THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGE

The Evolutionary Theory

The notion of social evolution was taken from the theories of biological evolution.
Spencer propounded an analogy between social and organic growth and between
society and an organization. The theories of social evolution are composed of one or
more of the following principles−change, order, direction, progress and
perfectibility. The principle of change states that the present system is the outcome,
of more or less continuous modification from its original state. Some evolutionists
add to the principles of change the notion that change must have an order.
Other evolutionists combine the principles of change and order with the principle of
direction, thereby suggesting that there is a natural linear order of change in a social
system. The evolutionary process of change implies, that every society goes through
distinctive and successive states of existence and orientation. Comte, for instance,
proposed a directional theory of society. He suggested that a society evolves from a
theological orientation, to a metaphysical orientation to a positivistic orientation.
Durkheim classified societies into simple societies united by similarity of their
members, (what he called mechanical solidarity) and complex societies based on
specialization and functional interdependence of members (what he called organic
solidarity). This also suggests a directional evolutionary pattern.
It has been pointed out that it is sometimes difficult in evolutionary theory, to
differentiate simple direction from progress. The common theme in much of the
evolutionary literature is that society’s progress over time, to a point where they
industrialize and develop in the path and manner of western nations. Extreme
expressions of this position are contained in the notion of perfectibility. Societies
continue to move toward some ideal advanced state of industrialization.
However, the neo-evolutionary theories that have emerged in recent years, are more
tentative than the evolutionary theories of the 19th century and early 20th century.
These neo- evolutionary theorists do not assert that change proceeds along the same
path. They suggest that there is a general trend towards a more elaborate division of
labor. They take on a relativistic view, in that they recognize that different cultures
have different ideas of what constitutes progress. One of the greatest problems of
older theories of evolution was that they too often contained untestable, sometimes
ethnocentric propositions.
Cyclical Theory
The basic premise of the cyclical theories is: cultures and civilizations pass through
stages of change, starting and often ending with the same stage. This passing through
stages is called a cycle. The cycle when completed, repeats itself over and over again.
The ancient civilizations in Greece, China and India for instance, can be explained
by the principle of cycles. Some cyclical theorists are pessimistic in that they think
that decay is inevitable. Oswald Spengler (1945) believed that every society is born,
matures, decays and eventually dies.
The Roman Empire rose to power and then gradually collapsed. The British Empire
grew strong, and then deteriorated. Spengler believed that social change may take
the form of progress or of decay, but that no society lives forever Pareto (1916)
presented in his theory of the circulation of elites, an interpretation of history
according to which social change is brought about, by the struggle between groups
for political power. His theory was inadequate in that it was based on a limited
instance of the circulation of elites in ancient Rome. His conception of political
change ignored the growth of democratic government in modern times
The cyclical theory of social change proposes that societies undergo repetitive
patterns of development, rise, decline, and renewal over time. This perspective, often
influenced by historical and cultural cycles, suggests that societal evolution is
marked by recurring phases. While this theory offers a unique lens for understanding
the cyclical nature of human societies, it prompts us to reflect on the potential
predictability of social patterns. By acknowledging the cyclicality inherent in this
perspective, we gain insights into the rhythm of societal transformations. However,
it is essential to recognize that social change is a complex interplay of various
factors, and the cyclical theory, while valuable, is just one among many lenses
through which we can comprehend the dynamic nature of human societies.
Functionalist Theory
The functionalist theory of social change, a macro-level perspective within
sociology, posits that societies strive for equilibrium and stability. According to
functionalism, social institutions such as family, education, and government play
crucial roles in maintaining this balance by fulfilling manifest (intended and
recognized) and latent (unintended and often unrecognized) functions.
Social change occurs when latent functions become more prominent or when
manifest functions are no longer fulfilled. Functionalists believe in the gradual
evolution of societies, where adaptation to environmental changes is essential for
stability.
Social institutions, viewed as fundamental for social order, may undergo
transformation over time to meet evolving societal needs. The interconnectedness of
different parts of society is emphasized, as changes in one part can have ripple effects
throughout the entire social system.
Émile Durkheim's concept of organic solidarity highlights the interdependence of
individuals in modern, industrial societies, where specialized roles contribute to
overall societal functioning. While functionalism provides insights into societal
stability, critics argue it tends to overlook dysfunctions and inequalities within
societies. Despite criticisms, functionalism remains valuable in understanding the
dynamics of social change and the intricate relationships between different societal
components.
The functionalist theory of social change provides a comprehensive framework for
understanding how societies maintain equilibrium through the interplay of various
social institutions. Emphasizing the gradual evolution of societal structures and the
interconnectedness of different components, functionalism highlights the
adaptability of societies to environmental changes. While manifest and latent
functions play pivotal roles in this theory, critics argue that it may overlook certain
dysfunctions and inequalities within societies. Nonetheless, functionalism remains a
valuable perspective in illuminating the dynamics of social change, particularly in
its focus on stability and order. It is crucial to recognize, however, that alternative
sociological perspectives contribute diverse insights, enriching our comprehension
of the intricate and multifaceted nature of social change.
Conflict Theory
The conflict theory takes the principle of dialectic (opposites) as central to social
life. Conflict theory also has its origins in early sociology, especially in the works of
Marx. Conflict theorists do not assume that societies smoothly evolve to higher or
complex levels. According to this school every pattern of action, belief and
interaction
Social Change tends to generate an opposing reaction. Modern life is full of
examples. The legalization of abortion has provoked the anti-abortion movement.
The feminist movement has stimulated a reaction from men and women. The
liberalization of sexual mores has led to open denunciation. The basic premise is that
one of the outcomes of conflict among groups is social change. The greatest
limitation of this approach is that it lays too much emphasis on conflict, as the most
important factor of change.
In more recent sociological writing, there is yet another perspective of social change
called the ‘development perspective’. The development perspective grew from three
main sources:
i) From the study of economic growth. Economists and to a great extent other social
scientists, view quantitative growth in the economic sphere of life, as an important
indicator of a country’s progress. For example, they point out that a country’s
prosperity can be measured in terms of GNP (Gross National Product) or per capita
income.
ii) From the categorization of all societies into technologically advanced, and less
technologically advanced. Sometimes, the emphasis is on industrialization and
consequently societies that are highly industrialized, are seen to be more developed
than societies which are basically agricultural.
iii) From the comparison of the capitalist countries with the socialist or communist
countries.
Many social scientists have compared the socialist economy and social organization
with Western capitalist economy and organisation. At this juncture we will not
elaborate on this perspective, as you are going to look at it in the next unit.
The development approach to social change, brought into sharp focus, the need for
formulating a broad comparative perspective, which would take into account the
complex and diverse relationships between developing countries, between
technologically advanced countries, and between technologically advanced
countries and developing nations. It can be said from the above discussion of the
various perspective, that no single theory can account for the complexity of social
change