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.

A variety of reasons have been offered throughout history to explain

why social change occurs. The problem of explaining social change
was central to nineteenth century sociology. Many earlier theories
of society that claimed to be scientific were in fact theories of
change. They sought to explain the present in terms of the past.
Auguste Comte, the French sociologist, who coined the term
‘sociology’ described society as starting from the ‘logical’ stage,
passing through a ‘metaphysical’ stage and finally reaching a
‘positivistic’ stage.

Many different theories were propounded to define and explain

social change. Broadly, theories of nineteenth century may be
divided into theories of social evolution (Saint-Simon, Comte,
Spencer, Durkheim etc.) and theories of social revolution (Marx).

Among the general theoretical explanations offered for under-

standing social change are geographical, biological, economic and
cultural. All these we have discussed in the previous section.

Theories of social change can be divided into two groups:

(1) Theories relating to the direction of social change:
Various types of evolutionary theories, and cyclical theory.

(2) Theories relating to causation of change:

(a) Those explaining change in terms of endogamous factors or
processes; and

(b) Those emphasising exogamous factors such as economic,

cultural or historical.

1. Evolutionary Theory:
Despite the wide variety in the possible directions change may take,
various generalisations have been set forth. Because the lot of
mankind generally has improved over the long term, by far the most
numerous classes of theories of the direction of change comprise
various cumulative or evolutionary trends. Though varying in many
ways, these theories share an important conclusion that the course
of man’s history is marked up ‘upward’ trend through time.

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.

It was conceived that society and culture were subject to the same
general laws of biological and organism growth. Some thinkers even
identified evolution with progress and proceeded to project into the
future more and more perfect and better-adapted social and
cultural forms.

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.

Basic Assumptions And Distinctive Features Of The

Evolutionary Change:
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.

All these assumptions can be summarised as under:

1. That change is inevitable and natural.

2. That change is gradual and continuous.

3. That change is sequential and in certain stages.

4. That all successive stages of change are higher over preceding

stage, i.e., evolution is progressive.

5. That stages of change are non-reversible.

6. That forces of change are inherent in the object.

7. That the direction of change is from simple to complex, from

homogeneity to heterogeneity, from undifferentiated to the
differentiated in form and function.

8. That all societies pass through same stages of development.

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 fact that it was used by both radical and conservative theorists
is indicative of the profound cultural importance of evolutionism in
the nineteenth century thought. The conception of evolution was
applied not only to the development of societies but also to art,
literature, music, philosophy, sciences, religion, economic and
political life (state) and almost every other achievement of the mind
of man. Both Spencer and Durkheim employed the concept of
structural differentiation to indicate that as society develops more
functions, it becomes structurally more complex. This perspective
has been elaborated more recently by Talcott Parsons.
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).

He conceived these stages as progressing from the theological

through the metaphysical to arrive ultimately at the perfection of
positive reasoning. He argued all mankind inevitably passed
through these stages as it developed, suggesting both unilinear
direction and progress. Spencer also displayed a linear concept of
evolutionary stages. He argued that the trend of human societies
was from simple, undifferentiated wholes to complex and
heterogeneous ones, where the parts of the whole become more
specialised but remained integrated.

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.

It contained within itself “the seeds of its own destruction”, and

would inevitably be succeeded by that stage next ‘higher’ on the
scale of evolution. On this basis they concluded that the next stage
in social evolution after the stage of capitalism could be attained
only by violent revolution. All these theories are referred to as
unilinear theories of social evolution.

Durkheim’s view of the progressive division of labour in society and

German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies’ view of gemeinschaft and
gesellschaft types of society to some extent also represent the evolu-
tionary perspective but their schemes of classifying societies are less
sweeping and less explicit, and are, therefore referred to as quasi-
evolutionary theories. For Durkheim the most important dimension
of society was the degree of specialisation, as he called it, “the
division of labour”.

He believed that there was a historical trend, or evolution, from a

low to a high degree of specialisation. Durkheim distinguished two
main types of society on the basis of this division of labour—the first
based on mechanical solidarity and the second on organic solidarity.
Durkheim believed that this second type always evolved from and
succeeded the first as the degree of specialisation, the division of
labour, increased.

Tonnies’ gemeinschaft type of society corresponded quite well to

Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity and the second gesellschaft to
organic solidarity. Numerous other scholars put forth similar ideas.
The scheme of the American anthropologist Robert Redfield, who
elaborated on the contrast between ‘folk’ and ‘urban’ society,
reiterates the same basic dichotomy of social types suggested by
Durkheim and Tonnies. Modem theorist Talcott Parsons also
viewed social change as a process of ‘social evolution’ from simple to
more complex form of society. He regards changes in adaptation as
a major driving force of social evolution. The history of human
society from simple hunting and gathering band to the complex
nation-state represents an increase in the ‘general adaptive capacity
of society.

Types of Evolutionary Theory:

There are three main types of evolutionary theory:
(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.

(2) Universal Theory of Evolution:

It is a little bit variant form of unilinear evolution which states that
every society does not necessarily go through the same fixed stages
of development. It argues, rather, that the culture of mankind, taken
as a whole, has followed a definite line of evolution.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Spencer’s views can be categorised under this perspective who said

that mankind had progressed from small groups to large and from
simple to compound and in more general terms, from homogenous
to the heterogeneous. The anthropologist Leslie White has been a
leading exponent of this conception.

Similar ideas were greatly elaborated by William Ogbum, who

stressed the role of invention in social change. On this basis he gave
birth to the famous concept of ‘cultural lag’ which states that change
in our non-material culture, i.e., in our ideas and social
arrangements, always lag behind changes in material culture, i.e., in
our technology and invention.
(3) Multilinear Theory of Evolution:
This brand of evolutionism has more recently developed and is
more realistic than the unilinear and universal brand of
evolutionary change. Multilinear evolution is a concept, which
attempts to account for diversity. It essentially means identification
of different sequential patterns for different culture or types of
cultures. This theory holds that change can occur in several ways
and that it does not inevitably lead in the same direction. Theorists
of this persuasion recognise that human culture has evolved along a
number of lines.

Those who share this perspective, such as Julian Steward (1960),

attempt to explain neither the straight-line evolution of each
society, nor the progress of mankind as a whole, but rather
concentrate on much more limited sequences of development.

It does identify some social trends as merely universal: the

progression from smaller to larger, simpler to more complex, rural
to urban, and low technology to higher technology but it recognises
that these can come about in various ways and with distinct
consequences. This theory is related to what is known as episodic
approach, which stresses the importance of accidents and unique
historical, social and environmental circumstances that help to
explain a particular course of social change. Later on, the views of
Leslie White and Julian Steward were named as neo-evolutionism.

Criticism of Evolutionary Theory:

ADVERTISEMENTS:
Evolutionary scheme (gradual and continuous development in
stages) of any kind fell under both theoretical and empirical attack
in the last century. It was criticised heavily on many grounds but
mainly for its sweeping or over-generalisation about historical
sequences, uniform stages of development and evolutionary rate of
change. The biological evolution, from which the main ideas of
social evolution were borrowed, provided somewhat clumsy and
unsatisfactory answers.

Such explanations came under attack for lack of evidence.

Evolutionary scales were also questioned from a somewhat
different, but more empirical source. The easy assumption that
societies evolved from simple to complex forms, was mainly based
on a scale of predominant productive technology turned out to be
unwarranted.

The doctrine of ‘cultural relativity’ inhibited even static or cross-

sectional generalisation, provided a new basis for satisfying the
common features of societies. The evolutionary scheme also failed
to specify the systematic characteristics of evolving societies or
institutions and also the mechanisms and processes of change
through which the transition from one stage to another was
affected.

Most of the classical evolutionary schools tended to point out

general causes of change (economic, technological or spiritual etc.)
or some general trend to complexity inherent in the development of
societies. Very often they confused such general tendencies with the
causes of change or assumed that the general tendencies explain
concrete instances of change.
Because of the above shortcomings, the evolutionary theory is less
popular today. A leading modern theorist Anthony Giddens (1979)
has consistently attacked on evolutionism and functionalism of any
brand. He rejects them as an appropriate approach to under-
standing society and social change. Spencer’s optimistic theory is
regarded with some skepticism. It is said that growth may create
social problems rather than social progress.

Modern sociology has tended to neglect or even to reject this theory,

mainly because it was too uncritically applied by an earlier
generation of sociologists. In spite of its all weaknesses, it has a very
significant place in the interpretation of social change. The recent
tentative revival in an evolutionary perspective is closely related to
growing interest in historical and comparative studies.

2. 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 civilisation 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.

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 oscil-
lates like the pendulum of a clock between two points.

The pendulum of a clock swings with the passage of time, but

ultimately it comes to its original position and re-proceeds to its
previous journey. Thus, it is just like a cyclical process but
oscillating in character. A sensate culture is one that appeals to the
senses and sensual desires.

It is hedonistic in its ethics and stresses science and empiricism. On

the other hand, the ideational culture is one in which expressions of
art, literature, religion and ethics do not appeal to the senses but to
the mind or the spirit. It is more abstract and symbolic than the
sensate culture.

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 contemporary 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’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.

3. 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. Of
course, economic interpretations of social change need not be
always Marxist, but none of the other versions (such as Veblen who
also stressed on material and economic factor) of the doctrine are
quite as important as Marxism.

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 deter-
mines 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.

Basic Postulates:
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.

Everything which exists comes into being on the basis of material

course, arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of
matter. Things come into being, exist and cease to exist, not each
independent of all other things but each in its relationship with
others.

Things cannot be understood each separately and by itself but only

in their relation and interconnections. The world does not consist of
permanent stable things with definite properties but of unending
processes of nature in which things go through a change of coming
into being and passing away.

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.

In the ‘Preface’ of his monumental work Capital: A Critique of

Political Economy Marx’s whole philosophy of social change is
summarised: “At a certain stage of their development, the material
forces of production in society come into conflict with the existing
relations of production or with the property relations within which
they had been at work before. From forms of development of the
forces of production these relations turn into their fetters. Then
comes the period of social revolution with the change of the
economic foundation, the entire immense superstructure is more or
less rapidly transformed.”

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’.

Marx viewed the course of history (social change) in terms of the

philosophy of ‘dialectics’. (An idea borrowed from Hegel but Marx
called it materialistic. According to Hegel, evolution proceeds
according to a system of three stages—thesis, antithesis and
synthesis). Accordingly, the change, development, and progress
take place by way of contradiction and conflict and that the
resulting change leads to a higher unity.

In particular, Marx viewed the class struggle and the transition from
one social system to another as a dialectical process in which the
ruling class viewed as ‘thesis’ evoked its ‘negation’ (‘antithesis’) in
the challenger class and thus to a ‘synthesis’ through revolutionary
transformation resulting in a higher organisation of elements from
the old order. In the dialectical point of view of change, sharp stages
and forces are abstracted out of the continuity and gradations in the
social process and then explanations are made of the process on the
basis of these stages and forces in dialectical conflict.

Marx believed that the class struggle was the driving force of social
change. For him it was the ‘motor of history’. He states that “the
history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles” (Communist Manifesto, 1848).
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.

Marx believed that the basic contradictions contained in a capitalist

economic system would lead to class consciousness. Class
consciousness involves a full awareness by members of the working
class of the reality of exploitation, a recognition of common
interests, the common identification of an opposing group with
whom their interests are in conflict. This realisation will unite them
for proletarian revolution.

The proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize the

forces of production—the source of power. Property would be
communally owned. Now, all members of society would share the
same relationship to the forces of production. A classless society
would result. Since the history is the history of the class struggle,
history would now end.

Critique:
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.

Few deny that economic factor influences social conditions of life.

Its influence is certainly powerful and penetrating. But, it cannot be
regarded as a sole factor affecting social change. There are other
causes also which are as important as the economic factor.

To say that the super-structure of society is determined by its infra-

structure, i.e., production system (economic system) of a society is
going too far. The link between the social change and the economic
process is far less direct and simple and sufficient than the Marxian
psychology admits.

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.

4. 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 emphasised 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.”

5. Technological Theory:
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. It is not synonymous with machinery as it is
understood in common parlance. 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.

It is believed that Marx has attached great importance to technology

in his scheme of mode of production, which forms the main basis
for the change in society. 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. Ogburn, 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.

Certain social consequences are the direct result of mechanisation,

such as new organisation of labour, destruction of domestic system
of production, the expansion of the range of social contacts, the
specialisation of function etc. Its indirect consequences are the
increase of unemployment, the heightening of competition etc.
Conflict between the states, as they strive for dominance, security or
better prospects are the result of competition.

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 agricul-
tural 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. Ogburn (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. Ogburn 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, Ogburn 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 traditions. 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. The most important aspect of technology in that a man
thinks rationally and objectively about things and events. Man has
become more pragmatic in his outlook. He is more disciplined
(time-oriented) in his working habits. New forms of transportation
and communication, which have contributed to significant changes
in social life, are all due to the change in technology.

There is a greater mobility of population today than that was in the

nineteenth or twentieth century because of the modem rapid means
of transport. The life of the modem man is always on wheels. It is an
important factor in the determination of spatial aspect of social
relationships. 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 ‘globalisation’.
“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. For example, new techniques
of manufacture are found to affect social relations in the relevant
industry. A single invention of geared wheel has produced
thousands of inventions which in turn affected social relations
enormously. The automobile has brought number of social changes
which have altered individual lifestyles. Computers and the Internet
are the latest of a long line of developments to prompt Utopian and
anti-utopian visions of a world transformed by technology.

Computers have affected almost all aspects of our life from

reservations at the railway ticket window or registration for
hospitals or colleges to the maintenance of accounts in banks and
large business corporations. The popularity of science fiction (Harry
Potter) and the films like Jurrasic Park are other indicators of the
mythical and abundant power which technology can have in the
modem world.

Modern technology has also revolutionised the concept and quality

of the systems of production, communication, social organisation
and various processes of acculturation and symbolisation in
societies. Technology helps in realising of our goals with less effort,
less cost and with greater efficiency. Technology creates desire for
novelty and innovation. Novelty is sought everywhere and transient
interests give a corresponding character to social relationships.

Technology has advanced in leaps and bounds over the last 25 years
and the single invention that has had to greatest impact on our lives
is the cell phone. It is now not only used as a means of communi-
cation but it has enabled us to operate home appliances and
entertainment devices, monitor our home’s safety, customise our
internal home environment.

In the light of these technical advances the anthropologist Peter

Worsely (1984) was actuated to comment, “until our day, human
society has never existed”, meaning that it is only in quite recent
times that we can speak of forms of social association which span
the earth. The world has become in important respects a single
social system as a growing ties of interdependence which now affect
virtually everyone. The idea of ‘global village’ developed by Marshall
McLuban (1960) reflects that the world is becoming more
integrated in economic, political and cultural terms.

Critique:
The goals and consequences of technology and the production of
material goods are being seriously questioned today. Does a high
level of technology increase happiness and improve our family life?
Do complex technologies bring us clean air, pure water and help us
conserve natural resources? Do we not think that the rapidly
changing technology is the cause of our all types of environmental
degradation, pollution, health and social problems? People do not
hesitate to say that modem technology (science) is responsible for
moral degradation of our society. Medical advances that prolong
life, for example, may surpass our ability for elderly or an
honourable life for them. Technical advances have often been
portrayed as routes to heaven or hell—a source of deliverance of
damnation.
Every new factor, whether it is a creed or a machine, disturbs an old
adjustment. The disturbance created by mechanism was so great
that it seemed the enemy of culture. The wealth-bringing
technology brought also ugliness, shoddiness, and haste
standardisation. It brought new hazards, new diseases and fatigue.
That was not the fault of the technology (machines). It was due to
the ruthlessness and greed of those who controlled these great
inventions. But human values started reasserting themselves
against all types of exploitation (economic, ecological or social).

Though technology is an important factor of change, it does not

mean that technological change alone can produce social changes of
all types. Nor technological change always a necessary condition for
other social changes. It may be that certain technological conditions
are necessary before other factors can produce certain changes, but
these need not precipitate social change. For instance, it required no
change in technology to bring about a democratic society in India.
Moreover, culture in turn seeks to direct technology to its own ends.
Man may be master as well as the slave of the machine. Man is a
critic as well as a creature of circumstances.