Chapter Two: Theories of Social Change

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, and Durkheim etc.) and theories of social revolution (Marx). Among the
general theoretical explanations offered for understanding social change are geographical,
biological, economic and cultural.

Theories of social change can be divided into two groups :( 1) Theories relating to the
direction of social change such as 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 emphasizing exogamous factors such as economic,
cultural or historical.

1. Evolutionary Theory

Despite the wide variety in the possible directions change may take, various generalizations
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.

Bask 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.

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 civilization 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 them.

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. Spencer’s
views can be categorized 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 recognizes 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:

Evolutionary scheme (gradual and continuous development in stages) of any kind fell under
both theoretical and empirical attack in the last century. It was criticized heavily on many
grounds but mainly for its sweeping or over-generalization 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 generalization

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 institu -
tions and also the mechanisms and processes of change through which the transition from
one stage to another was effected.

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 understanding
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 oscillates 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
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.

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 function -
alism 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. 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.

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. 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. 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 communication 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 Worsly (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.