The first reason is that despite the evident fact that comprehensive social changes cannot be explained by monocausal theories, such theories still survive in one form or another: cultural emanationist theories, materialist theories, and more specific examples such as the explanation of social changes by the size and composition of the population of a society (Cipolla 1978) or by changes in key actors' attitudes (Opp 1976). Wiswede and Kutsch (1978, vii) argue that although "the analysis of social change represents the touchstone of sociology," it "obviously still appears to be underdeveloped today." The editors accept this judgment and advance two reasons for it. Graphically, these may be arranged as follows:Įven this rendition of the metaframework for models of change is overly simple, for among the structural determinants of different processes of social change are the accumulated consequences of previous sequences of change. Directions of social change, including structural changes, effects, and consequences. Processes and mechanisms of social change, including precipitating mechanisms, social movements, political conflict and accommodation, and entrepreneurial activity.ģ. Structural determinants of social change, such as population changes, the dislocation occasioned by war, or strains and contradictions.Ģ. In our view any theory of change must contain three main elements that must stand in definite relation to one another:ġ. Randall have identified the following attributes for these changes: "magnitude of change, time span, direction, rate of change, amount of violence involved" (1981, 16). In a review of contemporary theories of change Hermann Strasser and Susan C. Moreover, in the midst of change observers began to look in retrospect to the dramatic changes that had occurred in earlier epochs, for examples, in the development of the Egyptian Empire or the Western Roman Empire.Ĭontemporary theories of social change have become more generalized in order to explain far-reaching processes of change in past and present. For these thinkers social change was "a property of social order, known as change" (Luhmann 1984, 471). Comprehensive change became normal, and, accordingly, social philosophers and later sociologists gradually replaced the older ideas of natural constants and the contractual constructions of natural and rational order with conceptions of social change, even though precise formulations were slow to appear. Social change as a concept for comprehending a continual dynamic in social units became salient during the French Revolution and the industrial revolution in England, both periods of extraordinary dynamism. But in more recent centuries the dominant conceptions of change itself have changed. In his essay for this volume Giesen shows that even though ideas of time existed and evolved over thousands of years-ranging from the identification of time as a period of action and a period of living to the differentiation of time according to hierarchical position (the gods are eternal empires rise, prosper, and fall humans have a time lifespan), to the conception of time as progress-stability and order were the norm and changes were exceptional. Realities of different epochs in large degree. Furthermore, conceptions of change appear to have mirrored the historical At the same time it is essential to note that the ways social change has been identified have varied greatly in the history of thought. Theories of Social ChangeĬhange is such an evident feature of social reality that any social-scientific theory, whatever its conceptual starting point, must sooner or later address it. The conference strategy called for a general statement of a metaframework for the study of social change within which a variety of more specific theories could be identified. Likewise, we have excluded historically specific terms such as "late capitalism" and "industrial society" even though these concepts figure prominently in many of the contributions to this volume. Because these terms enjoy wide usage in contemporary sociology and are general and inclusive, they seem preferable to more specific terms such as "evolution" "progress," "differentiation," or even "development," many of which evoke more specific mechanisms, processes, and directions of change. Those who organized the conference on which this volume is based-including the editors-decided to use the terms "social change" and "modernity" as the organizing concepts for this project. Haferkamp is grateful to Angelika Schade for her fruitful comments and her helpful assistance in editing this volume and to Geoff Hunter for translating the first German version of parts of the Introduction Smelser has profited from the research assistance and critical analyses given by Joppke. Smelser, editors Social Change and Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1992 1991. Preferred Citation: Haferkamp, Hans, and Neil J.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |