The Nature and Scope of Social Change

It has been long recognized as a fact that the most striking characteristic of the world we live in is CHANGE – constant, accelerating and ubiquitous! Change is a fact of life. Everything is subject to change over time, like the cycle of life and death, of war and peace, of rise and fall, of shifting forms and structures. As the saying goes, “Nothing is permanent except change.”

Social change refers to basic alterations, over time, in the behaviour patterns, culture, and structure of society (Light 1985). Clearly, not all changes are social changes. The physical changes in an individual during his/her different developmental stages and tasks which may have profound effects on the individual are not considered as social change. On the other hand, the shift from a dictatorial to a democratic form of government denotes social change for it creates changes in the society’s patterns of interactions, ways of life and institutional structure. Similarly, scientific inventions could constitute social change only when such inventions bring about alterations in a society’s patterns of daily interactions and relationships and affect the institutions and structure of the society.

Social change is a general term which refers to change in the nature, the social institutions, the social behaviour or the social relations of a society or community of people. The restructuring of the Philippine society from an agricultural to an industrial society constitutes social change. Similarly, the increasing transformation of the American society from an industrial society to an information society due to the advent of the computer revolution constitutes social change.

Social change refers also to acts of advocacy for the cause of changing society in a positive way. Advocacy for human rights, justice, equality and democracy, as well as social movements and cause-oriented groups for liberation and eradication of poverty, which could bring about institutional changes to make the society more humane and a better place to live in, constitute social change.

As a term, social change is used in the study of history, economies and politics, and includes topics such as the success or failure of different political systems, globalization, democratization, development and economic growth. The term can encompass concepts as broad as revolution and paradigm shift, to narrow changes such as a particular cause within small town governments. Changes in forms of government, the rise and fall of empires, changes in the religions systems and the paradigm shift from a national economy to a global economy constitute social change. Similarly, an ordinance in a tiny municipality which could affect the behaviour patterns of its constituents constitutes social change.

Social change could be:

  • Slow, gradual, incremental, and evolutionary; in this it might be barely noticeable.
  • Fast, radical, sudden and revolutionary; it might even take people by surprise.
  • Wide in scope, affecting all people in a society
  • Limited in scope, affecting only a small number of people.
Four Major Theories of Social Change

Sociologists study contemporary social changes not merely to monitor such changes but to gain a better understanding of this social phenomenon. They are particularly interested in why and how such transformations occur and what their consequences are. They want to find out the recurring patterns which underline the general phenomenon of social change – its causes, effects, sources, and directions. Different perspectives and theories have been advanced to explain social change, but no single perspective can adequately explain its causes, impact, and future trends.

There are four major theoretical perspectives which give us deeper insights into and better understanding of social change:

1. The Evolutionary Theory

The evolutionary theorists explain how one social form evolves into another. They maintain that society progresses from a simple beginning to a more complex form; from homogeneity to heterogeneity; from archaic to a civilized, from primitive to modern; from rural to urban. This, they believe, is the inevitable direction in the evolution of society. The classical evolutionary theorists include Emile Durkheim and Herbert Spencer, who maintain a unilinear evolution for all societies. On the other hand, the modern evolutionists, Leslie White, Julian Steward and Gerhard Lenski argue that evolution is multilinear, that is, societies may follow different routes of development.

Emile Durkheim has proposed that simple societies progress to complex ones by the action of social forces such as increase in population, division of labor and their type of solidarity or cohesion.

Simple societies have a relatively homogenous culture, undifferentiated structure and minimal division of labor. People share a common set of values, beliefs, customs, folkways and mores which provide the chief source of solidarity among the members of the society. Durkheim calls this moral cohesion “mechanical solidarity”. But as population grows, division of labor and specialization is needed for the efficient use of society’s resources. Society becomes more fragmented and differentiated into specialized units and social strata. More formal means to hold society together are developed such as a central government and legal institutions. Durkheim calls this cohesion “organic solidarity”.

Herbert Spencer is a social evolutionist who views societies as social organisms involved in a struggle for existence in a world of competition and scarcity. He maintains that only the “fittest” societies survive and prevail because they have features or characteristics that make them more superior and more advanced than the others. All other social forms are eliminated because they are unfit or they lack those superior characteristics necessary for survival.

2. The Cyclical Theory

This theory posits that every society undergoes a phenomenon of cyclical change, a pattern of subsequent and recurring phases of growth and decline. It argues that every society has a natural life cycle: death, followed by the birth of some new social order. It maintains that events and stages of society and history are repeating themselves in a continual series of waves, rising and falling, rising again and falling again. The proponents of this idea include Oswald Spengler (1928) and Arnold Toynbee (1946). Vilfredo Pareto (1916) and Nikolai Danilewski (1895)

Nikolai Danilewski, a Russian philosopher, has noted that the Egyptian, Chinese, Persian, Greek, Roman, German and Slav civilizations, among others, have had a life cycle or growth and decline, or its Golden Age and Era of Decay.

Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian sociologist and economist, has created the first social cycle theory in sociology in his Trattato Di Sociologia Generale (1916). He centers his theory on the concept of elite social class, which he divides into cunning ‘foxes’ and violent ‘lions’. In his view of society, the power constantly passes from ‘foxes’ to ‘lions,’ and vice versa.

The social cycle theory was developed by Pitirim A. Sorokin in his Social and Cultural Dynamics. He classifies societies according to their ‘cultural mentality’ which can be ideational (reality as spiritual), sensate (reality in material), or idealistic (a synthesis of the two). He has interpreted the contemporary West as sensate civilization dedicated to technological progress and prophesized its fall into decadence and the emergence of a new ideational or idealistic era.

Following the social cycle theory of Pareto, Oswald Spengler has argued that all cultures are destined to follow a course of growth and decay in much the same way as do individuals. In his widely read book, ‘The Decline of the West’, Spengler has prophesized that the Western society and culture, has reached its pinnacle of civilization, and is on the point of decline. American society has reached its stage of maturity and it has become less flexible, more materialistic and more prone to decay in the form of war and social disintegration.

Arnold Toynbee, a British historian has offered a more optimistic cyclical theory of change. He has argued that the measure of a civilization’s success is found in its responses to specific challenges posed by its physical and social environment. All civilizations, in his view, rise and fall according to their ability to meet these challenges.

3. The Equilibrium Theory

The equilibrium theory views society as tending toward a state of stability or balance. Thus, when sudden changes cause disruptions, those disruptions are only temporary. Society’s institutions will eventually adapt, achieving a new stability. For instance, consider the many strong typhoons that brought havoc to the Bicol Region and many other parts of the Philippines. Consider the freak floods and mud flow that killed hundreds of people and buried houses and buildings in Leyte a year ago. There was chaos and the social order was disrupted. The survivors were disoriented and appeared helpless in the face of the tragedy. But in time, the hapless victims slowly recovered and began to integrate their shattered lives together in a more or less similar fashion. Some kind of social order has established a new equilibrium, or a state of balance has been attained.

4. Conflict Theory

The most influential proponent of the conflict theory is Karl Marx. Marx argues that conflict is the law which civilization has followed to the present day. According to Marx, without conflict, there is no progress. Marx polarizes society into two opposing social classes: the exploiters (bourgeoisie) and the exploited (the proletariat or the workers). He has predicted the revolution of the proletariat and the inevitable downfall of the bourgeoisie in the capitalist system. This would eventually create a new society – a classless society, eliminating the conflict.