\n<\/p>\n
August Comte reconstructs the pattern and mechanism of all preceding history by the means of law of three stages.<\/p>\n
The human race goes through three stages;<\/p>\n
History is the story of changes in mind and society which mirror each other. Evolution is primarily the evolution of the methods of acquiring knowledge and of the resulting pool of knowledge.<\/p>\n
Evolution is definable as a change from an incoherent homogeneity to coherent heterogeneity, accompanying the dissipation of motion and integration of matter<\/p>\n
Evolution proceeds by means of structural and functional differentiation.<\/p>\n
Evolutionary sequence or classification of society:<\/p>\n
Simple society \u2013 herd or band<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Compound society – tribe and chiefdom<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Double compound society \u2013 city, state and kingdom<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Trebly compound society \u2013 empire and modern nation state<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Locates the ultimate moving forces of social change in the area of inventions and discoveries, gradually transforming the entire way of life of human populations.<\/p>\n
Uniformity and continuity of evolution derive from the underlying universality and persistence of human material needs. History of mankind follows three distinct phases\u2019 savagery, barbarism and civilization.<\/p>\n
Lower savagery \u2013 simple subsistence<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Middle savagery \u2013 discovery of fire and fishing method<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Upper savagery \u2013 invention of bow and arrow facilitating hunting<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Lower barbarism \u2013 production of pottery<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Middle barbarism \u2013 domestication of animals<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Upper barbarism \u2013 production of iron and iron tools<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Civilization \u2013 phonetic alphabet and the art of writing<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The main direction of evolution is seen in the growing division of labour, differentiation of tasks and occupational roles as society moves forward in time. History moves from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity<\/p>\n
The personal, intimate, primary, auto telic social ties characterizing community turn into impersonal, mediated, secondary and purely instrumental contacts in modern society.<\/p>\n
Mechanism of change is not constant but itself changes in time<\/p>\n
Genesis (natural evolution)<\/p>\n
Cosmo genesis \u2013 big bang theory, common origin, interdependent<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Bio genesis \u2013 life emerged, diverse organisms and their species, increase in size<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Anthropogenesis \u2013 man emerged<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Telesis (purposive or goal oriented)<\/p>\n
Socio genesis \u2013 society emerged and started evolving<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
4 mechanisms operate together.<\/p>\n
Socio-cultural evolution is defined simply as technological advance and its consequences<\/p>\n
Advancement of human species from animal world was itself due to the advancement in learning and sharing of information. The basic form of information is purely genetic, the higher form is individual learning, and then comes communication by signs and finally communication by symbols, coding information, preserving it and sharing it with others.<\/p>\n
4 basic mechanism of evolution;<\/p>\n
The evolution follows discernible stage;<\/p>\n
Primitive \u2013 highly uniform and homogenous<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Advanced primitive \u2013 division into sub system appears<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Intermediate \u2013 marked by the development of writing which allows accumulation of information<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Modern \u2013 complete differentiation of 4 sub systems in a society (adaptation, goal attaining, integrative and pattern maintaining).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
For Parsons modern type of society has emerged in a single evolutionary arena, the West hence Parsons image of evolution was criticized of its pro-western bias.<\/p>\n
Society and its constituent segments go through repeated cycles of equilibrium, destabilization, disequilibrium and new equilibrium<\/p>\n
Political-military cycle – Strong rulers lion and cunning administrators fox.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Economic cycle \u2013 rentiers and speculators<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Ideological-religious cycle \u2013 Dogmatists and rationals<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
History is a graveyard of aristocracies.<\/p>\n
Sorokin proposes a distinction of two opposite, mutually irreconcilable types of culture.<\/p>\n
The ideational culture – nature of reality is spiritual, immaterial, hidden behind the superficial material and sensuous appearances.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
The sensate culture \u2013 the only reality is material, accessible to the senses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The intermediate idealistic culture represents a balanced mixture of ideational and sensate elements \u2013 reality is many sided, both material and supernatural.<\/p>\n
Dependency theory states that resources flow from a periphery of poor and underdeveloped states to a core of wealthy states enriching the latter at the expense of the former.<\/p>\n
Promotion of domestic industry and manufactured goods<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Forbidding foreign investment<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Domestic opportunity costs<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Example of ASEAN countries<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
In the long evolution of human thought agency has been gradually secularized, humanized and socialized.<\/p>\n
At the beginning it was placed outside the human and social world in the domain of the super natural.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
In the next stage agency was brought down to earth, located in slowly unraveling natural forces of various sorts. Agency became secularized but still outside humanity and society but somehow closer.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Agential power ascribed to great men. Agency became humanized but not yet socialized.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
With the birth of sociology, agency became socialized but dehumanized again.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
Agency finally found its proper face in the actions of social agents. It became humanized and socialized at the same time.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Education and social change:<\/strong> (Also Refer IGNOU MA Notes – MSOE 001 Unit 9 \u2013 Education and social change)<\/em><\/p>\n Karl Mannheim in his book \u201cIdeology and Utopia\u201d says that education transforms society in two ways:<\/p>\n It makes individual capable in research, invention, innovation, discovery, etc.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n It prepares the mind of the individual that changes are value hence they should adapt the changes rather obstructing it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n According to Kamat there are four positions regarding education and social change<\/p>\n Education is for itself and has nothing to do with social change.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n Education is determined completely by social factors and can therefore, play no role in changing society. It follows social change.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n Education is an autonomous or relatively autonomous factor and therefore can and does induce social change<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n Educational change and social change must take place simultaneously.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n Munis Raza in his study of Indian educational system identified that:<\/p>\n Education can only bring\/provide social mobility to those who can avail the better schools and colleges.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n He found that the students who come from public school perform better than government schools.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n Robin Fox in her comparative study of kinship found that modern education is anti-community sentiment which can be seen from higher rate of divorce, increasing nuclear family, arrested families in Europe concubinage drug abuse, technology abuse; cyber crimes question the non-ethical side of education.<\/p>\n Science, technology and social change:<\/strong> (Also Refer Articles from EPW Magazine)<\/em><\/p>\n Marx was the first who emphasized the effect of technology on society when he says, with the development of forces of production, Relation of production changes.<\/p>\n Technological determinist is like Karl Marx, W.G. Ogburn, T. Veblen believe that<\/p>\n society changes only when technology changes from one form to another.<\/p>\n Karl Marx though an economic determinist believes that the mode of production brings change in the relation of production. Mode of production consists of the tools and technology which changes one economic order to another which brings Social Change finally.<\/p>\n W.G. Obgurn is his concept of \u201cCultural Lag\u201d identified two types of culture i.e. material culture (technology) and non-material culture (habit). He believes that material culture runs faster than non-material culture, hence the habits have to adopt technology which brings change in the society.<\/p>\n T. Veblen in his book \u201cThe Instinct of Workmanship\u201d believed that 99% of Social<\/p>\n Changes come because of the change in technology. Ogburn identified 150 social<\/p>\n changes with invention of radio. Veblen said if a radio can bring this much of changes then easily it can be identified that technology in totality can how much influence the society.<\/p>\n Marx always identified the importance of technology in his theory of dialectical<\/p>\n materialism. Technology is responsible for bringing change in the mode of production<\/p>\n which brings social change.<\/p>\n Industrial revolution is the first revolution of human history which was basically a<\/p>\n technological revolution. Machines replaced the man as a force of production which<\/p>\n completely changed European society in following manners:<\/p>\n 1) A feudal agrarian and rural Europe changed into a democratic, industrial and<\/p>\n urban society.<\/p>\n 2) Extended family changed into nuclear.<\/p>\n 3) Age and sex based Division of labour changed into skill based Division of labour.<\/p>\n 4) Primary institutions were replaced by secondary institution.<\/p>\n 5) Gerontocratic society became youth centric society.<\/p>\n 6) Religious traditional society converted into secular modern society.<\/p>\n These changes were so drastic and structural that is why it was called as revolution.<\/p>\n After industrial revolution even the traditional, developing Third World societies<\/p>\n accepted industrialization as a source of social transformation. Russian society which was a feudal agrarian society became a modern industrial society just after two five year plans centred around industry.<\/p>\n Green revolution in India is one of the examples of how a traditional agrarian society was transformed into rich progressive agrarian society. The Green revolution was basically based on use of modern technology in agriculture which transformed the affected areas socio-economically at large level.<\/p>\n After 1990, the world has gone through IT revolution. This not only led towards the<\/p>\n concept of global village but also it has reduced cultural heterogeneity and the world is becoming like a small approachable community. The impact of science and technology on social change is so multidimensional that it cannot be explained through fen examples.<\/p>\n As MacIver said that \u2018Science and technology as a factor of social change is more<\/p>\n observable than expressible\u2019. Though he also recognized that the changes due to science and technology are not positive for the society because the misuse of drugs, arms and knowledge is one of the key concerns but as a theorist he believes a society cannot remain separate from the influence of science and technology because it is an eminent force of Social Change.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n