Social Change
From
a sociological perspective, the society is made up of different structures,
which play a significant role in developing it. The different structures are
interrelated. The interaction of the different systems brings about changes
that either work to positively assist or retard the development of the society.
For the systems of the society to contribute to the well-being of the people
residing in it, there must be a balance in the way all the systems work.
However, due to the innate and the environmental influences present in the
society, there are many social changes that take place and that work to distort
the smooth running of all the systems (Macionis, 2006).
The intended interaction of the systems therefore works to retard the
development of the whole society. Social change is a term that can be used to
refer to the transformation of social institutions and the cultural trends of
the people.
Many characteristics can make one to identify
social changes. Firstly, social change can be either planned or unintentional.
Secondly, it can be an all time activity or happen over a short period. Some
changes produce long-term effects while others produce short-term effects. Most
of the changes that take place for example in the modern society include;
change of clothing styles, the use of computer and technology, the invention of
more complex automobiles, genetic engineering
among others. Some changes such as the clothing styles happen either
deliberately or unintentional and may or may not produce adverse results (Macionis, 2006). Some like the invention of the computers
have worked to improve the quality of life of the people yet they have turned
out to be controversial at some point. William Ogburn used the concept of
cultural lag to denote the issue of material culture changing faster than the
ethics of the society.
Technological
discoveries such as genetic engineering have had both a positive as well as a
negative implication to the people using it. Although the scientific
application of genetic engineering can be justified, the religious as well as
the ethical dimension is compromised. For example, use of cloning can be
religiously understood as a means to interfere with natural intentions. Others
on the other hand have worked to assist the human beings to develop more for
example the invention of the car.
The changes that happen in the society are either positive
or negative. They are not always desirable or one that improves the lives of
the people. Development for example can be referred to as any positive change
that works to improve the lives of the people. For example, the building of
good roads or transport networks for people to deliver goods to the market and
on the right time.
Modernization
can be viewed as a source of social change. From a functionalist perspective,
the introduction of industries would demand that different people be employed
in different sectors of production according to their expertise. This would
bring about harmony, as people will not struggle to compete with each other
(Kornblum, 2003).
On
the other hand, however, the conflict perspective would tend to view
industrialization as a source of conflicts or social upheavals. The changes
that come with industrialization tend to create conflicts among individuals.
For example, with the setting up of industries in urban centers, many people
will be residing in towns and other centers. Due to the divergent views, approach,
perception, and cultures of the people, conflicts are bound to arise. These
changes therefore work to destabilize the smooth running of the society.
Social change can be understood from
diverse theoretical perspectives. First, is the functionalist perspective. From
this point of approach, the society is seem as having many structures that work
in harmony to bring about the welfare of the people. They are made in such a
way that they are to maintain stability (Schaeffer, 2009) without the different
interacting structures; the society cannot function as expected. In this
perspective therefore, most of the social changes that are experienced in the
society do not contribute to its harmony but work to disrupt its smooth
running. For example, the advocates of gender equality, according to the
functionalist perspective, are unfair to the systems of the society. This is
because, first, both genders have roles designed for them to perform. When
there is the introduction of gender equality in the system, the smooth running
of the societal structures is going to be disrupted leading to havoc and
unbalance.
From another insightful perspective, the
introduction of the drug abuse in the system may lead to a dysfunctional system.
This means that, it will work to disrupt the social system or cause instability
in the social system. Therefore, these social changes are viewed as unnecessary
(Schaeffer, 2009).
On the other hand, however, although
the concept of drug abuse can be seen as unnecessary, some may perceive it as
necessary since it creates employment for police officers, rehabilitation
centers, therapies, and medical doctors. Therefore, to some, drug abuse would
tend to bring positive social changes in the society through the creation of
employment. If drug abuse is not appreciated, then there would be many
unemployed people leading to activities such as criminal acts, prostitution and
others as people try to seek alternative methods of earning an income.
The conflict perspective holds
ideas, which are contrary to the functionalist school of thoughts. The conflict
views the society and the world in a continual struggle. They believe that
social behavior is best understood in terms of tensions between groups or
systems of the society. Tension in this case may not be held to mean violence
but may be taken as anything that works to disrupt harmony in the interacting
systems of the society. In this case, an example of illicit behaviors in the
society emanating from social changed can be given as an example. For instance,
those who may engage in drug abuse may lose the interest of their families. The
social system may detach such kind of characters from the society. The person
abusing drugs is rejected by the society and he/she may lack respect from the
society.
In extreme cases, they lose the
trust of the individual. This therefore becomes the reason that makes the
abuser to have internal conflicts within him or herself. He/she may lack
employment, money, housing, and feels a strong desire to get resources,
security, and love. These kinds of changes affecting the individual can bring
about changes in the society, which may adversely affect it. The individual for
example may start to indulge in illegal activities such as burglary, theft, or
fraud. If the individual does not indulge in the aforementioned activities,
then he/she is likely to affect the economy of the society indirectly. For
example, more law enforcement agencies will be employed, meaning that the
resources, which would have otherwise been put to other economic development
projects, are used to pay the officers.
Education
is a social change that has had a lot effects in the society. It is a key to
issue especially in the modern society. However, different approaches can view
the concept from different perspectives. From the functionalist perspective of
perception of issues, education contributes positively in the society as it
works to ensure that there is stability in the society. Education works to
maintain the norms and values are reinforced (Holmwood, 2005). These values are
the ones that are pivotal in ensuring that stability is maintained in the
society. For example, in a college set up, different students assist each other
in their lessons. Those who are conversant with certain aspects share with those
who do not. In turn, they share their expertise. This tends to enhance a sort
of unity. In the end, they may end up assisting each other in other sorts of
endeavors. The functionalist view tends to focus on how the society needs to be
structured and maintained to enhance harmony and stability.
From
the conflict perspective, social behavior is best understood from conflicts or
the tension created when groups of people compete with each other. According to
the conflict perspective, social order is based on exploitation and coercion.
One of the main proponents of this school of thought is Karl Marx. From this
point of approach, conflict thinkers would tend to view the education system as
a source of exploitation for those who are weak. In this case, those students
who perform exemplary well in their studies are going to assist those that are
weak. If the work of the weak students is not finished on time, them they are
going to turn against those that are bright and this struggle tends to
culminate into social upheavals.
Conflict perspectives have a view
that the social changes that are experienced in the society are because of the
strains, which are inherent. However, there are certain critics that can be
raised towards this claim (Greek, 1996). If all or most of the changes in
the society, is a product of social unrests, then what about the changes, which
are not grounded on strains or conflicts such as technological advancements,
and change of culture?
For both the structural
functionalism theory and the conflict theory, the starting point of viewing the
social changes that are experienced in the society is the structures. The view
of the functionalist concerning social change deals with gradual social changes
and this forms part of its limitation. In addition, it perceives the society as
a perfect place (utopian) which is not always the reality. The different perceptions
held by the people coupled with differences in their culture are likely to be a
source of conflicts. Therefore, the claim that the societies structures are
always in a state of equilibrium or harmony is not always correct. Instead,
there are conflicts arising from the diverse perception, which are meant to be
dealt with to form a stable society. However, the theory does not offer any
solution to these strains because it does not even recognize them. Furthermore,
there is an assumption if there are to be conflicts or strains in the society,
they may not emerge from within (endogenous) but may originate from external
sources (exogenous in nature).
From the functionalist perspective, social
change is perceived as good and necessary. For instance, modernization is
likely to come up with complex systems that are beneficial to all people. The
complexity that comes with these changes enhances adaptive capabilities of the
people. Any challenge that comes with complications helps people to adapt more
(Holmwood, 2005).
The theory however emphasizes the benefits that social changes bring while at
the same time ignoring the challenges that come with the changes. It does not
recognize the fact that dealing with the strains that the society faces will
ultimately assist in bettering the lives of the people.
Conflict theory on the other end
seems to overemphasize on the social changes emanating from institutionalized
power relations. For example, the conflicts that emanate from the economics. On
the other end, it does not account for the conflicts that arise from factors
such as race, gender, age and those emanating from other sources other than
economic systems.
The interpretive theories focus on the definitions that people give to the events that happen to them. If they are to define certain activities as social changes, they become (Nicos, 2003). If they define certain events as normal, then they are right. From the interpretive perspective therefore, the human being is treated as the main determinant who can define certain events as changes or not. For example, when certain behaviour is changed in the society, people can tend to react indifferently to it meaning that they do not perceive it as an aspect of social change. On the other hand, however, when an event occurs, people are likely to act in a way that suggests that they are aware of the changes that are taking place. When people therefore perceive external events differently, redefine them and act upon them in a revised way, then social change will have been said to take place (Nicos, 2003). The meanings that people give to the events that happen to them is the pivotal focus to determine whether they qualify as social changes or not. Interpretive theories focus on the way certain actors perceive their social situations and the effects that these definitions have on the way they interact with them.
The interpretive theories perceive human beings as rational and are less prone to the external events that bring about social change to their lives (Bevir & Rhodes, 2002).The structures of the society bear the most important parts of the society that contribute effectively towards most of the development. However, interpretive theories seem to neglect the contribution that the structures have in bringing about social changes in the society.
The interpretive theories focus on the definitions that people give to the events that happen to them. If they are to define certain activities as social changes, they become (Nicos, 2003). If they define certain events as normal, then they are right. From the interpretive perspective therefore, the human being is treated as the main determinant who can define certain events as changes or not. For example, when certain behaviour is changed in the society, people can tend to react indifferently to it meaning that they do not perceive it as an aspect of social change. On the other hand, however, when an event occurs, people are likely to act in a way that suggests that they are aware of the changes that are taking place. When people therefore perceive external events differently, redefine them and act upon them in a revised way, then social change will have been said to take place (Nicos, 2003). The meanings that people give to the events that happen to them is the pivotal focus to determine whether they qualify as social changes or not. Interpretive theories focus on the way certain actors perceive their social situations and the effects that these definitions have on the way they interact with them.
The interpretive theories perceive human beings as rational and are less prone to the external events that bring about social change to their lives (Bevir & Rhodes, 2002).The structures of the society bear the most important parts of the society that contribute effectively towards most of the development. However, interpretive theories seem to neglect the contribution that the structures have in bringing about social changes in the society.
In conclusion, both the functionalist
and the conflict perspectives have an opposing view of the causes and the
results of the social changes. The conflict perspective heavily leans on the
internal changes. This emanates from the strains that people experience as they
struggle with the limited resources at their disposal
(Kornblum, 2003).For
instance, the aspect of social inequality is a potential source of conflicts.
These strains are the ones that shape the social changes. This view is
different from the one held by the structural functionalist (Holmwood,
2005). The source of social change is
external. They also hold the view that when the changes take place in the society;
they tend to be more of a benefit than harm to the people. Contrary to the idea
held by the conflict perspective, that
the arising of conflicts brings about a classless society with destruction of
resources, the functionalist view that the changes that happen in the society
tend to be more beneficial than harmful.
References
Bevir, M. & Rhodes,
R.A.W. (2002). Interpretive Theory. UC Berkeley: Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0bk3k2nq
Greek, R. (1996). Conflict Theory. Retrieved from https://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/conflict.htm
Holmwood, J., (2005). “Functionalism and its
Critics” in Harrington, A., (ed) Modern Social Theory:
an introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 87–109
Kornblum .W. (2003). Sociology
in a Changing World. 6th ed. Belmont: Thompson
Lenski .G. (1966). "Power and Privilege: A
Theory of Social Stratification." New York: McGraw-Hill.
Macionis.
J. J. (2006). Society: The basics (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Merton .R. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure
revised and enlarged. London: The Free
Press of Glencoe
Nicos .S. (2003).
‘Interpretive Theories of Law’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2003/entries/law‐interpretivist/>
at 12 April 2005.
Schaefer
.R. (2009). Sociology: A Brief Introduction, 8th Edition. (Pg. 14-16). McGraw
Hill. New York, NY
No comments:
Post a Comment