primitive cultures have undergone changes although at such a slow pace as
to give the impression of being stationary.
• In recent years the social change has proceeded at a very rapid rate. Since World War-I
numerous countries have passed through profound changes not only in their political
institutions but in their class structures, their economic systems, their modes of living. Various
theories have been advanced to explain the direction of social change. We take a brief
consideration of each of them.
(ii) Theory of Deterioration:-
• Some thinkers have identified social change with deterioration. According to them, man originally
lived in a perfect state of happiness in a golden age. Subsequently, however, deterioration began to
take place with the result that man reached an age of comparative degeneration. This was the notion
in the ancient Orient.
• It was expressed in the epic poems of India, Persia and Sumeria. Thus, according to Indian
mythology man has passed through four ages—Satyug, Treta, Dwapar and Kaliyug. The Satyug
was the best age in which man was honest, truthful and perfectly happy.
• Thereafter degeneration began to take place. The modern age is the age of Kaliyug wherein man is
deceitful, treacherous, false, dishonest, selfish and consequently unhappy. That such should be the
concept of history in early times is understandable, since we observe deterioration in every walk of
life today.
Evolutionary
theory
• The basic assumption of this theory is that change is the characteristic feature of human society. The present
observed condition of the society is presumed to be the result of change in the past. Another assumption is that
change is inevitable or it is ‘natural’.
• It was assumed that the change is basically the result of operation of forces within the society or culture.
Underlying all theories of evolution, there exists a belief of infinite improvement in the next stage over the
preceding one.
• The notion of evolution came into social sciences from the theories of biological evolution. With the advent of
Darwinian Theory of biological evolution, society and culture began to be regarded as undergoing the same
changes and demonstrating the same trends.
• Charles Darwin (1859), the British biologist, who propounded the theory of biological evolution, showed that
species of organisms have evolved from simpler organisms to the more complicated organisms through the
processes of variations and natural selection. After Darwin, ‘evolution’, in fact, became the buzz word in all
intellectual inquiry and Darwin and Spencer were the key names of an era in the history of thought.
• Herbert Spencer (1890), who is known to be the forerunner of this evolutionary thought in sociology, took the
position that sociology is “the study of evolution in its most complex form”. For him, evolution is a process of
differentiation and integration.
• All thinking of early sociologists was dominated by a conception of man and society as seen progressing up
definite steps of evolution leading through every greater complexity to some final stage of perfection. The notion
of evolutionary principles was extremely popular with British anthropologists and sociologists of nineteenth
century.
• Such as Morgan (1877), Tyler (1889), Spencer (1890) and Hobhouse (1906). Although evolutionary theory in
sociology is attributed to Herbert Spencer, it is clear that it was taken for granted by writers as diverse as Emile
Durkheim, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and V. Gordon Childe.
• The general evolutionary model of society is represented by a large number of specific theories. C.H. Saint-
Simon, one of the earliest founders of sociology, along with Auguste Comte, for example, put an evolutionary
idea of social development, as a sequential progression of organic societies representing increasing levels of
advancement.
• His three stages were later elaborated in Comte’s evolutionary scheme. Comte linked developments in human
knowledge, culture and society and delineated the following three great stages through which all societies must
go—those of conquest, defense and industry. Societies passed through three stages—the primitive, the
intermediary and the scientific, which corresponded to the forms of human knowledge (thought).
• William Graham Sumner (1934), who has been labelled as a ‘Social Darwinist’ also used the idea of
evolution, as had Spencer, to block efforts at reform and social change, arguing that social evolution
must follow its own course, dictated by nature. He said: “It is the greatest folly of which a man can be
capable, to sit down with a slate and pencil to plan out a new social world.”
• The evolutionary approach to social development was also followed by radical thinkers, such as Marx
and Engels, who were greatly influenced by the work of the anthropologist L.H. Morgan, who sought
to prove that all societies went through fixed stages of development each succeeding the other, from
savagery through barbarism to civilisation. Marx and Engels maintained that each stage of civilisation,
such as feudalism, prepared the ground for the next.
 (1) Theory of Unilinear Evolution

• It postulates the straight-line, ordered or progressive nature of social change. According to

this theory, change always proceeds toward a predestined goal in a unilinear fashion. There is
no place of repetition of the same stage in this theory. Followers of this pattern of change
argue that society gradually moves to an even higher state of civilisation which advances in a
linear fashion and in the direction of improvement. The pace of this change may be swift or
slow. In brief, linear hypothesis states that all aspects of society change continually in a
certain direction, never faltering, never repeating themselves.
• Theories of Saint-Simon, Comte, Morgan, Marx and Engels, and many other anthropologists
and sociologists come under the category of unilinear theories of social evolution because
they are based on the assumption that each society does, indeed must, pass through a fixed
and limited numbers of stages in a given sequence. Such theories long dominated the
sociological scene
 Cyclical Theory
• Cyclical change is a variation on unilinear theory which was developed by Oswald Spengler (Decline of
the West, 1918) and Arnold J. Toynbee (A Study of History, 1956). They argued that societies and
civilisations change according to cycles of rise, decline and fall just as individual persons are born,
mature, grow old, and die.
• According to German thinker Spengler, every society has a predetermined life cycle—birth, growth,
maturity and decline. Society, after passing through all these stages of life cycle, returns to the original
stage and thus the cycle begins again.
• On the basis of his analysis of Egyptian, Greek Roman and many other civilisations, he concluded that
the Western civilisation is now on its decline. The world renowned British historian Toyanbee has also
upheld this theory. He has studied the history of various civilisations and has found that every civili-
sation has its rise, development and fall such as the civilisation of Egypt. They have all come and gone,
repeating a recurrent cycle of birth, growth, breakdown and decay. He propounded the theory of
“challenge and response” which means that those who can cope with a changing environment survive
and those who cannot die.
• Thus, a society can grow and survive if it can constructively respond to the challenges. Cyclical theory
of change or sometimes called ‘rise and fair theory presumes that social phenomena of whatever sort
recur again and again, exactly as they were before in a cyclical fashion.
 P.A. Sorokin & social change
• A variant of cyclical process is the theory of a well-known American sociologist P.A. Sorokin (Social
and Cultural Dynamics, 1941), which is known as ‘pendular theory of social change’. He considers
the course of history to be continuous, though irregular, fluctuating between two basic kinds of
cultures: the ‘sensate’ and the ‘ideational’ through the ‘idealistic’. According to him, culture oscillates
like the pendulum of a clock between two points.
• The pendulum of culture swings from sensate pole and leads towards the ideational pole through the
middle pole called ‘idealistic’ culture, which is a mixed form of sensate and ideational cultures—a
somewhat stable mixture of faith, reason, and senses as the source of truth. Sorokin places contem-
porary European and American cultures in the last stage of disintegration of sensate culture, and
argues that only way out of our ‘crisis’ is a new synthesis of faith and sensation. There is no other
possibility.
• In Sorokin’s analysis of cultures, we find the seeds of both the theories—cyclical and linear change.
In his view, culture may proceed in a given direction for a time and thus appear to conform to a
linear formula. But, eventually, as a result of forces that are inherent in the culture itself, there will
be shift of direction and a new period of development will be ushered in. This new trend may be
linear, perhaps it is oscillating or it may conform to some particular type of curve.
Vilfredo Pareto & social change
• Vilfredo Pareto’s (1963) theory of ‘Circulation of Elites’ is also
essentially of this variety. According to this theory, major social
change in society occurs when one elite replaces another, a process
Pareto calls it ‘circulation of elites’. All elites tend to become
decadent in the course of time. They ‘decay in quality’ and lose
their ‘vigour’. According to Marx, history ultimately leads to and
ends with the communist Utopia, whereas history to Pareto is a
never-ending circulation of elites. He said that societies pass
through the periods of political vigour and decline which repeat
themselves in a cyclical fashion.
Functionalism and
Social Change
• Functionalism, as a new approach of study of society, developed mainly as a reaction to
evolutionism, in the early years of twentieth century. Critics of evolutionism advocated that
there was no use to know the first appearance of any item of culture and social behaviour. They
called it the “fruitless quest for origin”. One of the most significant assumptions of
functionalists is that society (or culture) is comprised of functionally interdependent parts or the
system as a whole.
• These theorists believed that the society, like human body, is a balanced system of institutions,
each of which serves a function in maintaining society. When events outside or inside the
society’ disrupts the equilibrium, social institution makes adjustments to restore stability.
• This fundamental assumption became the main basis of the critics of functionalism to charge
that if the system is in equilibrium with its various parts contributing towards order and
stability, it is difficult to see how it changes. Critics (mostly conflict theorists) argued that
functionists have no adequate explanation of change. They cannot account for change, in that
there appears to be no mechanism which will disturb existing functional relationships.
• Thus, functionalists have nothing or very little to offer to the study of social change as this
approach is concerned only about the maintenance of the system, i.e., how social order is
maintained in the society. G. Homans, in one of his articles “Bringing men back” (1964)
stressed that the dominant characteristic in the functionalist model is an inherent tendency
towards stability. Society may change, but it remains stable through new forms of integration.
• The functionalists responded to this charge by employing concepts such as
equilibrium and differentiation. For instance, a leading proponent of functionalist
approach, Talcott Parsons approaches this problem in the following way: He
maintained, no system is in a perfect state of equilibrium although a certain degree of
equilibrium is essential for the survival of societies. Changes occur in one part of
society, there must be adjustments in other parts. If this does not occur, the society’s
equilibrium will be disturbed and strain will occur. The process of social change can
therefore be thought of as a ‘moving equilibrium’.
• Parsons views social change as a process of ‘social evolution’ from simple to more
complex form of society. Social evolution involves a process of social differentiation.
The institutions arid roles which form the social system become increasingly
differentiated and specialised in terms of their function. As the parts of society
become more and more specialised and distinct, it increases the problem of
integration of parts which in turn set forth the process of social change and social
equilibrium.
• Some followers of functionalism argued that if it is a theory of social persistence (stability),
then it must be also a theory of change. In the process of adaptation of social institutions in a
society, change is a necessary condition or rather it is imminent in it. Thus, one can explain
changes in the economy as adaptations to other economics or to the polity, or changes in the
family structure in terms of adaptation to other institutions, and so on. In an article ‘Dialectic
and
• Functionalism’ (ASR, 1963), P. Van den Berghe states that according to functional
theory change may come from three main sources:
• 1. Adjustment to external disturbances such as a recession in world trade.
• 2. Structural differentiation in response to problems within the system, e.g., electoral
reforms in response to political unrest.
• 3. Creative innovations within the system, e.g., scientific discoveries or technological
advances.
 Economic
(Mandan)
Theory of
Social Change
 Owing largely to the influence of Marx and Marxism, the economic theory of change is
also known as the Marxian theory of change.
 The Marxian theory rests on this fundamental assumption that changes in the economic
‘infra-structure’ of society are the prime movers of social change. For Marx, society
consists of two structures—’infra-structure’ and ‘super-structure’. The ‘infra-structure’
consists of the ‘forces of production’ and ‘relations of production’.
 The ‘super-structure’ consists of those features of the social system, such as legal,
ideological, political and religious institutions, which serve to maintain the ‘infra-
structure’, and which are moulded by it. To be more clear, according to Marx, productive
forces constitute ‘means of production’ (natural resources, land, labour, raw material,
machines, tools and other instruments of production) and ‘mode of production’
(techniques of production, mental and moral habits of human beings) both and their
level of development determines the social relation of production, i.e., production
relations.
 These production relations (class relations) constitute the economic structure of
society—the totality of production relations. Thus, the socio-economic structure of
society is basically determined by the state of productive forces. For Marx, the
contradiction between the constantly changing and developing ‘productive forces’ and
the stable ‘production relations’ is the demiurage of all social development or social
change.
• Change is the order of nature and society. It is inherent in the matter through the
contradiction of forces. Marx wrote: “Matter is objective reality, existing outside and
independent of the mind. The activity of the mind does not arise independent of the
material. Everything mental or spiritual is the product of the material process.” The
world, by its very nature is material.
• For Marx, production system is the lever of all social changes, and this system is dynamic.
Need system determines production and the technological order, i.e., mode of
production. It is man’s material necessities that are at the root of his productive effort,
which in its turn is the basics of all other forms of his life. Marx believed that change
occurs through contradiction of forces and this is present throughout the history in some
or the other form.
• Thus, the main thrust of the Preface is the emphasis on changes in the economic base
(mode of production), and these in turn produce ideologies which induce people to fight
out social struggles. As it stands, this materialist conception of history certainly
encourages us to regard ‘evolution’ of the economic base as the key to social change—
what Engels called ‘the law of development of human history’.
• Society evolves from one stage to another by means of struggle between two classes—one
representing the obsolescent system of production and the other nascent (new) order.
The emerging class is ultimately victorious in this struggle and establishes a new order of
production; within this order, in turn, are contained the seeds of its own destruction—the
dialectical process once more. Change will only occur as a victory of the exploited class.
 Critique of economic theory

• Marx is often charged for his deterministic attitude toward society and its change. There is some
controversy as to whether Marx really meant to assert that social and cultural phenomena are wholly
or only determined by economic or ‘material’ conditions. His various statements are not fully
reconciled and are susceptible of either interpretation.
• In his later writings he has objected to the interpretation of his ideas that makes other than economic
factors purely derivative and non-causal (Selected correspondence). But he holds to the position that
the economic situation is the foundation of the social order and this is the gist of Marxian theory.
• Moreover, Marx oversimplified the class structure of society and its dynamics of social change in the
form of class struggle. Dorthy S. Thomas (1925) commented that “it is not difficult to establish
correlation between social changes and economic changes, though it is harder to interpret them”.
• Thus, economic determinism does not solve the major problem of social causation.
Conflict
Theory
• Social theorists in the nineteenth and early twentieth century’s were concerned with conflict
in society. But, the label of conflict theorists is generally applied to those sociologists who
opposed the dominance of structural-functionalism. These theorists contend that in
functionalism there is no place of change and as such it cannot explain change.
• They have neglected conflict in favour of a unitary concept of society which emphasises
social integration. By contrast to functionalist approach, conflict theorists contend that
institutions and practices continue because powerful groups have the ability to maintain the
status quo. Change has a crucial significance, since it is needed to correct social injustices
and inequalities.
• Conflict theorists do not believe that societies smoothly evolve to higher level. Instead, they
believe that conflicting groups struggle to ensure progress (Coser, 1956). Conflict theorists
assert that conflict is a necessary condition for change. It must be the cause of change.
There is no society, changing or unchanging, which does not have conflict of some kind or
another. Thus, conflict is associated with all types of social change in some way or other.
• The modem conflict theory is heavily influenced by the ideas of karl Marx. It may be
regarded as the offshoot of his economic theory of social change which states that economic
change only occurs and produces other change through the mechanism of intensified
conflict between social groups and between different parts of the social system. Conflict
would ultimately transform society. While Marx emphasised economic conflict. Max Weber
based his arguments on conflict about power. Ralf Dahrendorf (1959), although critical of
Marxist notions of class, tried to reconcile the contrast between the functionalist and
conflict approaches of society.
• He contends that these approaches are ultimately compatible despite their many
areas of disagreement. He disagreed with Marx not only on the notions of class
but on many other points also. Marx viewed social change as a resolution of
conflict over scarce economic resources, whereas Dahrendorf viewed social
change as a resolution of conflict over power. Marx believed a grand conflict
would occur between those who had economic resources and those who did not,
whereas Dahrendorf believed that there is constant simultaneous conflict among
many segments of society.
• Commenting on this theory, Percy S. Cohen (Modem Social Theory, 1968) writes:
“This theory is plausible, but it is not necessarily true. The contention that group
conflict is a sufficient condition for social change is obviously false. It is arguable
that structured conflict, when it involves a fairly equal balance of forces, actually
obstructs change which might otherwise occur.
• For example, in societies where there are deep divisions between regional, ethnic
or racial groups, there may be little possibility of promoting economic
development or welfare policies; such ‘ameliorative’ changes require some degree
of consensus. The simple point is that conflict may lead to impasse not to change.
It should be emphasized that social conflict is often as much the product of social
change as the cause and it is commonly a great obstacle to certain types of
change.”
 Technological
theory and social
change
What is
technology ?
• When the average person speaks of the changes brought
about by ‘science’, he is generally thinking of
‘technology’ and the manifold wonders wrought
thereby.
• The ‘technology’ refers to the application of knowledge
to the making of tools and the utilisation of natural
resources (Schaefer and Lamm, 1992).
• It involves the creation of material instruments (such as
machines) used in human interaction with nature and
not synonymous with machinery. Machines are the
result of the knowledge gained by science but they
themselves are not technology.
• Social change takes place due to the working of many factors. Technology is not only one of
them but an important factor of social change. When it is said that almost whole of human
civilisation is the product of technological development, it only means that any change in
technology would initiate a corresponding change in the arrangement of social relationships.
• For Marx, the stage of technological development determines the mode of production and the
relationships and the institutions that constitute the economic system. This set of relationships
is in turn the chief determinant of the whole social order.
• Technological development creates new conditions of life which forces new conditions in
adaptation. W.F. Ogbum, in his article, ‘How Technology Changes Society’ (1947), writes:
“Technology changes by changing our environment to which we, in turn, adapt. This change is
usually in the material environment, and the adjustment we make to the changes often
modifies customs and social institutions.”
• Anthropologist Leslie White (Science and Culture, 1949) held that “technology, particularly the
amount of energy harnessed and the way in which it is used, determines the forms and content
of culture and society”. Technology affects directly and indirectly both.
• The invention of wheel, compass, gunpowder, steam engine, printing press,
telephone (now mobile phone), radio, TV, internet, aeroplane, motor car and so
many other inventions in medical and other fields have revolutionised the human
life. Advances in agricultural technology, ranging from the iron-tipped plow to the
tractor technology and the three-crop rotation system made possible the creation
of a surplus. One of the earliest books on social change written by W.F. Ogbum
(1922) has analysed such changes in detail.
• He has narrated about 150 such changes (both immediate and distant social
effects) in social life brought about by the invention of radio alone.
• Ogbum gives many illustrations of this kind. He suggests, for example, that the
invention of the self-starter on automobiles had something to do with the
emancipation of women. The self-starter gave them freedom of a kind. Similarly,
many labour saving devices in the home have also contributed to the
emancipation of women.
• In this connection, Ogbum and Nimkoff (1958) argue: “An important invention need
not be limited to only a single social effect. Sometimes it exerts many influences
which spread out in different directions like the spokes of a wheel.” Technological
developments have affected a lot of changes in attitudes, beliefs and even in tradi-
tions. These influence almost all aspects of our life and culture. These include social
customs and practical techniques for converting raw material to finished products.
• The production and use of food, shelter, clothing and commodities, physical
structures, and fabrics all are also aspects of society’s technology.
• Changes in communication devices (e-mail, internet, mobile phones etc.) have also
influenced all aspects of social life (work, leisure, family, friendship, sports etc.)
enormously. The basic function of all communication and transportation devices is
the conquest of time and space. Shrinking space and time through the speed and low
cost of electronic communication and air travel has developed a new phenomenon
called ‘globalization’.
• “Any technological change which is great enough will produce some other social
change as a consequence” (Cohen, 1968). This is summum bonum (gist) of this
theory.
 Education
and
social change
 introduction
 Education like so many other social institutions is two-faced, forward-looking and backward
looking. Education in the older sense of the word is training in the arts, crafts and values of
a tribe or a class or a society. Education has tremendous scope as an instrument of social and
cultural change. One should bear in mind that through education not only knowledge is
imparted, but skills, interests, attitudes, aspirations and values are developed, social and
cultural progress is facilitated, and at the same time social and cultural level of the people is
raised.
 Education brings cultural changes which may result in many transitions and alterations in
the society in many forms like variations in norms of values and thinking modes, changes in
material culture, ideas, family relations, political culture, patterns of administration at the
local, state, regional and national level, involvement in social activities, change in abilities
and attitudes of personnel; in short in every aspects of human activity.
 In the words of Golda Meyer, the purpose of education is to civilize the thousands of
barbarians that are born in to this world every hour. If education fails to bring change in the
learner, then it is worthless. Education is considered the most powerful tool in bringing
change in man.
 Definitions of Education
• Durkheim, “Education is the socialization of the younger generation.” He further States that is “a
continuous effort to impose on the child ways of seeing, feeling and acting which he could not have
arrived at spontaneously.”
• M.K. Gandihi ji “By education I mean and all round drawing out of the best in the child man’s body,
mind and spirit.” Sumner “Education is the attempt to transmit to the child the mores of the group, so
that he can learn “what conduct is approved and what is disapproved. How he ought to behave in all
kinds of case? What he ought to believe and reject”.
• According to Samuel Koenig, “Education may also be defined as the process whereby the social
heritage of a group is passed on from one generation to another as well as the process whereby the
child becomes socialized, i.e., learns the rules of behavior of the group into which he is born.”
• Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, a great philosopher and educationist of India, has said thus “Education to be
complete, must be humane: it must include not only the training of the intellect but also the refinement
of the heart and the discipline of the spirit.”
 objectives of education
• Regarding the main objectives of education, ancient Greek philosopher Plato said long back thus, the
end of education is “to develop a sound mind in a sound body.”
• It is widely held education fulfils three main objectives. They are as follows:
1. Education helps man to know him and the universe. It also enables him understand the way in
which he is related to the social world in which is living.
2. Education by providing for transmission of culture establishes a connecting link between the past,
present and the future; and
3. Education by contributing to the development of both the individual and society, enhance human
progress.
Durkheim (1950) argued that: “It is society as a whole and each particular social milieu that determine
the ideal that education realizes. Society can survive only if there exists among its members a sufficient
degree of homogeneity; education perpetuates and reinforces this homogeneity by fixing in the child
from the beginning, the essential similarities that collective life demands. But on the other hand,
without certain diversity all cooperation would be impossible; education assumes the persistence of
this necessary diversity by being itself diversified and specialized”
• Durkheim thus views education as a means of organizing the individual
self and the social self, the I and the We into a disciplined, stable and
meaningful unity. The internalization of values and discipline
represents the child‘s initiation into the society. This is why it is very
significant to study and analyze education using sociological
approaches
• Manheim (1940) stated that: “Sociologists do not regard education
solely as a means of realizing abstract ideals of culture, such as
humanism or technical specialization, but as part of the process of
influencing men and women. Education can only be understood when
we know for what society and for what social position the pupils are
being educated.”
• Education does not operate in a vacuum.
To have a better society, we should analyze
the society to show its strengths and
weakness and plan the educational
programmes to these effects.
• The educational system of many countries
must reflect the philosophy of that society.
It should be based on the needs, demands
and aspirations of the society for it to
function properly.
• It should be related to the level of culture,
industrial development, and rate of
urbanization, political organization,
religious climate, family structures, and
stratification. It should not only fulfil the
individual‘s and society‘s needs but their
future aspirations.
 Education as an instrument of
social change
• Education is the most powerful instrument of social change. It is through education that the
society can bring desirable changes and modernize itself. Education can transform society by
providing opportunities and experiences through which the individual can cultivate himself
for adjustment with the emerging needs and philosophy of the changing society. A sound
social progress needs careful planning in every aspect of life, social, cultural, economic and
political. Education must be planned in a manner which is in keeping with the needs and
aspirations of the people as a whole.
• The functions of education in the sphere of social change are outlined as under:
1. Assistance in changing Attitudes:- Education helps to change the attitudes of people in favour
of modern ways of life and develops attitudes which can fight prejudices, superstitions and
traditional beliefs. It can bring about a change in attitudes of people in favour of small family
towards rising above orthodox values and socio-cultural barriers of caste and class and towards
religion and secularism. Education interacts with the process of social development which is
another name of social change.
2. Assistance in creating desire for Change: Education creates a desire for change
in a society which is prerequisite for any kind of change to come. It makes
people aware of social evils like drinking, dowry, gambling, begging, bonded
labour etc. and creates an urge to fight and change such things. Education makes
underprivileged, down-trodden and backward people aware of their lot and
instils a desire to improve their conditions. Thus education creates a desire for
change.
3. Assistance in adopting Social Change: Whenever some social change occurs, it
is easily adopted by some people while others find it very difficult to adjust
themselves to this change. It is the function of education to assist people in
adopting good changes.
4. Overcoming Resistance to Change: Certain factors create resistance in the way
of accepting social change. Education helps in overcoming resistance.
5. Analysis in Change: Education invests the individual with the capacity to use his
intelligence, to distinguish between right and wrong and to establish certain ideals. Education
determines the values which act as a criterion for the analysis of social change.
6. Emergence of new Changes: Education initiates, guides and controls movements for social
reform. Education helps in agitating public opinion towards the abolition of many social
changes.
7. Leadership in Social Change: Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Swami
Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi highly educated and enlightened Indians, made all efforts at
conscious level to bring about the social changes. Mahatma Gandhi designed Basic Education
to fight the ills of mass illiteracy.
8. Advances in the sphere of Knowledge: New researches and inventions depends upon
education, because only the educated individuals can search for new things in every field.
Thus education contributes to social change by bringing changes in knowledge.
9. Perpetualizing Eternal Values: Education protects the eternal values, promotes knowledge
and acceptance in such a manner that in spite of social changes, people in general keep faith
in these values.
10.Transmission of culture: Education is the creator, generator and director of all social
change. In short, education is a preservative, consolidating, establishing and creative
force.
11. Stabilizing democratic values: Education is a weapon of democracy. It can help in
developing democratic attitudes and values for better living. Democratic values such as
liberty, equality, fraternity, justice, tolerance, mutual respect, feeling of brotherhood and
faith in peaceful methods are stabilized through education in free India. These values are
helpful in bringing about social change.
12. National integration: Education can prove very useful in bringing about national
integration which is the basis for unity among people.
13.Economic prosperity: Education is the most important factor in achieving rapid
economic development and technological progress and in creating a social order
founded on the value of freedom, social justice and equal opportunity.
14. National development: Education is the fundamental basis of national development.
Education is the powerful instrument of economic, political, cultural, scientific and social
change.
• Education provides knowledge, training and skills as well as inculcates new
thoughts and attitudes among the young. Many of the old superstitious
beliefs and absolute values which prevent progress, through Education can
be changed in the favour of enlightened ideas. Backwardness and Poverty
of the masses are mainly due to illiteracy and ignorance. Hence, education
can be the instrument of rescuing them from their plight.
• Francis Brown remarks that education is a process which brings about changes in
the behaviour of society. It is a process which enables every individual to
participate effectively in the activities of society, and to make positive contribution
to the progress of society. Thus, education has brought about phenomenal changes
in every aspect of man’s life.
• From the above analysis it is evident that education is the powerful instrument of
social change and development. In the absence of it society would have remained
stagnant and its change and improvement would have come to a halt.
 Education as the Effect of Social
Change
• If education is the outcome of social change it means that social change has produced an urge for
education. If their effect is a great demand for education, then the nature of education should be
connected with the type of social change that occurred. Education may, therefore, have certain
objectives. Education for awareness, like, discussing, problem solving, debate, original thinking
must be encouraged in the classroom from a very early age.
• Industrialization, scientific inventions and technology have made life more comfortable by
providing trains, cars, jet planes, factories for rapid production of standardized goods, antibiotics
against disease and many other amenities. Pollution of air, land and water have resulted all over the
planet, farms, fields and forests have been destroyed to make room for factories and mills. Noise and
smoke have altered the climate, of cities. The greater the technological progress in a country, the
greater the danger to life and the lesser the chances of survival from poisonous air, water, land,
accidents, noise and other agents of destruction.
• It can be concluded that effective dynamic education may sometimes bring words of wisdom from
the young mind which may cause his teachers to wonder. Thus, the interrelationship between
Education and Social Change can be proved through this.
Development
&
Dependency
Bibliography

• Essay on Social Change: social change | Social Change |

Meaning, Characteristics Definition, Types, Introduction to
and other details Theories, Causes, & Sociology
(lumenlearning.com
(yourarticlelibrary.com) Examples | Britannica )
http://adamasuniversity.ac.in/education-and-social-change-an-
interrelationship/#:~:text=Education%20as%20a%20Tool%20of,the%20favo
ur%20of%20enlightened%20ideas.