1|Page Fayaz A.

Soomro

NATIONAL OFFICER’S ACADEMY (NOA)

SOCIOLOGY, Lecture No. 6

Social & Cultural Change

Chapter Outline Social and Cultural Change and Social Policy:

Definitions:

1. The meaning of the term “Social Change” can be better understood if we will discuss few
definitions formulated by the eminent sociologists. Some of the important definitions are
stated below.
2. Kingsley Davis, “By Social change is meant only such alterations as occur in social
organizations, that is, structure and functions of society.”
3. Maclver and Page, “Social change refers to a process responsive to many types of changes, to
changes in man-made conditions of life” to changes in the attitude and beliefs of men and to
changes that go beyond the human control to the biological and physical nature of things.
4. Lundberg, “Social change refers to any modifications in the established patterns of inter-
human relationship and standard of conduct.”
5. H.T. Mazumdar, “Social change may be defined as a new fashion or mode, either modifying
or replacing the old, in the life of people or in the operation of society.”
6. Morris Ginsberg, “By social change I understand a change in social structure, i.e. the size of
a society, the composition or balance of its parts or the type of its organisation.”
7. Gillin and Gillin, “Social changes are variations from the accepted modes of life; whether
due to alternation in geographical conditions, in cultural equipments, composition of the
population or ideologies whether brought about by diffusion or inventions within the group.
8. Alvin Toffler, “Change is the process through which future invades our life.”
9. M.E. Jones, “Social change is a term used to describe variations in, or modifications of, any
aspect of social process, social patterns, social interaction or social organisations.”

From the above definitions it may be concluded that social change is:

(i) A process.
(ii) It is a change in social organisation, that is the structure and functions of society.
(iii) Social change means human change, which takes place in the life patterns of the people.
Basically it refers to the change in social relationship.
(iv) It refers to all historical variations in human societies. It means changes in all fundamental
relations of man to man. Which includes changes in political institutions, class structure,
economic systems, mores and modes of living.

From the analysis of the above definitions we come to know that the phenomenon of social change is
not simple but complex. It is very vast and a complicated process. It is a process in which we always
face problems in its conditions, forms, limitations, direction, sources, causes as well as
consequences. But it would be worthwhile to analyse the nature of social change for clear
understanding. The following natures of social change are discussed below:-

Social change may refer to the notion of social progress or sociocultural evolution or paradigmatic
change or social revolution or social movements. change occurs when:
2|Page Fayaz A. Soomro

i. Socio-cultural evolution: The idea that society moves forward by looking from different
perspectives and arguing a certain point of view.

ii. Paradigmatic: When society shifts from one point of view or way of thinking to another (eg.
Feudalism to capitalism).

iii. Social revolution: In order to change the foundation of a society, a large uprising must occur.

iv. Social movement: When the “people” within a society begin to advocate change.

TOP 10 CAUSES OF GLOBAL SOCIAL CHANGE

The causes of social change below affect or characterize every aspect of society across the
world. On a macro scale, they shape all of our major social institutions (economics, politics,
religion, family, education, science/technology, military, legal system, and so on. On a micro scale,
they shape our values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. In sum, they influence our ways of life.

1. Technological and Economic Changes

 Agricultural advancements: Examples include irrigation, the plow, cotton gin. Lead to
surplus food, which lead to population growth and urbanization. People were able to work
outside of the farm.
 Industrialization: The process of moving from an agrarian based economy in which the
primary product is food to an industrial or post industrial economy in which the primary
product is goods, services and information
 Smaller percentage of workforce employed in agriculture
 Increased division of labor, specialization of occupations
 Increase in education of workforce
 Increase in economic organizations (businesses)
 Stronger link between government and economy – interdependent
 Technological change – new goods and services produced and new occupations result;
control of environment and the need to do so.
 Geographical mobility
 Occupational mobility
 Population change:

All of the major causes of global social change below are tied to changes in technology and
economics.

2. Modernization: The process of moving from an agrarian to industrial society

Characteristics of modern societies

 Larger role of government in society and bureaucracy to run governments

 Large, formal organizations and division of labor based on specialization of skills and
abilities into occupations. Bureaucracy plays in again here.
 Forming of social institutions to regulate behavior.
 Laws and sanctions to regulate behavior.
3|Page Fayaz A. Soomro

 Control over and management of environmental resources: oil, water, land, animals, etc...
The ability to mass produce food, energy, etc...
 Larger role of science in society to produce knowledge to advance society. Larger role of
education and universities.
 Improved quality of life – higher per capita GDP, ability to buy good and services, more
recreational time, better public health, housing
 Self-efficacy
 Ability to adapt, expect, and desire continuous change. Example: change of governments;
replacing goods and services such as cars, phone service, marriages; change in occupations
and careers.

3. Urbanization: When large populations live in urban areas rather than rural areas

Usually results from economic opportunities: either people move to a city for jobs, or rural areas
become the sites of large businesses which leads to population growth.

75% of the US population lives in urban areas. 43% if world population lives in urban areas.

Cities offer social benefits as well as economic benefits: transportation, schools, diffusion of new
products and services, health care, cultural resources

Characteristics of urban populations:

· More diversity
· Independence
· Weaker social attachments – higher crime
· Secularization
· Mass communication systems

If urbanization occurs to fast, infrastructure cannot support population (transportation, public health
issues, housing, schools, emergency services, jobs). This can result in poverty and class
conflict. Class conflict and poverty may also result if large urban areas experience loss of jobs.

4. Bureaucratization: Process by which most formal organizations in a society (businesses,

government, non-profits) run their organizations via the use of extreme rational and impersonal
thinking, an extreme division of labor, and record keeping

All tasks and functions broken down into small parts which become positions in the organizational
hierarchy. Roles attached to positions. Pay and benefits attached to positions not persons.

People can rotate in and out of positions but organization survives with little change.

Although bureaucratization allows us to be highly efficient and effective and produce surpluses of
goods and services, it also can lead to extreme inefficiencies:

 People in the organization become machine like – just performing the specific aspects of
their role; no more, no less. People interactions with the organizations become machine like
– example, voice systems.
4|Page Fayaz A. Soomro

 Wasting of workforce skills

 Inefficient transactions – have to speak to 10 different people before you get to the right
person.
 Mass amounts of paperwork –jobs becomes largely processing paperwork.
 Miscommunication
 Power is held by a few at the top of the hierarchy which can become problematic if they seek
to protect their individual power in the organization. Bureaucrats.
 Temptation to cheat – corporate crimes. Often because of a lack of checks and balances
which gets lost in the maze of offices, departments, positions, supervisors, managers,
administrators, etc… or because of extreme power/position in the organization and ability to
exploit it.
 Goal of departments becomes to survive in the organization and protect their own resources,
rather than work together to provide a product.

5. Conflict and Competition

 Examples: War: due to religion, ethinic tensions, competition for resources

 Gender and Women’s Movement: equal pay, property: Today; day
care, ocupational segregation
 Race and Civil Rights Movement: collective political power, ownership of production: Today
– prejudice. % who will vote for black candidate. Chris Rock.
 Class: Unions – minimum wage, 40 hour work week, overtime. Today -- health insurance,
education vouchers
 Positive Outcomes: solidarity, safety valve, social change, “welfare enhancing”
 Negative Outcomes: inequality, violence

6. Political and Legal Power

a) Elected officials:

Redistribution of wealth: income and property taxes. Today: Sales tax, tax “relief”

Pass laws: affirmative action, ability to sue insurance companies, increase minimum wage (leads to
change in unemployment, part-time employment, health insurance premiums and coverage)

b) Unelected officials

Corporate power (jobs, goods and services and cost of, culture, donations to political campaigns
Interlocking directorates, inner circle/power elite

7. Ideology

a) Religious beliefs.

Rise of capitalism in U.S. due to religious beliefs and Protestant work ethic.

Religious beliefs sometimes lead to revolution and civil wars which lead to new countries.
5|Page Fayaz A. Soomro

b) Gender: names, jobs, welfare

c) Ideology often legitimizes inequality. (religion legitimizes gender and sexual inequality.

b) Meritocracy legitimizes class inequality. For example, Americans tend not to problematize social
class due to idea of meritocracy and institutionalization of meritocracy.

8. Diffusion: Rate at which populations adopt new goods and services.

Much of the material in this chapter can be applied to marketing (celebrity drink milk campaigns),
public health (birth control in less developed countries)

9. Acculturation

Examples: Asian Americans, American Indians (Lumbee vs. Cherokee)

Can prevent social change by preventing acculturation – example, China and the Cultural
Revolution; Afghanistan, Iraq

10. Evaluation: Evolution is the biological model for the history of life on Earth. While some
consider evolution to be equivalent to atheism, Bio Logos sees evolution as a description of how
God created all life. Evolution refers to descent with modification.

How Change can occur?

While technology, population, environment factors, and racial inequality can prompt social change,
only when members of a society organize into social movements does true social change occur. The
phrase social movements refers to collective activities designed to bring about or resist primary
changes in an existing society or group.

Wherever they occur, social movements can dramatically shape the direction of society. When
individuals and groups of people—civil rights activists and other visionaries, for instance—
transcend traditional bounds, they may bring about major shifts in social policy and structures. Even
when they prove initially unsuccessful, social movements do affect public opinion.

There are four main characteristics of social change (Macionis 1996):

1. It happens everywhere, but the rate of change varies from place to place. For example,
the United States would experience faster change, than a third world country that has limited
access to technology and information.

2. Social change is sometimes intentional but often unplanned.

For example, when the airplane was invented people knew that this would increase and
speed travel. However, it was probably not realised how this invention would affect society
in the future. Families are spread through out the country, because it is easier to return for
visits. Companies are able to expand worldwide thanks to air travel. The numerous crashes
and deaths related to airplanes was not predicted either.

3. Social change often generates controversy.

6|Page Fayaz A. Soomro

For example, the move over the recent years to accept homosexual rights has caused
controversy involving the military, religion, and society overall.

4. Some changes matter more than others do.

For example, the invention of personal computers was more important than Cabbage Patch
dolls.

Important 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.

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.

 Darwinian Theory of biological evolution: 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.
 Anthropologists made attempt to study some primitive societies
 LH Morgan: three basic stages in the process
1. Savagery
2. Barbarism
3. Civilization
 August Comte
1. Theological stage
2. Metaphysical stage
3. Positivism stage

All these assumptions can be summarised as under:

1. That change is inevitable and natural.
2. That change is gradual and continuous.
7|Page Fayaz A. Soomro

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.

Types of Evolutionary Theory:

There are three main types of evolutionary theory:

(1) Theory of Unilinear Evolution:

Change unilinear towards civilization: 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 uniliner 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.

2) Universal Theory of Evolution:

not necessary but culture of man decides: 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 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.

3) Multilinear Theory of Evolution:

8|Page Fayaz A. Soomro

Diversity or number of lines:- 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.

Criticism of Evolutionary Theory:

1. The biological evolution, from which the main ideas of social evolution were borrowed,
provided somewhat clumsy and unsatisfactory answers.
2. Such explanations came under attack for lack of evidence.
3. Evolutionary scales were also questioned from a somewhat different, but more empirical
source.
4. 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 effected.
5. 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.
6. 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.

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 understanding 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.

9|Page Fayaz A. Soomro

(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.

Bask Assumptions And Distinctive Features Of The Evolutionary Chang:

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.
10 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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.
11 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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
evolutionary 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.
12 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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.
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.
13 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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 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 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.
14 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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 contem-
porary European and American cultures in the last stage of disintegration of sensate culture, and
argues that only way out of our ‘crisis’ is a new synthesis of faith and sensation. There is no other
possibility.

In Sorokin’s analysis of cultures, we find the seeds of both the theories—cyclical and linear change.
In his view, culture may proceed in a given direction for a time and thus appear to conform to a
linear formula. But, eventually, as a result of forces that are inherent in the culture itself, there will
be shift of direction and a new period of development will be ushered in. This new trend may be
linear, perhaps it is oscillating or it may conform to some particular type of curve.

Vilfredo Pareto’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.
15 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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
16 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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 intercon-
nections. 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
17 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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 prole-
tarian 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
18 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

(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.
19 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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 agricultural technology, ranging from the
iron-tipped plow to the tractor technology and the three-crop rotation system made possible the
20 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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 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.
21 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

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 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.

Culture change:

Society strives its continuity and existence according to the environmental conditions. People have
been descending down from generations to generations with the addition of new ideas and objects.
This dynamic process of society enhances culture with refreshment and for every generation a new
culture than for the previous. A stagnant society is dead but there is none today how so it may be
primitive. Technological development and social changes in the form of "Evolution" and "Progress"
of any rate exist there as the adjustment factors change them according to the environmental
conditions. Hence the societies and cultures are undergoing changes with continued process.
22 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

Culture change is a term used in public policy making that emphasizes the influence of
cultural capital on individual and community behavior. It has been sometimes called repositioning
of culture, which means the reconstruction of the cultural concept of a society.

Definitions of cultural change:

1. Horton and Hunt:- Changes in the culture of society is called cultural change.
2. Kingsley and Davis:- Cultural changes embarrasses occurring in any branch of culture
including art, science, technology, philosophy etc. as well as changes in the forms and rules
of social organization.
3. David Dressler and Donald Ceans:- It is the modification or discontinuance of existing
"tired" and "tested" procedures transmitted to us from the culture of the past, as well as
introduction of new procedures.

Causes of Cultural Changes:

David Dressier and Donald Carns have made the following observations with regard to the causes of
cultural changes:

1. Sometimes members of a society are often confronted by customs that differ from those
which they have learnt to accept. In such a situation they adopt some of the new customs,
reject others, and follow modified versions of still others. This might be called cultural
eclecticism.
2. New customs and practices are likely to be more readily adopted under two conditions
(i) If they represent what is viewed as socially desirable and useful and
(ii) If they do not clash with re-existed and still valued customs and practices.
3. Changes in culture are always super imposed on existing culture especially during
cultural contact.
4. All the cultural changes are not equally important. Some changes are introduced to
culture because they are considered necessary for human survival. Some other changes are
accepted in order to satisfy socially acquired needs not essential for survival.
5. It is a fact of common observation that crisis tends to produce or accelerate cultural
changes. If the changes are accepted once due to the crisis, they tend to persist. For example,
women were included in military during the Second World War, and even now they continue
to be there.
6. Cultural change is cumulative in its total effect. Much is added and little is lost. It’s growth
is like the growth of a tree that ever expands but only loses it leaves, Sometimes its limbs from
time to time, as long as it survives.
7. Cultural change leads to chain reaction, whenever a change is incorporated into the
culture and becomes defined as a ‘social necessity’, new needs emerge, generating the desire for
still further changes to complement or supplement the original change.

David Dressier and Donald Carns have made the following observations with regard to the causes of
cultural changes:

i. Sometimes members of a society are often confronted by customs that differ from those
which they have learnt to accept. In such a situation they adopt some of the new customs,
reject others, and follow modified versions of still others. This might be called cultural
eclecticism.
ii. New customs and practices are likely to be more readily adopted under two conditions
23 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

 If they represent what is viewed as socially desirable and useful

 If they do not clash with re-existed and still valued customs and practices

iii. Changes in culture are always super imposed on existing culture especially during cultural
contact.
iv. All the cultural changes are not equally important. Some changes are introduced to culture
because they are considered necessary for human survival. Some other changes are accepted
in order to satisfy socially acquired needs not essential for survival
v. It is a fact of common observation that crisis tends to produce or accelerate cultural changes.
If the changes are accepted once due to the crisis, they tend to persist. For example, women
were included in military during the Second World War, and even now they continue to be
there.
vi. Cultural change is cumulative in its total effect. Much is added and little is lost. It’s growth is
like the growth of a tree that ever expands but only loses it leaves, Sometimes its limbs from
time to time, as long as it survives
vii. Cultural change leads to chain reaction, whenever a change is incorporated into the culture
and becomes defined as a ‘social necessity’, new needs emerge, generating the desire for still
further changes to complement or supplement the original change.

Nature of cultural change

 It is the nature of culture which directs the social change\
 There are cultures around the world which encourage social change in technology, others in
biological factors of the individuals.
 The western culture directs social change towards industrialization and technological changes.
 Our culture encourages our activities towards a new phase of life and that is developing stage
of agriculture, industry and education.

Resistance to cultural change

i. cultural lag: one aspect (specially technological) of culture goes a head of the others (specially
social) due to fast innovation in the formers and thus the later remains unadjusted
ii. Economic factors:
iii. Isolation
iv. Punishment or discouragement
v. Difficulty in learning

Difference between Social and Cultural Change!

There is a great confusion about social and cultural change. Some early textbook writers have made
distinction between social change and cultural change, while others have considered these two terms
as one and the same thing. Such writers have used these two terms synonymously. For the writers
like Gillin and Gillin (1954) and Dawson and Gettys (1948) there is no difference between social
and cultural change.

According to Dawson and Gettys, “cultural change is social change, since all culture is social in its
origin, meaning and usage”. Similarly, Gillin and Gillin wrote: “Social changes as variations from
the accepted modes of life, whether due to alterations in geographic conditions, in cultural
24 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

equipment, composition of population, or ideologies.” For these writers, social change is a part of
cultural change.

Cultural change is more broader than social change which envelops social change also in its fold.
For them, society is the product of culture. “Culture tends to give direction and momentum to social
change and to set limits beyond which social change may not go” (Dawson and Gettys, 1048).

Really speaking, both types of changes have as much difference as it exists between society and
culture. Sociologists use these terms (society and culture) to convey different meaning and sense.
Clarifying the difference MacIver and Page (1959) writes: “Social change is a distinct thing from
cultural or civilization change…. cultural change includes change in ideology, administrative
system, technology etc.” Cultural change indicates changes in the accepted mode of life, habit
patterns, and the life-style.

These changes may include such things as the invention of the automobile, TV, changing concepts
of property and morality, new forms of music, art, or dance or the trends of sex equality. For Davis
(1949), “social change is only a part of a broader category of change called ‘cultural change’ cultural
change refers to all changes occurring in any branch of culture including art, science, technology,
philosophy etc., as well as changes in the forms and rules of social organisations”.

In a nutshell, it may be said that social change refers specifically to alterations in social relationships
among people in groups, whereas cultural change refers to change in material and non-material
cultural elements both.

Social change refers to the changes in the social structure (status and role of persons), social
institutions and overall social relationships that help in the making up a society. It involves
modifications in the ways in which people make a living, rear a family, educate their children,
govern themselves, and worship the deity.

Some social changes may include changes in the age distribution, average educational level or birth
rate of a population, family relationships (husband-wife, parents-child), caste and class structure, and
neighbourhood relationships due to the shift of people from village to city, folkways and mores etc.

To conclude, it may be said that social change and cultural change are inextricably linked. It is very
difficult to draw a line of demarcation between the two. At certain places both concepts overlap. The
trend toward sex equality involves a changing set of cultural norms concerning male-female roles,
and some changing relationships as well.

Nearly all important changes involve both social and cultural aspects. As such, the two terms are
often used interchangeably. The difference between social and cultural change is largely theoretical.
Most sociologists use them interchangeably or combine the two under the head ‘social change’.

Sources of Cultural Change:-

Discovery:

Discovery is defined as "the process by which something is learned or reinterpreted". Discovery

influences change by causing people to learn new things which may change their viewpoints, or
change their routine to better themselves based off of the new information found through
discovery.For example, when early explorers began to explore the ocean, they discovered that the
25 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

Earth wasn't flat, but rather was round. This lead to new maps being printed, as well as new
waterways and trade-routes developing due to new exploration under the idea that there was no "end
of the Earth" to fall off of.

IInvention:

Invention is "the creation of something new from previously existing items or processes". Invention
changes society by providing it with new items and ideas which continue to evolve into easier, more
efficient processes. For example, when the airplane was invented, it lead to faster transportation, and
space exploration. Inventions serve as indicators as to how fast a society will change due to the
fact that the ore inventions existing, then the more inventions can be developed from THOSE
inventions, and so forth.

Diffusion:

Diffusion is defined as “the process by which one culture or society borrows from another culture or
society”. Diffusion is widely influenced by the contact that one society has with another; the more
interaction societies have, the easier their cultures will begin to bleed together. Of course, an element
from one culture has to blend well with the life and activities of another before it is adopted.
Diffusion has occurred within America several times, such as when the English settlers developed
new planting and harvesting methods from the Native Americans; the Native American’s culture
provided the settlers with a means of survival, and therefore the settlers easily adopted their culture.

Assimilation

The term 'assimilation' again is in general use, being applied most often to the process whereby large
numbers of migrants from Europe were absorbed into the American population during the 19th and
the early part of the 20th century. The assimilation of immigrants was a dramatic and highly visible
set of events and illustrates the process well. There are other types of assimilation, however, and
there are aspects of the assimilation of European migrants that might be put in propositional form.
First, assimilation is a two-way process. Second, assimilation of groups as well as individuals takes
place. Third some assimilation probably occurs in all lasting interpersonal situations. Fourth,
assimilation is often incomplete and creates adjustment problems for individuals. And, fifth,
assimilation does not proceed equally rapidly and equally effectively in all inter-group situations.
Definitions:
1. According to Young and Mack, Assimilation is the fusion or blending of two previously
distinct groups into one.
2. For Bogardus Assimilation is the social process whereby attitudes of many persons are united
and thus develop into a united group.
3. Biesanz describes Assimilation is the social process whereby individuals or groups come to
share the same sentiments and goals.
4. For Ogburh and Nimkoff; Assimilation is the process whereby individuals or groups once
dissimilar become similar and identified in their interest and outlook.

Assimilation is a slow and a gradual process. It takes time. For example, immigrants take time to get
assimilated with majority group. Assimilation is concerned with the absorption and incorporation of
the culture by another.

Acculturation:
26 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

Definition: cultural modification of an individual, group, or people by adapting to or borrowing

traits from another culture; also : a merging of cultures as a result of prolonged contact. 2 : the
process by which a human being acquires the culture of a particular society from infancy.

Acculturation is a process in which members of one cultural group adopt the beliefs and behaviors of
another group. Although acculturation is usually in the direction of a minority group adopting habits
and language patterns of the dominant group, acculturation can be reciprocal—that is, the dominant
group also adopts patterns typical of the minority group. Acculturation may be evidenced by changes
in language preference, adoption of common attitudes and values, membership in common social
groups and institutions, and loss of separate political or ethnic identification.

Studies on acculturation have routinely found a correlation between a person’s socioeconomic status
and the level of acculturation one has experienced. A highly educated and high-income member of a
minority group in the United States is likely to have experienced more acculturation than a person
from that same minority group with less education and income.

Measuring Acculturation

How do social scientists assess acculturation? They can survey members of a particular cultural
group about the background of their parents, their upbringing as children and their attitudes about
family, to name a few. They may also ask the survey respondents about the cultural background of
the people with whom they attended school, socialized and worked.

“The most comprehensive measure of acculturation for use in health services and epidemiological
research in Mexican-American populations was developed by Hazuda et al. (1988),” according to
Rice University in Houston. “Hazuda's scales are based on a theoretical model that views
acculturation as a multi-dimensional process involving language, cultural beliefs and values and
‘structural assimilation’—the integration of members of the minority group into the social structure
of the majority group.”

Hazuda and colleagues asked survey respondents a lengthy list of questions, including the following:

1. Throughout your adult life, have your neighbors been mostly Mexican American, mostly
Anglo, or about equal numbers of each?
2. Throughout your adult life, have your close, personal friends been mostly Mexican
American, mostly Anglo, or about equal numbers of each?
3. (Are the people with whom you work closely on the job/Are the people with whom you work
closely on your last job) mostly Mexican American, mostly Anglo, or about equal numbers
of each?

Each answer received a score ranging from 3 to 9 points. Survey respondents who mostly had Anglo,
or white, friends, coworkers and neighbors would be deemed the most acculturated, while those who
reported having mostly Mexican American friends, coworkers and neighbors would be deemed the
least acculturated.

**************
Social and Cultural Change

Social change refers to any significant alteration over time in behavior patterns and cultural
values and norms. By “significant” alteration, sociologists mean changes
27 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

yielding profound social consequences.

Social change refers to an alteration in the social order of a society. Social change may be
driven by cultural, religious, economic, scientific or technological forces. More generally,
social change may include changes in nature, social institutions, social behaviours or social
relations.

Social change in sociology the alteration within the social structure, characterized by changes
in cultural symbols, rules of behaviour, social organizations, or value systems.

How Change can occur?

While technology, population, environment factors, and racial inequality can prompt social
change, only when members of a society organize into social movements does true social
change occur. The phrase social movements refers to collective activities designed to bring
about or resist primary changes in an existing society or group.
Wherever they occur, social movements can dramatically shape the direction of society. When
individuals and groups of people—civil rights activists and other visionaries, for instance—
transcend traditional bounds, they may bring about major shifts in social policy and structures.
Even when they prove initially unsuccessful, social movements do affect public opinion.

Models of Social Change

Evolutionary theory

According to evolutionary theory, society moves in specific directions. Therefore, early

social evolutionists saw society as progressing to higher and higher levels. As a result, they
concluded that their own cultural attitudes and behaviors were more advanced than those of
earlier societies.
Identified as the “father of sociology,” Auguste Comte subscribed to social evolution. He saw
human societies as progressing into using scientific methods. Likewise, Emile Durkheim, one
of the founders of functionalism, saw societies as moving from simple to complex social
structures. Herbert Spencer compared society to a living organism with interrelated parts
moving toward a common end. In short, Comte, Durkheim, and Spencer proposed unilinear
evolutionary theories, which maintain that all societies pass through the same sequence of
stages of evolution to reach the same destiny.
Contemporary social evolutionists like Gerhard Lenski, Jr., however, view social change as
multilinear rather than unilinear. Multilinear evolutionary theory holds that change can
occur in several ways and does not inevitably lead in the same direction. Multilinear theorists
observe that human societies have evolved along differing lines.

Functionalist theory

Functionalist sociologists emphasize what maintains society, not what changes it. Although
functionalists may at first appear to have little to say about social change, sociologist Talcott
Parsons holds otherwise. Parsons (1902–1979), a leading functionalist, saw society in its
natural state as being stable and balanced. That is, society naturally moves toward a state
of homeostasis. To Parsons, significant social problems, such as union strikes, represent
28 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

nothing but temporary rifts in the social order. According to his equilibrium theory, changes
in one aspect of society require adjustments in other aspects. When these adjustments do not
occur, equilibrium disappears, threatening social order. Parsons' equilibrium theory
incorporates the evolutionary concept of continuing progress, but the predominant theme is
stability and balance.
Critics argue that functionalists minimize the effects of change because all aspects of society
contribute in some way to society's overall health. They also argue that functionalists ignore
the use of force by society's powerful to maintain an illusion of stability and integration.

Conflict theory

Conflict theorists maintain that, because a society's wealthy and powerful ensure the status
quo in which social practices and institutions favorable to them continue, change plays a vital
role in remedying social inequalities and injustices.
Although Karl Marx accepted the evolutionary argument that societies develop along a
specific direction, he did not agree that each successive stage presents an improvement over
the previous stage. Marx noted that history proceeds in stages in which the rich always exploit
the poor and weak as a class of people. Marx's view of social change is proactive; it does not
rely on people remaining passive in response to exploitation or other problems in material
culture. Instead, it presents tools for individuals wishing to take control and regain their
freedom. Unlike functionalism and its emphasis on stability, Marx holds that conflict is
desirable and needed to initiate social change and rid society of inequality.

Causes of Social Change:

1. Technological and Economic Changes: (Agriculture advancement, industrialization)

2. Modernization: standardizing as towards modern tools (Life Style, Technology)
3. Urbanization: Moving population from ruler areas to urban (Cities) areas.
4. Bureaucratization: Extreme emphasize on rules and regulation, impersonality.
5. Conflict and Competition: War: due to religion, ethnic tensions, competition for resources.
Gender and Women’s Movement: equal pay, property: Today; day care, occupational
segregation.
6. Political and Legal Power: Elected Official (Government) & Unelected Officials
(Corporative Force)
7. Ideology: Religious Belief, Political or Regional Conviction.
8. Diffusion: Spreading the ones cultural to another culture.
9. Acculturation: the process in which a minority is absorbed into the majority and entirely
loses its distinctiveness.

Social order It refers to a set of linked social structures, social institutions and social practices
which conserve, maintain and enforce "normal" ways of relating and behaving.

Social progress is the idea that societies can or do improve in terms of their social, political,
and economic structures.

Sociocultural evolution is an umbrella term for theories of cultural evolution and social
evolution, describing how cultures and societies have changed over time.

Goals of Social Change

29 | P a g e Fayaz A. Soomro

Resistance — action to defend or protect established everyday life from new, outside
oppression and return things to normal.
A society is considered more “free” the more that people are safe from new oppression.
Typically, groups that have thrown off their oppressors or have achieved a certain level of
privilege resist any change that might restrain their freedom. Resistance can therefore be quite
reactionary.

Liberation(Empowerment) — action to overcome on-going, traditional oppression and

achieve the full measure of everyday rights and opportunities promised in the social charter
(“social\ justice”). A society is more “just” the more that every person can obtain the
freedoms that others enjoy.

Democratization(Enfranchisement) — action to spread decision- making power broadly to

everyone affected by those decisions. A society is more “democratic” the more that people
can influence and decide the important issues that affect them without extraordinary effort
(that is, through their daily routine).

Humane-ization— action to ensure that society will defend or protect the rights of everyone
in society, especially those who cannot do so on their own behalf (such as those who are
ignorant, powerless, sick, frail, mentally incompetent, young, or unborn). A society is more
“humane” or “altruistic” the more that every person is protected and supported through the
routine, everyday activities of others (including societal institutions).

Cultural Change

The belief that culture is symbolically coded and can thus is taught from one person to another
means that cultures, although bounded, can change. Cultures are both predisposed to change
and resistant to it. Resistance can come from habit, religion, and the integration and
interdependence of cultural traits.
Cultural change can have many causes, including: the environment, inventions, and contact
with other cultures. Several understandings of how cultures change come from Anthropology.
For instance, in diffusion theory, the form of something moves from one culture to another,
but not its meaning.
Contact between cultures can also result in acculturation. Acculturation has different
meanings, but in this context refers to replacement of the traits of one culture with those of
another.