HBSE3-Social-Change.docx
SOCIAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
INTRODUCTION
Change is an integral part of our lives and our existence has been through stages of growth and development from childhood, teenage, adulthood and old age. Likewise at various stages of our lives we attain primary, secondary and tertiary education etc. In similar vein, several changes occur in the society we live. History has witnessed the transformation of human society from preliterate to modern social organizations. Human societies have evolved from primitive hunting and gathering stages to horticultural, agrarian, industrial/modern and contemporary post-modern society. Cultural civilizations, empires, kingdoms and epochs has risen and fallen no doubt, but the nature of human socio-cultural organizations and social interactions equally transforms itself to fit the structural patterns of existing society in every epoch. It is generally opined that change is the only permanent phenomena, and as changes occur in the natural world so does changes occurs in human society. No human society is relatively static for too long as social change is a ubiquitous and inevitable phenomenon; likewise change may occur in all facets of society or selected parts of the social structure. Social change in society may be as a result of the expediency needed in providing solutions to specific social problems faced in a society; or on the other hand, social change in society may bring about accompanying social problems to that society hence the need for a stronger adaptive capacity of human society to social changes and social problems.
This chapter presents the concepts of social change and social problems and introduces the reader to the sociological study of the duo and theoretical perspectives to social change and social problems.
SOCIOLOGICAL ROOTS TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
The origin of sociology as an academic and scientific discipline is the history of the study of social change and social problems in 18th and 19th Century Europe. Western Europe at this period was swept with ravaging social changes and associated social problems occasioned by twin revolutions born out of the Era of Enlightenment: firstly the French Revolution which started in 1789 and the British Industrial Revolution (1750-1850).
The French Revolution of 1789 witnessed intense violence and the bloody terror shook Europe to its core. With the divine rights of Kings been questioned and the decline of the authority of the church and theology as the true source of knowledge and associated rise in application of rationality and empiricism, the aristocracy throughout Europe feared that revolution would spread to their own lands, and intellectuals feared that social order was crumbling in Europe with the pervasive changes and social problems recorded in France. On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century reinforced these concerns. Starting first in Europe and then in the United States, the Industrial Revolution led to many changes, including agricultural revolution (shift from manual to mechanized agriculture), transport revolution (faster forms of transporting raw materials, finished goods and people e.g. rails and trains), industrialization, the rise and growth of cities as people left their farms to live near factories (rapid urbanization) etc. As the cities grew, other social problems manifested as people lived in increasingly poor, crowded, and decrepit conditions, and crime was rampant. Here was additional evidence, if European intellectuals needed it, of the breakdown of social order. With these pervasive social changes and social problems there was an expedient need to provide explanations to the crises of the industrial society coupled with the need to ascertain the basis upon which social order could be maintained within the prevailing chaos that the discipline sociology was born. Sociology therefore according to Okodudu (2010:60) took the late comers advantage to fill the explanatory vacuum of hitherto sciences and the 19th century philosophers (founding fathers of Sociology) who were longing for the past that has been irredeemably gone were thus classified as the philosophers of the Era of Romanticism (Okodudu 2010:35).
SOCIAL CHANGE
Social change as earlier discussed is ubiquitous and inevitable as change is the only permanent phenomenon. According to Defleur et al. (1977 cfAnele 1999) ‘social change is the alterations in the pattern of social organization of specific groups within a society or even of the society itself’. Deducing from the definition above Ekpenyong (1993:190) posits that alterations in the social organization of a group and or society refer to the development of new norms, the modification of role expectations, a shift to new types of sanctions, the development of different criteria for ranking and the introduction and use of new production techniques. Anele (1999) further asserts that a change in any part of the society or social organization affects other parts and the society generally at large. For example, the recent advent of information communication technology in Nigeria has changed virtually the nature of social interaction and pattern of social organization from personal relationship with loved ones far and near over the telephone and internet dating to macro-economic activities such as e-banking, e-commerce, e-education/virtual learning, e-governance etc.
Likewise, Moore (1968 cf Anele 1999:17) defined social change as ‘the significant alteration of social structures (that is of patterns of social action and interaction), including consequences and manifestations of such structures embodied in norms (rules of conduct), values and cultural products and symbols’. It is evident that both of social change and cultural change were emphasized in Moores’ definition. Although changes in the material and non- material contents of a culture also may not be regarded as social changes; however, it is very difficult to separate social changes from cultural change. Because the two are usually interdependent, social change may usually introduce cultural changes, and vice versa hence the hybrid ‘socio-cultural’ (Anele 1999:14).From the foregoing analysis, social change summarily may be seen as the alteration or transformation at large scale level in the social structure, social institutions, social organization and patterns of social behavior in a given society or social system. It can also be seen as the alteration, rearrangement or total replacement of phenomena, activities, values or processes through time in a society in a succession of events. The alteration or rearrangement may involve simple or complex changes in the structure, form or shape of the social phenomena. Sometimes it may mean the complete wiping out of the phenomenon and their total replacement by new forms (Calhoun, et al. 1994). However, it is pertinent to note here that some minor changes that take place in the lives of individuals and small, limited groups may not be regarded as social changes although these kinds of changes may be the manifestations or effects of changes that are taking place at larger scale. This implies that for a change to be social the alterations permeates the entire society or social group and not merely alterations in the lives and behavior of individual member of that society or group, in this regard social change is said to be collective and impressive on the entire society or group.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
Social change has the following characteristics as identified by Idrani (1998) and Anele (1999):
Inevitable: Social change is inevitable and unavoidable as it occurs all the time. Its process may be imperceptible and can be cumulative, i.e., one may not easily perceive the processes of social change, although it is always taking place.
Ubiquitous: Social change is present in every human society. There is no society that is static and unchanging. All societies are susceptible to social change. In other words, social change is a universal phenomenon (it is everywhere and anywhere). It spread both over time and space.
Multi-Leveled: Change occurs both at micro-level and macro-level. The point here is that while social change often refers to noticeable changes in social phenomena, we must not lose sight of the fact that small changes in minor relationships and smaller groups can also be significant especially in a pluralistic society e.g. ethnic unrest.
Contagious: Social change is contagious like infectious diseases. The influence of change in one area or aspect of society can have an impact on other related areas. For example changes in religious beliefs can cause change in the economy, family etc.
Rate: Social change has a rate; it can be rapid (revolutionary) or slow (evolutionary).
Detectable and Measurable: Social change is detectable and measurable. Anele (1999:18-21) provides following detection and measurement parameters: scale (involving the size of the society and degree or magnitude of alteration); brevity (involving length of change e.g. short term changes are easily observable and measured unlike long term changes that are usually measured retrospectively); repetition (changes that repeated frequently are most likely to be identified and measured unlike those occurring sparingly)
THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGE
Social change as earlier mentioned is as old as human society and as human society has changed over time so as social scientists and social philosophers have propounded several explanatory theories to social change in society. Some of these theories would be considered below.
Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionary theory views social change as progress and holds a linear view that tends to see only the most recent societies as having achieved the highest level. Social change is viewed as natural, inevitable, and continuous and moves in a particular direction. Change is also seen as necessary, just as Charles Darwin explains development following on from natural selection.
The concept of evolution in sociological theorizing otherwise known as social evolution is predicated on the assumption that all organic, inorganic and super-organic phenomena were subject to the same natural laws and on the argument that sociology which explains super-organic phenomena had attained a scientific status (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). The concept of evolution was made popular by the natural scientist Charles Darwin who in his ‘Origin of Species’ published 1859 postulated that ‘all life forms including the human race had gradually evolved from lower orders of life as a result of progressive adaptation to the environment through the survival of biological forms best adapted to a competitive struggle’ (Horton and Hunt, 1980 cf. Anele 1999:37). From Darwin’s perspective, the most basic elements of biological evolution are organisms and their environment. In corroborating this point Needham (1931 cf. Afonja and Pearce, 1984:15) defined the evolutionary process as ‘involving primarily the passage from simplicity to complexity, from homogeneity to heterogeneity, which from empirical observation of living creatures and their remains may be deduced, to have occurred and to be occurring’.
The application of the evolutionary approach which is also known as ‘Social Darwinism’ was favored by early sociologists including Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim etc. The evolutionary approach holds that just as changes occur in organisms as they adapt to their environment so does change occurs in human society as manifested in social progress and development. In differentiating between biological and socio-cultural evolution, Kroeber argued that progress is not an attribute of biological evolution and that whereas the process of biological evolution is substitutive, the process of social evolution is additive (Afonja and Pearce, ibid).
For Auguste Comte, human society and civilization progresses through a natural and inevitable course and which forms the basis upon which humans and their society are organized. Comte divided society into traditional and modern societies (Anele 1999). The traditional society is military in orientation characterized with wars and conquests of empires with all social intuitions serving the needs of the military. The modern society on the other hand is characterized by the dominance of the economic system induced by the industrial revolution. Comte’s idea of evolution here is that human society progresses from military (primitive) to modern society. Comte’s traditional or military and modern society dichotomy is synonymous with Durkheim’s and Herbert Spencer’s.
Furthermore, Comte’s evolution of human society was more reflected in his ‘Law of three stages of Human Progress’. According to Comte, human thought, knowledge and society have inevitably moved from three stages which includes theological, metaphysical and positivist stages. The Theological stage which is akin to the military stage saw humans attributing all forms of natural occurrences to supernatural forces such as gods. Emphasis is on imagination and the military institution dominates all forms of social relations. The Metaphysical stage is characterized with abstract reasoning and the use of philosophy and logic in explaining phenomena. Observation has modified imagination to some extent. The final stage which is Positivists or scientific stage is akin to the industrial era with science and its application is utilized as the standard for all explanations. Observations and empiricism is the yardstick for all human endeavors be it economy, industry, health, technology etc.
For Durkheim society moves from traditional to modern society with the mechanic solidarity and organic solidarity respectively accounting for social order. The mechanical solidarity which is characterized by homogeneity of population, culture and structure of social institutions with a very strong ‘collective conscience’ which has a high degree of repression thereby enforcing group integration. However, due to increase in society’s population there was need for structural differentiation and dissimilarities of the parts of society with increased division of labor and this brought about a new form of solidarity known as the organic solidarity based on the inter-dependence of parts and structures of society. The organic solidarity is evident in modern industrial societies. Likewise, the German sociologist, Ferdinand Tonnies while analyzing the evolution of human society traced the development of society from a tradition-based, collective Gemeinschaft community, where folk life and culture persisted, to a freer and less traditional state of Gesellschaft society. For him, society evolved from the former to the later which is akin to the traditional and modern dichotomy. He however in his analyses contrasted the predominant community life of the past with the business life of the present society. This latter stage is marked by rational will and a development to a “civilized” state that is a linear and irreversible process (Tonnies, 1957).
On his part, Herbert Spencer equally divided society into traditional/military or primitive and industrial society with similar characteristics as highlighted above hence he suggests that human society evolves from the former to the later. Spencer in developing his evolutionary theory of fixed stages (1897) postulated his ‘Law of Evolution’ which he argues is a cosmic and natural law which moves all forms from simple, undifferentiated forms to complex differentiated forms and it operates independent of man and his consciousness and applies to all phenomena including man and society, animals and plants (Anele 1999:41). The evolutionary process according to Spencer is initiated by what he called structural differentiation i.e. differentiation of parts/structure and differentiation of functions of institutions of society. He argued that homeostasis or equilibrium is maintained by the mutual dependence of the parts and the changes in parts are mutually determined and the changed functions are mutually dependent (Spencer 1897 cf. Afonja and Pearce, 1984).
Also Karl Marx who is largely known to be conflict theorists contributed to the evolutionary perspective (Anele, 1999:44). According to Karl Marx in his Historical Materialism theory, change is inevitable and every society must inevitably evolve through the following stages: primitive communalism to antiquity or slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism and ultimately scientific communism.
Other theorists such as Tylor, Morgan, Marsh, Maine etc. made monumental contributions to the development of the theory (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). Morgan, in his work Ancient Society (1877 cited in Afonja and Pearce, ibid) posits human society has evolved from savagery, barbarism and civilization.
Closely related to evolutionary accounts of social change are those of geographic determinism. Huntingdon (1924 cf. Afonja and Pearce, ibid) examined the rise and fall of civilisation, locating many of these changes in terms of the geographic differences between societies. The notion of change as environmentally driven can also be found in Steward’s Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multi-linear Evolution (1955). From Steward’s perspective, cultural change results from adaptation to the environment – something he calls “cultural ecology.”
In a nutshell, a review of the evolutionary theory suggests that firstly, the theory is holistic in its analysis as it observes social change in the entire society and not just mere changes in the parts of society. Secondly it perceives social change as gradual, incremental and cumulative and not revolutionary (Ekpenyong 1993; Anele, 1999). Thirdly, change is internally induced and not externally impelled and finally, change is unidirectional or unilineal from traditional to modern, simple to complex, military to industrial, homogenous to heterogeneous etc.
However, the evolutionary theory has been severely criticized for proposing only a unilineal model of change and instead of a multi-linear model. Adherents of the historical particularism school of thought were of the view that every society must not pass through pre-determined stage of development instead the development of every culture and society is predicated on the historical peculiarity of that society. Also, Diffusionists, criticized the evolutionary theory in failing to explain other forms of social change such as externally infused change including cultural borrowing, assimilation and acculturation etc.
Diffusion Theory
Diffusion theory suggests that social change is as a result of diffusion of cultural patterns and practices of other societies which is a function of spread of cultural practices from society to society. According to Linton (1955 cf. Ekpenyong 1993:198) “we are great culture borrowers’’ and likewise, Murdock (1934 cf. Ekpenyong ibid) estimated that about 90 percent of every culture known to history has acquired its element from other people. This implies that change is externally induced and not internally generated as the evolutionists asserts. Diffusion has been defined by Horton and Hunt (1980 cf. Anele 1999) as “the spread of culture traits from group to group”. According to Kroeber (1973 cited in Anele 1999:102) “diffusion is the process, usually but not necessarily gradual, by which elements or systems of culture are spread; by which an invention or a new institution adopted in one place is adopted in neighboring areas, and in some cases, continues to be adopted in adjacent ones, until it may spread over the whole earth”. The diffusion theorists especially those from the USA and Britain proposes that there were a few cultural centers from which inventions radiated to the non-inventive areas through cultural borrowing e.g. Technology Transfer from the West to Africa. For example, Perry and Smith identified Egypt as the source of archaic civilization from where philosophy, mathematics and other ancient arts circulated the world (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). Likewise, the German school with Schmidt, Ratzel and Graeber identified what they called cultural circles from where specific cultural items originated (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). In present modern society, the Western societies of Europe and America are seen as the cultural circles from which modern cultural traits evolved and for the third world countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America to change and develop they must adopt the cultural patterns and traits of the West. The supposed need for the shift from traditionalism and diffusion of modernism in third world countries gave birth to the modernization theory of development and social change.
Diffusion theory however has been equally criticized for its failure to explain independent inventions in several societies and cultural dissimilarities. The question raised was that if such cultural circles or centers exist, then what accounts for specific cultural innovations in specific societies? And secondly what then accounts for differences in cultures world over? In essence, the theory upheld the evolutionary principles which it tends to react against.
Cyclical Theory
The cyclical theory of change holds that civilizations go through cycles of growth and
decay. Each civilization learns from its predecessors. The classical Greek philosophers were the first to utilize this model. Plato spoke of eras of time when initially hopes will blossom on to deteriorate as the era disintegrates. Splenger (1932) had a similar view and for him societies go through periods of ups and downs often described as life cycles. According to him, culture is the living entity of people and culture is housed in the civilization of that era. The pattern is that each culture will arise, develop, ripens, decays and falls never to return. As earlier mentioned, Huntingdon (ibid) examined the rise and fall of civilization in the cyclical manner. Furthermore, Sorokin (1947) suggests that social changes follows a trendless cyclical pattern i.e. like a swinging pendulum, culture moves in one direction and then back to another. According to Sorokin a culture has three distinct systems of truth namely: ideational, idealistic and sensate. Whereas ideational truth comes from God, idealistic comes from both God and the senses, however in the sensate society only sensate truth is valid and valuable.
More recently, in studying cultural phenomena, such as art forms and music, Sorokin (1998) noted how systems fluctuate between times of concern for the public good (which he termed “ideational”) and more selfish (or “sensate”) times, when individual welfare comes first. Whilst Sorokin describes a movement from the ideational of the Middle Ages towards the sensate and then the ideational again, different aspects of society may have different priorities at the same time. In essence this implies that social change can occur at different levels and in different ways within a single society
Functionalist Theory
Functionalism as developed by Emile Durkheim emerged from the evolutionary theory (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). Although Functionalists emphasize what maintains society and not what changes it, they try to understand problems of change processes in the context of a stable system. Proponents see change as slow and societies as having interrelated parts, with cause and effect having a reciprocal impact on one another.
According to the theory, society consists of interdependent parts each of which performs particular functions and helps to maintain the stability of the entire social system which has a tendency to seek equilibrium and balance. Imbalances in the system mean that the system has to adjust to new equilibrium. Social change hence denotes movement from one state of social stability to another for instance traditional societies move from traditional values/kin ties to industrialization with weakened kin ties and individualism. Talcot Parsons (1902-1979), the father of 20th century functionalism developed the social system’s perspective, saw society in its natural state as being stable and balanced i.e. society naturally moves toward a state of homeostasis. He sees the society as a system and institutions of society as sub-systems that perform basic functions for the survival and continuity of the whole. In addressing the problem of change, he postulated the equilibrium theory which asserts that as society move towards attaining equilibrium it must fulfill its functional pre-requisites (which are sets of functions society needs to fulfill for it to survive including: Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, and Latency) as it interacts with both its internal (interactions between sub systems) and external environment thereby forcing it to adapt to the interplay of forces of both environmental factors.
In addressing the question of social change in society Parsons developed the concepts of “Structural Differentiation” and “Moving Equilibrium” (Collins & Makowsky, 1998:217). Following Durkheim, Parsons noted that the cultural system changes along with the social structure; the culture becomes more “upgraded” –more abstract and generalized as societies become more complex and differentiated e.g. from particularistic, local, nature gods in primitive religions (Collins & Makowsky, o.p.cit). He however, noted that differentiation also creates problems; in particular, the more division of labor between the specialized parts, the more pressure there is for integrating the system. Hence, problems necessarily unsettle a state of equilibrium causing “systemic stress” which in turn sets in motion a process to resolve the conflicts/problems. Once such problems are settled the system moves from the original state of equilibrium to another what Talcott Parsons called “Moving Equilibrium”. In this regard, society moves from one stage of equilibrium to another as no society is static for too long. There must be some problems to solve, all of which introduces elements of instability, confusion and crisis which seek solutions to restore the shaky equilibrium and brings the system to a new state of order and tranquility. He further stresses that changes in one aspect of society requires corresponding adjustments in others. In situations when these adjustments do not occur, equilibrium disappears, threatening social order. In essence, the social system moves from one state of equilibrium or homeostasis to another i.e. moving or shifting equilibrium thereby accounting for social change. According to Anele (1999:53) it is imperative to observe that functionalism dichotomizes change into change of the system and change within the system. The former has to deal with basic changes or alterations in the structures of the system as is the case of the French and Industrial revolutions whereas change within the system hardly alters the structure of the society but with incremental or evolutionary change within the sub systems. However, the theory emphasizes changes within the system than otherwise.
From the foregoing analysis it is noteworthy that the functionalist perspective was built on the evolutionary model and its concept of continuous progress through shifting equilibrium, however the dominant theme is stability and balance. In this light, the theory has been accused of only dodging the question as the emphasis was ultimately of stability and equilibrium and not change itself. Likewise, the theory has been criticized for minimizing the effects or functions of change itself since the theory suggests all aspects of society contribute in some way to society’s overall health. Critics also argue that functionalist erroneously ignored the use of force by society’s powerful to maintain an illusion of stability and integration and similarly its inability to explain rapid and revolutionary changes.
Conflict Theory
The conflict theory propounds that change emanates as a result of conflict and class struggles among competing groups in society. These groups can be an economic or political class, gender, racial or ethnic groups all pursuing conflicting group interests in the society. The theory holds that conflict and social change are ubiquitous, normal, constant, and inevitable phenomena in human society as it is a veritable tool in remedying social inequalities and injustice in society.
The conflict theory of change is rooted in the dialectic approach of social and political philosophy. The German philosopher Friedrich G.W Hegel like the classical Greek philosophers sought to explain reality from absolute ideas. Hegel posits that every idea and all of history goes through the dialectic process whereby an idea (thesis) develops, is challenged by a counter or opposite idea (anti-thesis), and merges into a new form (anti-thesis). The synthesis becomes a new thesis and the process according to Hegel begins all over again. In essence it is this dialectic process of ideas that leads to change in society.
Karl Marx who is credited to be the major proponent and originator of the conflict theory equally viewed social change and history as moving in a dialectic manner. He however parted ways with Hegel’s theorizing by viewing materialism instead of idealism as the prime mover of society. For Marx ideas are not the ultimate precipitating factor of change but material stuff. He argues that the mode of production of material life, conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life including social change processes. For Marx, it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence but their social existence determines their consciousness. Claude Ake (1981) in his analysis of the philosophy behind conflict theory maintains that, the approach usually built on ‘Marxist Dialectic Materialism’ assumes that material conditions, particularly the economic system are decisive formative influence of social life and constitute the essentials of departure for discovering laws of motion of society i.e. social change.
According to Marx, firstly man by nature is a producer of goods and services to provide his basic needs of food, shelter and clothing and history has witnessed man developing several modes of production as earlier highlighted from primitive communalism to slavery and later to feudalism which gave rise to capitalism and later to socialism and finally communism. In each mode of production men enter into several social relations in the production processes characterized by social inequality between those who own and control the means or factors of production such as capital, land, machineries and those who don’t and who only sell their labor power to the owners of the production means. These unequal relations led to division of society members into two classes i.e. the haves and have not known as slaves and slave masters in the slave mode of production; feudal lords and serfs in the feudal mode and bourgeoisie (capitalists) and proletariats (laborers) in the capitalist mode of production. In essence one's class position is determined by one's relation to the ownership of the means of production and the social relations of production is characterized by power differentials between the classes. Whereas the capitalist class enjoys political and economic power, the laborers suffer oppression, alienation, subjugation, exploitation and expropriation of surplus value. Karl Marx noted that history proceeds in stages in which the wealthy always exploit the poor and weaker class of people. He suggests that slaves in ancient Rome and working classes of today share the same basic exploitation. He further noted that history is being changed by revolts of the lower class which led to the overthrow of the upper class leading to a new mode of production for example the revolution of slaves against their slave masters in ancient Rome or revolution of the peasants against their feudal lords in the 18th century French revolution etc. Hence in contemporary capitalist society the conflict theory holds that only by socialist revolution led by the proletariat (working class) can any society move into its final stage of evolution: a free, classless, and communist society.
The conflict theory of change seems to be a proactive and induced approach to social change as it does not rely on people remaining passive in response to exploitation or other problems of society such as inequality and poverty. It sees change as induced by the revolution induced by the exploited classes in society against the ruling class and their oppressors. Unlike functionalism that emphasizes social order and stability, the conflict theory views conflict as desirable and necessary to initiate social change geared towards eradicating all forms of social inequalities in society. Modern versions of the theory now focus on multi-power analysis, gender related inequalities i.e. feminism etc.
Critics of Karl Marx and the conflict theory has noted that conflict theorists do not always realize that social upheaval and revolution does not inevitably lead to positive or expected outcomes.
FACTORS PROMOTING SOCIAL CHANGE
Several factors have been identified by social scientists to engender and stimulate social and cultural change (Ekpenyong 1993) involving the complex interaction of environment, technology, culture, personality, political, economic, religious, ideology, population change etc. Hence no single factor explanatory variable can account for changes in human society. This position has earlier been buttressed by Parsons (1966 cited in Ekpenyong1993:191) when he asserts that, ‘‘no claim that social change is “determined” by economic interests, ideas, personalities of particular individuals, geographical conditions and so on, is acceptable. All such single factor theories belong to kindergarten stage of social science development. Any single factor is always inter-dependent with several others’’.
This implies that social change may originate in any institutional area, bringing about changes in other areas, which in turn make for further adaptations in the initial sphere of change. Hence, technological, economic, political, religious, ideological, demographic, and stratification factors are all viewed as potentially independent variables which influence each other as well as the course of society. The following are factors that cause social and cultural changes in society:
Environmental Resources- Exploitation of natural resources from the physical environment e.g. Crude oil exploration and associated socio-cultural changes in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria.
Technology -Technology used in exploitation of the natural environment shapes culture and society e.g. internet technology has become part of the social structure of modern society
Population -Changes in population as a result of interplay of birth, death and migration forces engender social and cultural changes in society e.g. the quest for smaller family size in contemporary Nigeria due to fear of population explosion and harsh economic realities.
Isolation and Contact – A society that is isolated from other societies may have a slow rate of change unlike another that has contact with the outside world which may witness rapid changes.
People’s Needs- A lacking need in society may cause uprising of the masses in demand for the provision of such needs. This could be a need for social amenities, equality, social justice etc.
Social Movements, Leadership and Ideology - Social Movements with strong Ideology and viable leadership may mobilize the masses and bring about expected changes in society e.g. several civil society groups and pressure groups.
Attitudes and Values- The attitudes and values of members of society concerning a change may facilitate or hinder such change. A tradition bound attitude will always hinder social changes.
Cultural Base – A society with a viable cultural base as reflected in its level of technological discoveries and innovations would generate several socio-cultural changes within the society.
PROCESSES OF SOCIAL CHANGE
For Social change to occur in any society it has to manifest in either of the mechanisms or processes outlined below:
Social Evolution – This involves the natural inherent growth or development of a society from simpler to more complex advanced and modern forms. Change is a natural process.
Borrowing and Diffusion – This is the process through which social change occurs when societies borrow and infuses cultural elements from other societies consciously or unconsciously.
Discovery and Invention- This involves the process of deriving new perceptions of aspects or an entire cultural base of a society and creating hitherto non-existing material or non-material culture from the existing culture base i.e. a new application or combination of cultural knowledge.
Assimilation- This process involves a situation when two societies or cultural groups have contact, the weaker group is subsumed into the stronger one and thereby making the weaker group losing its cultural autonomy e.g. the loss of the African-ness of Francophone West Africa.
Acculturation- This process involves two societies having contact with their cultures converging and over time leading to cultural homogeneity. E.g. The Hausa and Fulani cultural convergence.
Cultural Loss- This involves loss of cultural knowledge of the old which are replaced with new ones as a result of cultural extinction occasioned by diffusion, assimilation etc.
Planned and Guided Change- Here, government at all levels, community development associations, organized groups etc. may initiate socio-cultural changes and equally control its pace, rate and direction e.g. government policies on population growth control such as family planning, limits on number of children per family, legalization of abortion etc.
AGENTS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
Society, as earlier mentioned is made up of constituent parts known as social institutions all performing specific functions for the stability and growth of society. Ekpenyong (1993) suggests that all institutions of society are sources or agents of social change and these include:
The Economy- It is through the economic system that man and society fulfills its basic needs of food, shelter and clothing; it equally provides the technological means through which society adapts to its environment, it then engenders massive changes through exploitation of environmental resources in quest of meeting man’s need and development of society.
Government – As earlier mentioned, the government initiates guided and planned change as it sets agenda and goal for society. It helps society attains its set goals and achieve social change through promulgation of laws, policies, developmental projects, provision of social amenities etc.
Religion – The role of religion as a tool for social change is not contestable as it brings about both positive and negative changes. For example religious wars and extremism experienced in our world are offshoots of religious intolerance. Religious doctrines engender social change in so many ways for example it took missionaries from Europe to put a halt to killing of twins and human sacrifices in Nigeria. Max Weber’s work on Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is a classic example of the role of religion in social change.
Education–Education is a veritable agent of social change as it helps liberate hitherto ignorant masses from poverty, superstition, dogmatism, traditionalism etc. It opens their minds, changes their attitudes, values and beliefs and provides them better understanding of their environment and their society. Education provides the right conditions and attitudes for social change to occur.
Mass Media–The media both electronic and print is a catalyst to social change. The media is a tool for mass education, mass mobilization and it helps spread ideology of change. As the world gets smaller as a result of globalization, the media presents new cultural traits, technologies, fashion tastes, food, fads from across the world over the internet, satellite television, magazines etc. which are spread and diffused in distanced lands and even in the smallest and farthest of nations.
ACCEPTANCE AND RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL CHANGE
It is interesting to note here that not all changes in society are accepted as they come sometimes they often face one form of resistance or the other. As Ekpenyong (1993:205) noted “new ideas, new scientific and technical developments, and new patterns of social life are sometimes resisted even in the rapidly changing societies”. Several reasons account for the acceptance and resistance of social change and as identified by Ekpenyong (ibid) and Anele (1999) they include:
Cost of Change–This implies that if the cost of the proposed change in monetary, environmental, moral terms etc. is very high as against its immediate benefits it may be resisted by the masses on the other hand if the benefit outweighs the cost it will be accepted.
Utility and Compatibility with Existing Culture – For a new cultural change to be accepted in a society it must prove that its utility is superior to the existing cultural patterns and it must not be conflicting with the existing cultural practices otherwise it will be resisted.
Attitudes and Values – If a society has an enclosed social structure with a tradition bound attitude it will resist any form of change in order to maintain its cultural values; on the other hand a more open cultural system will be friendly to change and easily accept changes.
Vested Interests and Maintenance of Status Quo – Society is made up of several groups pursuing diverse interests, in this sense a change in the social structure would affect several groups differently. Those who see the change as beneficial will support it and those who feel threatened by the change would resist it and advocate for the maintenance of the status quo.
Demonstrability of Innovations – For a new innovation to be accepted it must demonstrate its superiority to the old system.
Technical Difficulties of Change – If a new cultural or technological innovation has several difficulties in its practical application it will be resisted unlike an innovation with little or no technical difficulties.
SOCIAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
INTRODUCTION
Change is an integral part of our lives and our existence has been through stages of growth and development from childhood, teenage, adulthood and old age. Likewise at various stages of our lives we attain primary, secondary and tertiary education etc. In similar vein, several changes occur in the society we live. History has witnessed the transformation of human society from preliterate to modern social organizations. Human societies have evolved from primitive hunting and gathering stages to horticultural, agrarian, industrial/modern and contemporary post-modern society. Cultural civilizations, empires, kingdoms and epochs has risen and fallen no doubt, but the nature of human socio-cultural organizations and social interactions equally transforms itself to fit the structural patterns of existing society in every epoch. It is generally opined that change is the only permanent phenomena, and as changes occur in the natural world so does changes occurs in human society. No human society is relatively static for too long as social change is a ubiquitous and inevitable phenomenon; likewise change may occur in all facets of society or selected parts of the social structure. Social change in society may be as a result of the expediency needed in providing solutions to specific social problems faced in a society; or on the other hand, social change in society may bring about accompanying social problems to that society hence the need for a stronger adaptive capacity of human society to social changes and social problems.
This chapter presents the concepts of social change and social problems and introduces the reader to the sociological study of the duo and theoretical perspectives to social change and social problems.
SOCIOLOGICAL ROOTS TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
The origin of sociology as an academic and scientific discipline is the history of the study of social change and social problems in 18th and 19th Century Europe. Western Europe at this period was swept with ravaging social changes and associated social problems occasioned by twin revolutions born out of the Era of Enlightenment: firstly the French Revolution which started in 1789 and the British Industrial Revolution (1750-1850).
The French Revolution of 1789 witnessed intense violence and the bloody terror shook Europe to its core. With the divine rights of Kings been questioned and the decline of the authority of the church and theology as the true source of knowledge and associated rise in application of rationality and empiricism, the aristocracy throughout Europe feared that revolution would spread to their own lands, and intellectuals feared that social order was crumbling in Europe with the pervasive changes and social problems recorded in France. On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century reinforced these concerns. Starting first in Europe and then in the United States, the Industrial Revolution led to many changes, including agricultural revolution (shift from manual to mechanized agriculture), transport revolution (faster forms of transporting raw materials, finished goods and people e.g. rails and trains), industrialization, the rise and growth of cities as people left their farms to live near factories (rapid urbanization) etc. As the cities grew, other social problems manifested as people lived in increasingly poor, crowded, and decrepit conditions, and crime was rampant. Here was additional evidence, if European intellectuals needed it, of the breakdown of social order. With these pervasive social changes and social problems there was an expedient need to provide explanations to the crises of the industrial society coupled with the need to ascertain the basis upon which social order could be maintained within the prevailing chaos that the discipline sociology was born. Sociology therefore according to Okodudu (2010:60) took the late comers advantage to fill the explanatory vacuum of hitherto sciences and the 19th century philosophers (founding fathers of Sociology) who were longing for the past that has been irredeemably gone were thus classified as the philosophers of the Era of Romanticism (Okodudu 2010:35).
SOCIAL CHANGE
Social change as earlier discussed is ubiquitous and inevitable as change is the only permanent phenomenon. According to Defleur et al. (1977 cfAnele 1999) ‘social change is the alterations in the pattern of social organization of specific groups within a society or even of the society itself’. Deducing from the definition above Ekpenyong (1993:190) posits that alterations in the social organization of a group and or society refer to the development of new norms, the modification of role expectations, a shift to new types of sanctions, the development of different criteria for ranking and the introduction and use of new production techniques. Anele (1999) further asserts that a change in any part of the society or social organization affects other parts and the society generally at large. For example, the recent advent of information communication technology in Nigeria has changed virtually the nature of social interaction and pattern of social organization from personal relationship with loved ones far and near over the telephone and internet dating to macro-economic activities such as e-banking, e-commerce, e-education/virtual learning, e-governance etc.
Likewise, Moore (1968 cf Anele 1999:17) defined social change as ‘the significant alteration of social structures (that is of patterns of social action and interaction), including consequences and manifestations of such structures embodied in norms (rules of conduct), values and cultural products and symbols’. It is evident that both of social change and cultural change were emphasized in Moores’ definition. Although changes in the material and non- material contents of a culture also may not be regarded as social changes; however, it is very difficult to separate social changes from cultural change. Because the two are usually interdependent, social change may usually introduce cultural changes, and vice versa hence the hybrid ‘socio-cultural’ (Anele 1999:14).From the foregoing analysis, social change summarily may be seen as the alteration or transformation at large scale level in the social structure, social institutions, social organization and patterns of social behavior in a given society or social system. It can also be seen as the alteration, rearrangement or total replacement of phenomena, activities, values or processes through time in a society in a succession of events. The alteration or rearrangement may involve simple or complex changes in the structure, form or shape of the social phenomena. Sometimes it may mean the complete wiping out of the phenomenon and their total replacement by new forms (Calhoun, et al. 1994). However, it is pertinent to note here that some minor changes that take place in the lives of individuals and small, limited groups may not be regarded as social changes although these kinds of changes may be the manifestations or effects of changes that are taking place at larger scale. This implies that for a change to be social the alterations permeates the entire society or social group and not merely alterations in the lives and behavior of individual member of that society or group, in this regard social change is said to be collective and impressive on the entire society or group.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
Social change has the following characteristics as identified by Idrani (1998) and Anele (1999):
Inevitable: Social change is inevitable and unavoidable as it occurs all the time. Its process may be imperceptible and can be cumulative, i.e., one may not easily perceive the processes of social change, although it is always taking place.
Ubiquitous: Social change is present in every human society. There is no society that is static and unchanging. All societies are susceptible to social change. In other words, social change is a universal phenomenon (it is everywhere and anywhere). It spread both over time and space.
Multi-Leveled: Change occurs both at micro-level and macro-level. The point here is that while social change often refers to noticeable changes in social phenomena, we must not lose sight of the fact that small changes in minor relationships and smaller groups can also be significant especially in a pluralistic society e.g. ethnic unrest.
Contagious: Social change is contagious like infectious diseases. The influence of change in one area or aspect of society can have an impact on other related areas. For example changes in religious beliefs can cause change in the economy, family etc.
Rate: Social change has a rate; it can be rapid (revolutionary) or slow (evolutionary).
Detectable and Measurable: Social change is detectable and measurable. Anele (1999:18-21) provides following detection and measurement parameters: scale (involving the size of the society and degree or magnitude of alteration); brevity (involving length of change e.g. short term changes are easily observable and measured unlike long term changes that are usually measured retrospectively); repetition (changes that repeated frequently are most likely to be identified and measured unlike those occurring sparingly)
THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGE
Social change as earlier mentioned is as old as human society and as human society has changed over time so as social scientists and social philosophers have propounded several explanatory theories to social change in society. Some of these theories would be considered below.
Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionary theory views social change as progress and holds a linear view that tends to see only the most recent societies as having achieved the highest level. Social change is viewed as natural, inevitable, and continuous and moves in a particular direction. Change is also seen as necessary, just as Charles Darwin explains development following on from natural selection.
The concept of evolution in sociological theorizing otherwise known as social evolution is predicated on the assumption that all organic, inorganic and super-organic phenomena were subject to the same natural laws and on the argument that sociology which explains super-organic phenomena had attained a scientific status (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). The concept of evolution was made popular by the natural scientist Charles Darwin who in his ‘Origin of Species’ published 1859 postulated that ‘all life forms including the human race had gradually evolved from lower orders of life as a result of progressive adaptation to the environment through the survival of biological forms best adapted to a competitive struggle’ (Horton and Hunt, 1980 cf. Anele 1999:37). From Darwin’s perspective, the most basic elements of biological evolution are organisms and their environment. In corroborating this point Needham (1931 cf. Afonja and Pearce, 1984:15) defined the evolutionary process as ‘involving primarily the passage from simplicity to complexity, from homogeneity to heterogeneity, which from empirical observation of living creatures and their remains may be deduced, to have occurred and to be occurring’.
The application of the evolutionary approach which is also known as ‘Social Darwinism’ was favored by early sociologists including Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim etc. The evolutionary approach holds that just as changes occur in organisms as they adapt to their environment so does change occurs in human society as manifested in social progress and development. In differentiating between biological and socio-cultural evolution, Kroeber argued that progress is not an attribute of biological evolution and that whereas the process of biological evolution is substitutive, the process of social evolution is additive (Afonja and Pearce, ibid).
For Auguste Comte, human society and civilization progresses through a natural and inevitable course and which forms the basis upon which humans and their society are organized. Comte divided society into traditional and modern societies (Anele 1999). The traditional society is military in orientation characterized with wars and conquests of empires with all social intuitions serving the needs of the military. The modern society on the other hand is characterized by the dominance of the economic system induced by the industrial revolution. Comte’s idea of evolution here is that human society progresses from military (primitive) to modern society. Comte’s traditional or military and modern society dichotomy is synonymous with Durkheim’s and Herbert Spencer’s.
Furthermore, Comte’s evolution of human society was more reflected in his ‘Law of three stages of Human Progress’. According to Comte, human thought, knowledge and society have inevitably moved from three stages which includes theological, metaphysical and positivist stages. The Theological stage which is akin to the military stage saw humans attributing all forms of natural occurrences to supernatural forces such as gods. Emphasis is on imagination and the military institution dominates all forms of social relations. The Metaphysical stage is characterized with abstract reasoning and the use of philosophy and logic in explaining phenomena. Observation has modified imagination to some extent. The final stage which is Positivists or scientific stage is akin to the industrial era with science and its application is utilized as the standard for all explanations. Observations and empiricism is the yardstick for all human endeavors be it economy, industry, health, technology etc.
For Durkheim society moves from traditional to modern society with the mechanic solidarity and organic solidarity respectively accounting for social order. The mechanical solidarity which is characterized by homogeneity of population, culture and structure of social institutions with a very strong ‘collective conscience’ which has a high degree of repression thereby enforcing group integration. However, due to increase in society’s population there was need for structural differentiation and dissimilarities of the parts of society with increased division of labor and this brought about a new form of solidarity known as the organic solidarity based on the inter-dependence of parts and structures of society. The organic solidarity is evident in modern industrial societies. Likewise, the German sociologist, Ferdinand Tonnies while analyzing the evolution of human society traced the development of society from a tradition-based, collective Gemeinschaft community, where folk life and culture persisted, to a freer and less traditional state of Gesellschaft society. For him, society evolved from the former to the later which is akin to the traditional and modern dichotomy. He however in his analyses contrasted the predominant community life of the past with the business life of the present society. This latter stage is marked by rational will and a development to a “civilized” state that is a linear and irreversible process (Tonnies, 1957).
On his part, Herbert Spencer equally divided society into traditional/military or primitive and industrial society with similar characteristics as highlighted above hence he suggests that human society evolves from the former to the later. Spencer in developing his evolutionary theory of fixed stages (1897) postulated his ‘Law of Evolution’ which he argues is a cosmic and natural law which moves all forms from simple, undifferentiated forms to complex differentiated forms and it operates independent of man and his consciousness and applies to all phenomena including man and society, animals and plants (Anele 1999:41). The evolutionary process according to Spencer is initiated by what he called structural differentiation i.e. differentiation of parts/structure and differentiation of functions of institutions of society. He argued that homeostasis or equilibrium is maintained by the mutual dependence of the parts and the changes in parts are mutually determined and the changed functions are mutually dependent (Spencer 1897 cf. Afonja and Pearce, 1984).
Also Karl Marx who is largely known to be conflict theorists contributed to the evolutionary perspective (Anele, 1999:44). According to Karl Marx in his Historical Materialism theory, change is inevitable and every society must inevitably evolve through the following stages: primitive communalism to antiquity or slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism and ultimately scientific communism.
Other theorists such as Tylor, Morgan, Marsh, Maine etc. made monumental contributions to the development of the theory (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). Morgan, in his work Ancient Society (1877 cited in Afonja and Pearce, ibid) posits human society has evolved from savagery, barbarism and civilization.
Closely related to evolutionary accounts of social change are those of geographic determinism. Huntingdon (1924 cf. Afonja and Pearce, ibid) examined the rise and fall of civilisation, locating many of these changes in terms of the geographic differences between societies. The notion of change as environmentally driven can also be found in Steward’s Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multi-linear Evolution (1955). From Steward’s perspective, cultural change results from adaptation to the environment – something he calls “cultural ecology.”
In a nutshell, a review of the evolutionary theory suggests that firstly, the theory is holistic in its analysis as it observes social change in the entire society and not just mere changes in the parts of society. Secondly it perceives social change as gradual, incremental and cumulative and not revolutionary (Ekpenyong 1993; Anele, 1999). Thirdly, change is internally induced and not externally impelled and finally, change is unidirectional or unilineal from traditional to modern, simple to complex, military to industrial, homogenous to heterogeneous etc.
However, the evolutionary theory has been severely criticized for proposing only a unilineal model of change and instead of a multi-linear model. Adherents of the historical particularism school of thought were of the view that every society must not pass through pre-determined stage of development instead the development of every culture and society is predicated on the historical peculiarity of that society. Also, Diffusionists, criticized the evolutionary theory in failing to explain other forms of social change such as externally infused change including cultural borrowing, assimilation and acculturation etc.
Diffusion Theory
Diffusion theory suggests that social change is as a result of diffusion of cultural patterns and practices of other societies which is a function of spread of cultural practices from society to society. According to Linton (1955 cf. Ekpenyong 1993:198) “we are great culture borrowers’’ and likewise, Murdock (1934 cf. Ekpenyong ibid) estimated that about 90 percent of every culture known to history has acquired its element from other people. This implies that change is externally induced and not internally generated as the evolutionists asserts. Diffusion has been defined by Horton and Hunt (1980 cf. Anele 1999) as “the spread of culture traits from group to group”. According to Kroeber (1973 cited in Anele 1999:102) “diffusion is the process, usually but not necessarily gradual, by which elements or systems of culture are spread; by which an invention or a new institution adopted in one place is adopted in neighboring areas, and in some cases, continues to be adopted in adjacent ones, until it may spread over the whole earth”. The diffusion theorists especially those from the USA and Britain proposes that there were a few cultural centers from which inventions radiated to the non-inventive areas through cultural borrowing e.g. Technology Transfer from the West to Africa. For example, Perry and Smith identified Egypt as the source of archaic civilization from where philosophy, mathematics and other ancient arts circulated the world (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). Likewise, the German school with Schmidt, Ratzel and Graeber identified what they called cultural circles from where specific cultural items originated (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). In present modern society, the Western societies of Europe and America are seen as the cultural circles from which modern cultural traits evolved and for the third world countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America to change and develop they must adopt the cultural patterns and traits of the West. The supposed need for the shift from traditionalism and diffusion of modernism in third world countries gave birth to the modernization theory of development and social change.
Diffusion theory however has been equally criticized for its failure to explain independent inventions in several societies and cultural dissimilarities. The question raised was that if such cultural circles or centers exist, then what accounts for specific cultural innovations in specific societies? And secondly what then accounts for differences in cultures world over? In essence, the theory upheld the evolutionary principles which it tends to react against.
Cyclical Theory
The cyclical theory of change holds that civilizations go through cycles of growth and
decay. Each civilization learns from its predecessors. The classical Greek philosophers were the first to utilize this model. Plato spoke of eras of time when initially hopes will blossom on to deteriorate as the era disintegrates. Splenger (1932) had a similar view and for him societies go through periods of ups and downs often described as life cycles. According to him, culture is the living entity of people and culture is housed in the civilization of that era. The pattern is that each culture will arise, develop, ripens, decays and falls never to return. As earlier mentioned, Huntingdon (ibid) examined the rise and fall of civilization in the cyclical manner. Furthermore, Sorokin (1947) suggests that social changes follows a trendless cyclical pattern i.e. like a swinging pendulum, culture moves in one direction and then back to another. According to Sorokin a culture has three distinct systems of truth namely: ideational, idealistic and sensate. Whereas ideational truth comes from God, idealistic comes from both God and the senses, however in the sensate society only sensate truth is valid and valuable.
More recently, in studying cultural phenomena, such as art forms and music, Sorokin (1998) noted how systems fluctuate between times of concern for the public good (which he termed “ideational”) and more selfish (or “sensate”) times, when individual welfare comes first. Whilst Sorokin describes a movement from the ideational of the Middle Ages towards the sensate and then the ideational again, different aspects of society may have different priorities at the same time. In essence this implies that social change can occur at different levels and in different ways within a single society
Functionalist Theory
Functionalism as developed by Emile Durkheim emerged from the evolutionary theory (Afonja and Pearce, 1984). Although Functionalists emphasize what maintains society and not what changes it, they try to understand problems of change processes in the context of a stable system. Proponents see change as slow and societies as having interrelated parts, with cause and effect having a reciprocal impact on one another.
According to the theory, society consists of interdependent parts each of which performs particular functions and helps to maintain the stability of the entire social system which has a tendency to seek equilibrium and balance. Imbalances in the system mean that the system has to adjust to new equilibrium. Social change hence denotes movement from one state of social stability to another for instance traditional societies move from traditional values/kin ties to industrialization with weakened kin ties and individualism. Talcot Parsons (1902-1979), the father of 20th century functionalism developed the social system’s perspective, saw society in its natural state as being stable and balanced i.e. society naturally moves toward a state of homeostasis. He sees the society as a system and institutions of society as sub-systems that perform basic functions for the survival and continuity of the whole. In addressing the problem of change, he postulated the equilibrium theory which asserts that as society move towards attaining equilibrium it must fulfill its functional pre-requisites (which are sets of functions society needs to fulfill for it to survive including: Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, and Latency) as it interacts with both its internal (interactions between sub systems) and external environment thereby forcing it to adapt to the interplay of forces of both environmental factors.
In addressing the question of social change in society Parsons developed the concepts of “Structural Differentiation” and “Moving Equilibrium” (Collins & Makowsky, 1998:217). Following Durkheim, Parsons noted that the cultural system changes along with the social structure; the culture becomes more “upgraded” –more abstract and generalized as societies become more complex and differentiated e.g. from particularistic, local, nature gods in primitive religions (Collins & Makowsky, o.p.cit). He however, noted that differentiation also creates problems; in particular, the more division of labor between the specialized parts, the more pressure there is for integrating the system. Hence, problems necessarily unsettle a state of equilibrium causing “systemic stress” which in turn sets in motion a process to resolve the conflicts/problems. Once such problems are settled the system moves from the original state of equilibrium to another what Talcott Parsons called “Moving Equilibrium”. In this regard, society moves from one stage of equilibrium to another as no society is static for too long. There must be some problems to solve, all of which introduces elements of instability, confusion and crisis which seek solutions to restore the shaky equilibrium and brings the system to a new state of order and tranquility. He further stresses that changes in one aspect of society requires corresponding adjustments in others. In situations when these adjustments do not occur, equilibrium disappears, threatening social order. In essence, the social system moves from one state of equilibrium or homeostasis to another i.e. moving or shifting equilibrium thereby accounting for social change. According to Anele (1999:53) it is imperative to observe that functionalism dichotomizes change into change of the system and change within the system. The former has to deal with basic changes or alterations in the structures of the system as is the case of the French and Industrial revolutions whereas change within the system hardly alters the structure of the society but with incremental or evolutionary change within the sub systems. However, the theory emphasizes changes within the system than otherwise.
From the foregoing analysis it is noteworthy that the functionalist perspective was built on the evolutionary model and its concept of continuous progress through shifting equilibrium, however the dominant theme is stability and balance. In this light, the theory has been accused of only dodging the question as the emphasis was ultimately of stability and equilibrium and not change itself. Likewise, the theory has been criticized for minimizing the effects or functions of change itself since the theory suggests all aspects of society contribute in some way to society’s overall health. Critics also argue that functionalist erroneously ignored the use of force by society’s powerful to maintain an illusion of stability and integration and similarly its inability to explain rapid and revolutionary changes.
Conflict Theory
The conflict theory propounds that change emanates as a result of conflict and class struggles among competing groups in society. These groups can be an economic or political class, gender, racial or ethnic groups all pursuing conflicting group interests in the society. The theory holds that conflict and social change are ubiquitous, normal, constant, and inevitable phenomena in human society as it is a veritable tool in remedying social inequalities and injustice in society.
The conflict theory of change is rooted in the dialectic approach of social and political philosophy. The German philosopher Friedrich G.W Hegel like the classical Greek philosophers sought to explain reality from absolute ideas. Hegel posits that every idea and all of history goes through the dialectic process whereby an idea (thesis) develops, is challenged by a counter or opposite idea (anti-thesis), and merges into a new form (anti-thesis). The synthesis becomes a new thesis and the process according to Hegel begins all over again. In essence it is this dialectic process of ideas that leads to change in society.
Karl Marx who is credited to be the major proponent and originator of the conflict theory equally viewed social change and history as moving in a dialectic manner. He however parted ways with Hegel’s theorizing by viewing materialism instead of idealism as the prime mover of society. For Marx ideas are not the ultimate precipitating factor of change but material stuff. He argues that the mode of production of material life, conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life including social change processes. For Marx, it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence but their social existence determines their consciousness. Claude Ake (1981) in his analysis of the philosophy behind conflict theory maintains that, the approach usually built on ‘Marxist Dialectic Materialism’ assumes that material conditions, particularly the economic system are decisive formative influence of social life and constitute the essentials of departure for discovering laws of motion of society i.e. social change.
According to Marx, firstly man by nature is a producer of goods and services to provide his basic needs of food, shelter and clothing and history has witnessed man developing several modes of production as earlier highlighted from primitive communalism to slavery and later to feudalism which gave rise to capitalism and later to socialism and finally communism. In each mode of production men enter into several social relations in the production processes characterized by social inequality between those who own and control the means or factors of production such as capital, land, machineries and those who don’t and who only sell their labor power to the owners of the production means. These unequal relations led to division of society members into two classes i.e. the haves and have not known as slaves and slave masters in the slave mode of production; feudal lords and serfs in the feudal mode and bourgeoisie (capitalists) and proletariats (laborers) in the capitalist mode of production. In essence one's class position is determined by one's relation to the ownership of the means of production and the social relations of production is characterized by power differentials between the classes. Whereas the capitalist class enjoys political and economic power, the laborers suffer oppression, alienation, subjugation, exploitation and expropriation of surplus value. Karl Marx noted that history proceeds in stages in which the wealthy always exploit the poor and weaker class of people. He suggests that slaves in ancient Rome and working classes of today share the same basic exploitation. He further noted that history is being changed by revolts of the lower class which led to the overthrow of the upper class leading to a new mode of production for example the revolution of slaves against their slave masters in ancient Rome or revolution of the peasants against their feudal lords in the 18th century French revolution etc. Hence in contemporary capitalist society the conflict theory holds that only by socialist revolution led by the proletariat (working class) can any society move into its final stage of evolution: a free, classless, and communist society.
The conflict theory of change seems to be a proactive and induced approach to social change as it does not rely on people remaining passive in response to exploitation or other problems of society such as inequality and poverty. It sees change as induced by the revolution induced by the exploited classes in society against the ruling class and their oppressors. Unlike functionalism that emphasizes social order and stability, the conflict theory views conflict as desirable and necessary to initiate social change geared towards eradicating all forms of social inequalities in society. Modern versions of the theory now focus on multi-power analysis, gender related inequalities i.e. feminism etc.
Critics of Karl Marx and the conflict theory has noted that conflict theorists do not always realize that social upheaval and revolution does not inevitably lead to positive or expected outcomes.
FACTORS PROMOTING SOCIAL CHANGE
Several factors have been identified by social scientists to engender and stimulate social and cultural change (Ekpenyong 1993) involving the complex interaction of environment, technology, culture, personality, political, economic, religious, ideology, population change etc. Hence no single factor explanatory variable can account for changes in human society. This position has earlier been buttressed by Parsons (1966 cited in Ekpenyong1993:191) when he asserts that, ‘‘no claim that social change is “determined” by economic interests, ideas, personalities of particular individuals, geographical conditions and so on, is acceptable. All such single factor theories belong to kindergarten stage of social science development. Any single factor is always inter-dependent with several others’’.
This implies that social change may originate in any institutional area, bringing about changes in other areas, which in turn make for further adaptations in the initial sphere of change. Hence, technological, economic, political, religious, ideological, demographic, and stratification factors are all viewed as potentially independent variables which influence each other as well as the course of society. The following are factors that cause social and cultural changes in society:
Environmental Resources- Exploitation of natural resources from the physical environment e.g. Crude oil exploration and associated socio-cultural changes in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria.
Technology -Technology used in exploitation of the natural environment shapes culture and society e.g. internet technology has become part of the social structure of modern society
Population -Changes in population as a result of interplay of birth, death and migration forces engender social and cultural changes in society e.g. the quest for smaller family size in contemporary Nigeria due to fear of population explosion and harsh economic realities.
Isolation and Contact – A society that is isolated from other societies may have a slow rate of change unlike another that has contact with the outside world which may witness rapid changes.
People’s Needs- A lacking need in society may cause uprising of the masses in demand for the provision of such needs. This could be a need for social amenities, equality, social justice etc.
Social Movements, Leadership and Ideology - Social Movements with strong Ideology and viable leadership may mobilize the masses and bring about expected changes in society e.g. several civil society groups and pressure groups.
Attitudes and Values- The attitudes and values of members of society concerning a change may facilitate or hinder such change. A tradition bound attitude will always hinder social changes.
Cultural Base – A society with a viable cultural base as reflected in its level of technological discoveries and innovations would generate several socio-cultural changes within the society.
PROCESSES OF SOCIAL CHANGE
For Social change to occur in any society it has to manifest in either of the mechanisms or processes outlined below:
Social Evolution – This involves the natural inherent growth or development of a society from simpler to more complex advanced and modern forms. Change is a natural process.
Borrowing and Diffusion – This is the process through which social change occurs when societies borrow and infuses cultural elements from other societies consciously or unconsciously.
Discovery and Invention- This involves the process of deriving new perceptions of aspects or an entire cultural base of a society and creating hitherto non-existing material or non-material culture from the existing culture base i.e. a new application or combination of cultural knowledge.
Assimilation- This process involves a situation when two societies or cultural groups have contact, the weaker group is subsumed into the stronger one and thereby making the weaker group losing its cultural autonomy e.g. the loss of the African-ness of Francophone West Africa.
Acculturation- This process involves two societies having contact with their cultures converging and over time leading to cultural homogeneity. E.g. The Hausa and Fulani cultural convergence.
Cultural Loss- This involves loss of cultural knowledge of the old which are replaced with new ones as a result of cultural extinction occasioned by diffusion, assimilation etc.
Planned and Guided Change- Here, government at all levels, community development associations, organized groups etc. may initiate socio-cultural changes and equally control its pace, rate and direction e.g. government policies on population growth control such as family planning, limits on number of children per family, legalization of abortion etc.
AGENTS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
Society, as earlier mentioned is made up of constituent parts known as social institutions all performing specific functions for the stability and growth of society. Ekpenyong (1993) suggests that all institutions of society are sources or agents of social change and these include:
The Economy- It is through the economic system that man and society fulfills its basic needs of food, shelter and clothing; it equally provides the technological means through which society adapts to its environment, it then engenders massive changes through exploitation of environmental resources in quest of meeting man’s need and development of society.
Government – As earlier mentioned, the government initiates guided and planned change as it sets agenda and goal for society. It helps society attains its set goals and achieve social change through promulgation of laws, policies, developmental projects, provision of social amenities etc.
Religion – The role of religion as a tool for social change is not contestable as it brings about both positive and negative changes. For example religious wars and extremism experienced in our world are offshoots of religious intolerance. Religious doctrines engender social change in so many ways for example it took missionaries from Europe to put a halt to killing of twins and human sacrifices in Nigeria. Max Weber’s work on Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is a classic example of the role of religion in social change.
Education–Education is a veritable agent of social change as it helps liberate hitherto ignorant masses from poverty, superstition, dogmatism, traditionalism etc. It opens their minds, changes their attitudes, values and beliefs and provides them better understanding of their environment and their society. Education provides the right conditions and attitudes for social change to occur.
Mass Media–The media both electronic and print is a catalyst to social change. The media is a tool for mass education, mass mobilization and it helps spread ideology of change. As the world gets smaller as a result of globalization, the media presents new cultural traits, technologies, fashion tastes, food, fads from across the world over the internet, satellite television, magazines etc. which are spread and diffused in distanced lands and even in the smallest and farthest of nations.
ACCEPTANCE AND RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL CHANGE
It is interesting to note here that not all changes in society are accepted as they come sometimes they often face one form of resistance or the other. As Ekpenyong (1993:205) noted “new ideas, new scientific and technical developments, and new patterns of social life are sometimes resisted even in the rapidly changing societies”. Several reasons account for the acceptance and resistance of social change and as identified by Ekpenyong (ibid) and Anele (1999) they include:
Cost of Change–This implies that if the cost of the proposed change in monetary, environmental, moral terms etc. is very high as against its immediate benefits it may be resisted by the masses on the other hand if the benefit outweighs the cost it will be accepted.
Utility and Compatibility with Existing Culture – For a new cultural change to be accepted in a society it must prove that its utility is superior to the existing cultural patterns and it must not be conflicting with the existing cultural practices otherwise it will be resisted.
Attitudes and Values – If a society has an enclosed social structure with a tradition bound attitude it will resist any form of change in order to maintain its cultural values; on the other hand a more open cultural system will be friendly to change and easily accept changes.
Vested Interests and Maintenance of Status Quo – Society is made up of several groups pursuing diverse interests, in this sense a change in the social structure would affect several groups differently. Those who see the change as beneficial will support it and those who feel threatened by the change would resist it and advocate for the maintenance of the status quo.
Demonstrability of Innovations – For a new innovation to be accepted it must demonstrate its superiority to the old system.
Technical Difficulties of Change – If a new cultural or technological innovation has several difficulties in its practical application it will be resisted unlike an innovation with little or no technical difficulties.
