Sociology

1.Society

Q.What Is a Society?

According to sociologists, a society is a group of people with common territory,

interaction, and culture. Social groups consist of two or more people who interact and identify
with one another.Territory: Most countries have formal boundaries and territory that the world
recognizes as theirs. However, a society’s boundaries don’t have to be geopolitical borders, such
as the one between the United States and Canada. Instead, members of a society, as well as
nonmembers, must recognize particular land as belonging to that society.Example: The society
of the Yanomamo has fluid but definable land boundaries. Located in a South American rain
forest, Yanamamo territory extends along the border of Brazil and Venezuela. While outsiders
would have a hard time determining where Yanomamo land begins and ends, the Yanomamo
and their neighbors have no trouble discerning which land is theirs and which is not.Interaction:
Members of a society must come in contact with one another. If a group of people within a
country has no regular contact with another group, those groups cannot be considered part of the
same society. Geographic distance and language barriers can separate societies within a
country.Example: Although Islam was practiced in both parts of the country, the residents of
East Pakistan spoke Bengali, while the residents of West Pakistan spoke Urdu. Geographic
distance, language differences, and other factors proved insurmountable. In 1971, the nation split
into two countries, with West Pakistan assuming the name Pakistan and East Pakistan becoming
Bangladesh. Within each newly formed society, people had a common culture, history, and
language, and distance was no longer a factor.Culture: People of the same society share aspects
of their culture, such as language or beliefs. Culture refers to the language, values, beliefs,
behavior, and material objects that constitute a people’s way of life. It is a defining element of
society.Example: Some features of American culture are the English language, a democratic
system of government, cuisine (such as hamburgers and corn on the cob), and a belief in
individualism and freedom.

2. Assimilation

Q.What is assimilation?

Some practices that are common in other societies will inevitably offend or contradict the values
and beliefs of the new society. Groups seeking to become part of a pluralistic society often have
to give up many of their original traditions in order to fit in—a process known as
assimilation.Example: When people arrive in the United States from other countries, they most
likely speak a foreign language. As they live here, they generally learn at least some English, and
many become fluent. Their children are most likely bilingual, speaking English as well as the
language of their parents. By the third generation, the language originally spoken by their
grandparents is often lost.In pluralistic societies, groups do not have to give up all of their former
beliefs and practices. Many groups within a pluralistic society retain their ethnic
traditions.Example: Although Chinese immigrants started arriving in the United States 150 years
ago, Chinese-American communities still follow some traditions, such as celebrating the Lunar
New Year.

3.Family

Q.What is a family?

At the macrosociological level, the family is a social institution present in all human societies.
As such it fulfills different functions in a variety of ways. According to Elaine Leeder (2004), the
most common

functions are listed below:

 Procreation
 Socialization
 Regulation of Sexual Behavior
 Division of Labor
 Economic Provision for Members
 Affective and Emotional Needs
 Status-Giving Properties

At the more microsociological level, a family unit is a group of people sharing a relationship
based on biology, marriage or adoption and who fulfill the functions listed above, and who
usually live together (individuals living together, regardless of their relationship or whether they
fulfill common social functions, constitute a household). Individuals usually belong to two types
of families: a family of orientation in which one is born and raised, and a family of
procreation, created by marriage and having or adopting children. Depending on the number of
generations sharing a household, sociologists distinguish between nuclear family – household
composed of parents and children – and extended family – a family unit comprising additional
relatives such as grandparents, siblings or cousins.

3.Community

Q.What is a community?

From a sociological perspective, the notion of community refers to a group of people united by at
least one common characteristic. Such characteristics could include geography, shared interests,
values, experiences, or traditions. John McKnight, a sociologist, says that there is no uniform
view of community in sociology, “ To some people it’s a feeling, to some people it’s
relationships, to some people it’s a place, to some people it’s an institution" Communities may
be viewed as systems composed of individual members and sectors that have a variety of distinct
characteristics and interrelationships .These sectors are populated by groups of individuals who
represent specialized functions, activities, or interests within a community system. Each sector
operates within specific boundaries to meet the needs of its members and those the sector is
designed to benefit. For example, schools focus on student education, the transportation sector
focuses on moving people and products, economic entities focus on enterprise and employment,
faith organizations focus on the spiritual and physical well-being of people, and health care
agencies focus on prevention and treatment of diseases and injuries. In reality, these sectors are a
few of the many elements that comprise the overall community system.
A community can be viewed as a living organism or well-oiled machine. For the community to
be successful, each sector has its role and failure to perform that role in relationship to the whole
organism or machine will diminish success. In a systems view, healthy communities are those
that have well-integrated, interdependent sectors that share responsibility to resolve problems
and enhance the well-being of the community. It is increasingly recognized that to successfully
address a community’s complex problems and quality of life issues, it is necessary to promote
better integration, collaboration, and coordination of resources from thesemultiple community
sectors.One useful way to describe the community and its sectors is through a technique known
as mapping (Kretzmann et al. 1993). As shown in the following diagram, someone interested in
describing the bounds of a community can map it by identifying primary, secondary, and
potential building blocks, or human and material resources. Each of these resources has assets
that can be identified, mobilized, and used to address issues of concern and bring about change.
4.Institutions

Q.What are institutions?

Social institutions are established or standardized patterns of rule-governed behavior. They

include the family, education, religion, and economic and political institutions. According to
Karl Marx social institutions are determined by their society’s mode of production and social
institutions serve to maintain the power of the dominant class. According to MaxWeber , social
institutions are interdependent but no single institution determines the rest. (a) The Family: A
socially defined set of relationships between at least two people related by birth, marriage,
adoption, or, in some definitions, long-standing ties of intimacy.Key Questions in this regard are
(i) How do families vary across different societies, historical periods, classes, and ethnic groups?
(ii) How are authority, resources, and work distributed within families? (iii) How do parents,
particularly mothers, balance the demands of work and family? (iv) What are the causes and
effects of divorce, domestic violence, and single parenting? Marx argued that tThe family
upholds the capitalist economic order by ensuring the reproduction of the working class and by
maintaining housewives as a reserve labor force.Functionalist theory argues that functions of the
family include socializing children, regulating sexual behavior and reproduction, distributing
resources, providing social support. (b) Education: A formal process in which knowledge,
skills, and values are systematically transmitted from one individual or group to another.Key
Questions here are (i)How do educational practices vary across different societies and historical
periods?(ii)How does education affect individuals’ subsequent activities and achievements?
(iii)What are the effects of class, race, and gender on educational institutions and experiences?
(iv)What are the causes and consequences of various trends in education, such as grade inflation,
violence in schools, and increasing public funding of religious instruction? Marx is of the view
that education serves the capitalist order by producing skilled workers with habits such as
punctuality and respect for authority.According to functionalist theory functions of education
include transmitting shared values and beliefs, transmitting specific knowledge and skills, sorting
individuals based on skill, and establishing social control over youths. The conflict theory states
that educational tracking systems and other differential treatment of students reinforce social
inequalities. (c) Religion: A unified system of beliefs and practices pertaining to the supernatural
and to norms about the right way to live that is shared by a group of believers. Sociologists treat
religion as a social rather than supernatural phenomenon.Key Questions here are (i)How do the
world religions differ? How are they similar? (ii)How have religions developed and changed, and
why do people engage with them? (iii)What is the relationship between religion and other
aspects of social life such as stratification, deviance, and conflict? (iv)What are the causes and
consequences of contemporary trends such as secularization, the splintering of religious groups,
and shifting church–state relationships? Marx says that Religion is the “opium of the people”—
it masks domination and diverts workers from rebelling against exploitation.Weber: classified
religions by their approach to salvation.Ascetic religions require active self-mastery; mystical
religions require passive contemplation.Other-worldly religions require focus on the next life
(e.g., heaven); this-worldly religions require focus on earthly life. (d)Economic Institutions:
Sociologists understand the economy as the set of arrangements by which a society produces,
distributes, and consumes goods, services, and other resources.Key Questions here are(i)What
institutions and relations characterize different economic systems (e.g., capitalism, socialism,
and feudalism)?(ii)How do consumption and leisure patterns differ among various cultures,
historical periods, and social groups?(iii)How do the structures of business organizations affect
productivity, job satisfaction, and inequalities? (iv)What are the causes and consequences of
contemporary trends such as economic liberalization, declining unionization, and increased
consumer debt? Marx argues that economic organization (the means and relations of production)
determines the major features of any society.Functionalist theory states that functions of
economic institutions include: production and distribution of goods, assignment of individuals to
different social roles such as occupations. (e) Political Institutions: Institutions that pertain to
the governance of a society, its formal distribution of authority, its use of force, and its
relationships to other societies and political units. The state, an important political institution in
modern societies, is the apparatus of governance over a particular territory. Key Questions
are(i)How do political institutions differ across historical periods and societies?(ii)How do
different social groups participate in political institutions, and with what consequences?(iii)How
and why do individuals participate in political processes such as voting or joining lobbying
groups?(iv)How are political institutions related to other aspects of society, such as the economy
and the mass media?According to Weber the state as an authority that maintains a monopoly on
the use of violence in its territory.Functionalist theory is of the view that functions of political
institutions include protection from external enemies, resolving group conflicts, defining societal
goals, and strengthening group identity and norms. Pluralism, a particularly functional type of
political institution, entails distribution of power among many groups so no one group can gain
control.

5. Cooperation

Q.What is cooperation?

Cooperation involves individuals or groups working together for the achievement of their
individual or collective goals. In its simplest form, cooperation may involve only two people
who work together towards a common goal. Two college students working together to complete
a laboratory experiment. It can be divided into five principal types.

1. Direct Cooperation: Those activities in which people do like things together play together,
worship together, labor together in myriad ways. The essential character is that people do in
company, the things which they can also do separately or in isolation. They do them together
because it brings social satisfaction.

2. Indirect Cooperation: Those activities in which people do definitely unlike tasks toward a
single end. Here the famous principle of the 'division of labour' is introduced, a principle that is
imbedded in the nature of social revealed wherever people combine their difference for mutual
satisfaction or for a common end.

3. Primary Cooperation: It is found in primary groups such as family, neighborhood, friends

and so on. Here, there is an identity end. The rewards for which everyone works are shared or
meant to be shared, with every other member in the group. Means and goals become one, for
cooperation itself is a highly prized value.
4. Secondary Cooperation: It is the characteristic feature of the modern civilized society and is
found mainly in social groups. It is highly formalized and specialized. Each performs his/her
task, and thus helps others to perform their tasks, so that he/she can separately enjoy the fruits of
his/her cooperation.
5. Tertiary Cooperation: It may be found between 2 or more political parties, castes, tribes,
religions groups etc. It is often called accommodation. The two groups may cooperate and work
together for antagonistic goals.

6.Conflict

Q.How is conflict defined in sociology?

The conflict perspective, or conflict theory, derives from the ideas of Karl Marx, who believed
society is a dynamic entity constantly undergoing change driven by class conflict. Whereas
functionalism understands society as a complex system striving for equilibrium, the conflict
perspective views social life as competition. According to the conflict perspective, society is
made up of individuals competing for limited resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners,
etc.). Competition over scarce resources is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition,
rather than consensus, is characteristic of human relationships. Broader social structures and
organizations (e.g., religions, government, etc.) reflect the competition for resources and the
inherent inequality competition entails; some people and organizations have more resources (i.e.,
power and influence), and use those resources to maintain their positions of power in society. C.
Wright Mills is known as the founder of modern conflict theory. In his work, he believes social
structures are created because of conflict between differing interests. People are then impacted
by the creation of social structures, and the usual result is a differential of power between the
"elite" and the "others". Examples of the "elite" would be government and large corporations. G.
William Domhoff believes in a similar philosophy as Mills and has written about the "power
elite of America".

Sociologists who work from the conflict perspective study the distribution of resources, power,
and inequality. When studying a social institution or phenomenon, they ask, "Who benefits from
this element of society?"While functionalism emphasizes stability, conflict theory emphasizes
change. According to the conflict perspective, society is constantly in conflict over resources,
and that conflict drives social change. For example, conflict theorists might explain the civil
rights movements of the 1960s by studying how activists challenged the racially unequal
distribution of political power and economic resources. As in this example, conflict theorists
generally see social change as abrupt, even revolutionary, rather than incremental. In the conflict
perspective, change comes about through conflict between competing interests, not consensus or
adaptation. Conflict theory, therefore, gives sociologists a framework for explaining social
change, thereby addressing one of the problems with the functionalist perspective.

Criticism of Conflict Theory

Predictably, conflict theory has been criticized for its focus on change and neglect of social
stability. Some critics acknowledge that societies are in a constant state of change, but point out
that much of the change is minor or incremental, not revolutionary. For example, many modern
capitalist states have avoided a communist revolution, and have instead instituted elaborate
social service programs. Although conflict theorists often focus on social change, they have, in
fact, also developed a theory to explain social stability. According to the conflict perspective,
inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and groups who
benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained. For example, the wealthy may
fight to maintain their privileged access to higher education by opposing measures that would
broaden access, such as affirmative action or public funding.

7.Competition

Q. Explain the nature and characteristics of competition

1. Scarcity as a condition of competition: Wherever there are commonly desired goods and
services, there is competition. Infact economics starts with its fundamental proposition that while
human wants are unlimited the resources that can satisfy these wants are strictly limited. Hence
people compete for the possession of these limited resources. As Hamilton has pointed out
competition is necessitated by a population of insatiable wants and a world of stubborn and
inadequate resources.

2. Competition is continuous: it is found virtually in every area of social activity and social
interaction- particularly, competition for status, wealth and fame is always present in almost all
societies.

3. Competition is a cause of social change: Competition is a cause of social change in that; it

causes persons to adopt new forms of behavior in order to attain desired ends. New forms of
behavior involve inventions and innovations which naturally bring about social change.

4. Competition may be personal or impersonal: Competition is normally directed towards a goal

and not against any individual. Some times, it takes place without the actual knowledge of other's
existence. It is impersonal as in the case of civil service examination in which the contestants are
not even aware of one another's identity. Competition may also be personal as when two
individuals contest for election to an office. As competition becomes more personal it leads to
rivalry and shades into conflict. Competition in the social world is largely impersonal.

5. Competition is always governed by norms: Competition is not limitless nor is it un- regulated.
There is no such thing as unrestricted competition. Such a phrase is contradiction in terms. Moral
norms or legal rules always govern and control competition. Competitors are expected to use fair
tactics and not cut throat devices.

Some sociologists have also spoken of cultural competition. It may take place between two or
more cultural groups. Human history provides examples of such a competition for example; there
has always been a keen competition between the culture of the native and that of the invaders.
Like cooperation, competition occurs at personal, group, and organizational levels. People
competing for affection, a promotion, or public office all are examples of personal competition.
The competitors are likely to know one another and to regard others defeat as essential to the
attainment of their own goals.
8.Accommodation

Q.Define accommodation

The term 'accommodation' refers to several sorts of working agreements between rival groups
that permit at least limited cooperation between them even though the issues dividing them
remain unsettled. It does not technically end the conflict, but holds it in abeyance. The
accommodation may last for only a short time and may be for the purpose of allowing the
conflicting parties to consolidate their positions and to prepare for further conflict. Or, as is more
often the case, the initial accommodation agreed upon by the parties may be part of the process
of seeking solutions to the issues that divide them. If those solutions are not found, the
accommodation itself may become permanent. 1.The famous psychologist J.M. Baldwin was the
first to use the concept of accommodation. According to him, the term denotes acquired changes
in the behaviour of individuals which help them to adjust to their environment.2.Mac Irer says
that the term accommodation refers particularly to the process in which man attains a sense of
harmony with his environment.3.Lundberg is of the opinion that the word accommodation has
been used to designate the adjustments which people in groups make to relieve the fatigue and
tensions of competition and conflict.4.According to Ogburn and Nimkoff accommodation is a
term used by the sociologists to describe the adjustment of hostile individuals or groups. It is
clear from the above that accommodation assumes various forms. Without accommodation social
life could hardly go on. Accommodation checks conflicts and helps persons and groups to
maintain cooperation. It enables person and groups to adjust themselves to changes functions and
status which is brought about by changed conditions. The only way in which conflicts between
groups may be eliminated permanently is through assimilation. Formally, assimilation is the
process whereby group differences gradually disappear. Issues are based upon differences. When
the differences disappear so do the issue and the conflict.

9.Progress

Q.Define progress

The concept of progress found notable expression in the writings of the French Philosophers
such as Turgot, Condorcent and Fancis Bacon of the 18th century and has been a dynamic agent
in the social activity of modern man. Sociologists such as Saint Simon, Auguste Comte and
Herbert Spencer were the earlier exponents of the idea of progress. According Comte, it was the
intellectual elite who could bring about an era of progress.Etymologically, the word progress
means “moving forward.” But moving forward or backward, progress or regress are relative
terms. If it be remarked that such and such country has progressed, no meaningful information
can be extracted from such a statement unless the direction towards which progress has been
made be known.In this way, progress is not mere change. It is a change in particular direction.
The word progress cannot be appended to change in every direction. For example, if the
condition of agriculture in a particular country worsens and a famine results, it is undeniably a
change, but it will not be called progress. Progress means moving forward in the direction of
achievement of some aim.Different thinkers have defined progress in different ways. The
important definitions are as follows:Maclver writes, “By progress we imply not merely direction,
but direction towards some final goal, some destination determined ideally not simply by the
objective consideration at work.Lumely defines, “Progress is a change, but it is a change in a
desired or approved direction, not in any direction.”Ginsberg defines progress as “A
development or evolution in a direction which satisfies rational criterion of value”.According to
Ogburn, “Progress is a movement towards an objective thought to be desirable by the general
group for the visible future.Burgess writes, “Any change or adoption to an existent environment
that makes it easier for a person or group of persons or other organized from of life to live may
be said to represent progress”.Progress means an advance towards some ideally desirable end.
Since progress means change for the better it definitely implies a value judgement of highly
subjective character. For value, like taste, has no measuring rod.A particular social change may
seem to be progressive to one person to another it may seem retrogression, because they have
different values. The concept of social progress is, therefore, subjective but it has reference to an
objective condition.

Criteria of Progress:

It is difficult to explain the criteria of progress which are relative to their temporal context.
Social values determine progress. Whether any change will be considered as progress or not
depends upon the social values. Social values change with time and place. The criteria of
progress change with the change of social values. Hence, it is difficult to formulate a universally
acceptable criterion of progress. However, the following can be tentatively suggested.

Health and Longevity of Life:Average length of life is one index of progress whether the world
is growing better. But it does not necessarily follow from this that a longer life must be more
pleasurable and better.

Wealth:In the opinion of some persons, wealth or economic progress is a criterion of progress.

Population:Some people are of the view that an increase in population is a sign of progress. But
over-population cannot be a sign of progress.

Moral Conduct:According to some thinkers, moral conduct is the criterion of progress.Since

life has many facets, it is not possible to formulate any one criterion of progress. But is stated
that the integrated development of society is the criterion of progress. Integrated development
comprehends all mental, physical and spiritual aspects including above criteria.

Nature of Progress:By analysing above definitions, we find that progress is a change, a change
for the better. When we speak of progress, we simply not merely direction, but direction towards
some final goal. The nature of the progress depends upon two factors, the nature of the end and
the distance of which we are from it.The modern writers today speak of social progress though
they do not have a single satisfactory explanation of the concept. In order to have a better
understanding of the meaning of progress, we have to analyse the following attributes.

1. Progress is Dependent upon Social Values:Progress dependent upon and is determined by

social values. It means that progress does not have precisely the same meaning at all times and
places, because values change from time to time. There is no object which can uniformly or
eternally be considered valuable irrespective of time and place.Due to this reason, Maclver and
Page have written, “The concept of progress is a chameleon that take on the colour of the
environment when we feel adjusted to that environment, and some contrasting colour when we
feel maladjusted.

2. There is a Change in Progress: Change is one of its essential attributes. The concept of
progress presupposes the presence of change. Without change, there can be no progress.

3. In Progress the Desired End is Achieved:The progress is not mere change. It is a change in a
particular direction. Broadly speaking, progress means an advance towards some ideally
desirable end. It always refers to the changes that leads to human happiness. Not all changes
imply progress.

4. Progress is Communal:Progress from its ethical point of view, may be personal but from the
sociological point of view, is communal since sociology is that science of society. In it, the
individual is taken into consideration only as a part of society. Only that change, whose influence
can be felt on entire community or society for its betterment or welfare, can be called social
progress.

5. Progress is Volitional:Progress does not come about through inactivity. Desire and volition
are needed for progress. Efforts have to be made and when these efforts are successful it is called
progress. It is an uphill task. It must be remembered that every effort is not progressive.

6. Progress is Variable:The concept of progress varies from society to society, place to place
and from time to time. It does not remain constant in all times and of all places. That which is
today considered as the symbol or progress may tomorrow be considered and treated as a sign of
regress. For example, in India, free mixing of young boys and girls may be interpreted as an
indication of regress, whereas the same may symbolise progress in the Western Countries.

7. Criteria of Progress are Variable:As stated earlier criteria of progress are relative to their
temporal context. Social values determine progress. But social values change with time and
place. Therefore, criteria of progress vary from place to place. Further, different scholars have
prescribed different criteria of progress. For example, health and longevity have been considered
as criteria of progress by some, while other have taken economic security, moral conduct as the
criteria of progress.

8. Progress does not have a Measuring Rod:The term progress is very much subjective and
value-loaded. It is not demonstrable with a degree of certainty. We cannot show it to others
unless they first accept our evaluations. We may or may not agree that there is progress, but we
cannot prove it. Progress is a reality which is immeasurable and undemonstrable. Anything that
cannot be demonstrated and measured scientifically cannot be rejected socially. It is especially
true in the case of progress.To conclude, progress conveys the sense of something better and
improved. The advancement in technology was opposed to contribute to progress. But, these
developments did not carry the sense of progress. It was advancement only in a particular
direction.The comprehensiveness of progress was missing. The extremes of poverty and health,
of ignorance and enlightenment had continued to coexist as ever before. Progress as conceived
over the ages past, is now considered to be illusive. The end of progress, it has come to be
accepted, cannot be determined.The ‘progress’ in the West did not meet all its ends. It did not
bring the fulfillment, that was taken to be its true aim. For this, the use of the term progress was
considered inappropriate. The application of the term fell into disfavour. More so, the growing
belief that sociology should be value-free also discouraged the use of this expression.

Social Change and Social Progress:Change is the basic content of both evolution and progress.
But the term change is wholly neutral, only suggesting variation in a phenomena over, a period
of time. The moment the specifications like direction, desirability, and value-judgement are
added to change, another terminology ‘progress’ becomes necessary to describe the process of
change.Progress is not mere change. It is a change in particular direction. It cannot be appended
to change in every direction. The word progress means moving forward in the direction and
achievement of some desired goal. It is certainly a change, a change for the better not for the
worse. The concept of progress always involves and implies value judgement. It is not possible
to speak of progress without reference to standards. Not all changes imply progress.But social
change is a generic term, an objective term describing one of the fundamental processes. There is
no value-judgement attached to it. It is true that some changes are beneficial to mankind and
some are harmful.But social change is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. The study of
social change involves no value-judgement, while the concept of social progress implies values
judgement. Social progress means improvement, betterment, moving to a higher level from a
lower level.

Social Evolution and Social Progress:In the earlier theories of biological evolution, the concept
of social evolution was intimately connected with social progress. For the social evolutionists of
the nineteenth century from Auguste Comte to Herbert Spencer and Lester F. Ward, social
evolution was, in effect, social progress. Modern sociologists, particularly Americans, do not
hold this proposition.They point out that evolution does not mean progress, because when a
society is more evolved it does not necessarily follow that it is more progressive. If it would have
been progressive, Maclver and Page remark that people in the more evolved society are better or
better fitted to survive or more moral or more healthy than those we call primitive. Even if the
opposite were true, it would not refute the fact that their society is more evolved.”Social
evolution should also be distinguished from social progress. Firstly L.T. Hobhouse says,
evolution means a sort of growth while .social progress means the growth of social life in respect
of those qualities to which human beings attach or can rationally attach value. The relation
between the two is thus a ‘genus-species’ relation.Social progress is only one among many
possibilities of social evolution; any or every form of social evolution is not a form of social
progress. For example, caste system in India is a product of social evolution. But it does not
signify progress. Hobhouse concludes, “that it is good, the fact that society has evolved is no
proof that it progressed.Secondly, evolution is merely change in a given direction. It describes a
series of interrelated changes in a system of some kind. It refers to an objective condition which
is not evaluated as good or bad. On the contrary, progress means change in a direction
determined ideally. In other words, it can be said, progress means change for the better not for
the worse.It implies a value-judgement. The evolutionary process may move in accordance with
our notion of desirable change, but there is no logical necessity that it should. The concept of
progress necessarily involves a concept of end. And the concept of end varies with the mentality
and experience of the individual and the group.The affirmation of evolution “depends on our
perception of objective evidences, whereas the affirmation or denial of progress depends on our
ideals.” It follows that evolution is a scientific concept and progress is an ethical concept.
Evolution is a demonstrable reality; out the term progress is very much subjective and value-
loaded and is not demonstrable with a degree of certainty.While social evolution is clearly
distinguished from social progress, we must not loose sight of their relationships. Ethical
valuations or ideas (Progress) are socially determined and hence determine the objective
phenomena (Evolution) of society. They have always been powerful in shaping and moving the
world. In some manner they are active in every process of social change. “All social change has
this double character.”From the above analysis we find, though the above three concepts, social
change, social evolution and social progress share many common reference points, they have
different intellectual framework. They all articulate same consequential effects. In all the three
processes, one cause produces a number of effects, the effect and cause get intermixed to
produce other new effects, again new connections between cause and effect are established and
so on goes the process.

"Modernity" or "modernization" was a key form of the Idea of progress as promoted by classical
liberals in the 19th and 20th centuries, who called for the rapid modernization of the economy
and society to remove the traditional hindrances to free markets and free movements of people.
John Stuart Mill's (1806–73) ethical and political thought assumed a great faith in the power of
ideas and of intellectual education for improving human nature or behavior. For those who do
not share this faith the very Idea of Progress becomes questionable.The influential English
philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) in The Principles of Sociology (1876) and The
Principles of Ethics (1879) proclaimed a universal law of socio-political development: societies
moved from a military organization to a base in industrial production. As society evolved, he
argued, there would be greater individualism, greater altruism, greater co-operation, and a more
equal freedom for everyone. The laws of human society would produce the changes, and he said
the only role for government was military police, and enforcement of civil contracts in courts.
Many libertarians adopted his perspective. Iggers argues there was general agreement in the late
19th century that the steady accumulation of knowledge and the progressive replacement of
conjectural, that is, theological or metaphysical, notions by scientific ones was what created
progress. Most scholars concluded this growth of scientific knowledge and methods led to the
growth of industry and the transformation of warlike societies into an industrial and pacific one.
They agreed as well that there had been a systematic decline of coercion in government and the
increasing role liberty and of rule by consent. There was more emphasis on impersonal social
and historical forces; progress was increasingly seen as the result of an inner logic of society.

10.Evolution

Q.What is evolution?

Throughout the historical development of their discipline, sociologists have borrowed models of
social change from other academic fields. In the late 19th century, when evolution became the
predominant model for understanding biological change, ideas of social change took on an
evolutionary cast, and, though other models have refined modern notions of social change,
evolution persists as an underlying principle.In their search to explain social change, sociologists
sometimes examine historical data to better understand current changes and movements. They
also rely on three basic theories of social change: evolutionary, functionalist, and conflict
theories.

Sociologists in the 19th century applied Charles Darwin's (1809–1882) work in biological
evolution to theories of social change. According to evolutionary theory, society moves in
specific directions. Therefore, early social evolutionists saw society as progressing to higher and
higher levels. As a result, they concluded that their own cultural attitudes and behaviors were
more advanced than those of earlier societies. Identified as the “father of sociology,” Auguste
Comte subscribed to social evolution. He saw human societies as progressing into using
scientific methods. Likewise, Emile Durkheim, one of the founders of functionalism, saw
societies as moving from simple to complex social structures. Herbert Spencer compared society
to a living organism with interrelated parts moving toward a common end. In short, Comte,
Durkheim, and Spencer proposed unilinear evolutionary theories, which maintain that all
societies pass through the same sequence of stages of evolution to reach the same destiny.
Contemporary social evolutionists like Gerhard Lenski, Jr., however, view social change as
multilinear rather than unilinear. Multilinear evolutionary theory holds that change can occur
in several ways and does not inevitably lead in the same direction. Multilinear theorists observe
that human societies have evolved along differing lines.

11. Social change

Q.Explain social change

Meaning of Social Change:

Change implies all variations in human societies. When changes occur in the modes of living of
individuals and social relation gets influenced, such changes are called social changes.Social
change refers to the modifications which take place in life pattern of people. It occurs because all
societies are in a constant state of disequilibrium.The word ‘change’ denotes a difference in
anything observed over some period of time. Hence, social change would mean observable
differences in any social phenomena over any period of time.Social change is the change in
society and society is a web of social relationships. Hence, social change is a change in social
relationships. Social relationships are social processes, social patterns and social interactions.
These include the mutual activities and relations of the various parts of the society. Thus, the
term ‘social change’ is used to describe variations of any aspect of social processes, social
patterns, social interaction or social organization.Social change may be defined as changes in the
social organization, that is, the structure and functions of the society.Whenever one finds that a
large number of persons are engaged in activities that differ from those which their immediate
forefathers were engaged in some time before, one finds a social change.Whenever human
behaviour is in the process of modification, one finds that social change is occurring. Human
society is constituted of human beings. Social change means human change, since men are
human beings. To change society, as says Davis, is to change man.Theorists of social change
agree that in most concrete sense of the word ‘change’, every social system is changing all the
time. The composition of the population changes through the life cycle and thus the occupation
or roles changes; the members of society undergo physiological changes; the continuing
interactions among member modify attitudes and expectations; new knowledge is constantly
being gained and transmitted.

Defining Change:The question to what social change actually means is perhaps the most
difficult one within the scientific study of change. It involves the often neglected query of what
‘kind’ and degree of change in what is to be considered social change.Most analysts of social
change deal with this question implicitly somewhere in their theoretical system or in the context
of the latter’s application to some empirical case. For the present purpose it should suffice to
examine definitions that are frequently used to conceptualise change.According to Jones “Social
change is a term used to describe variations in, or modifications of any aspect of social
processes, social patterns, social interaction or social organization”.As Kingsley Davis says, “By
Social change is meant only such alternations as occur in social organization – that is, the
structure and functions of society”.According to Maclver and Page, “Social change refers to a
process responsive to many types of changes; to changes the man in made condition of life; to
changes in the attitudes and beliefs of men, and to the changes that go beyond the human control
to the biological and the physical nature of things”.Morris Ginsberg defines, “By social change, I
understand a change in social structure, e.g., the size of the society, the composition or the
balance of its parts or the type of its organization”.P. Fairchild defines social change as
“variations or modifications in any aspects of social process, pattern or form.B. Kuppuswamy
says, “Social change may be defined as the process in which is discernible significant alternation
in the structure and functioning of a particular social system”.H.M. Johnson says, “Social change
is either change in the structure or quasi- structural aspects of a system of change in the relative
importance of coexisting structural pattern”.According to Merrill and Eldredge, “Change means
that large number of persons are engaging in activities that differ from those which they or their
immediate forefathers engaged in some time before”.Anderson and Parker define, “Social
change involves alternations in the structure or functioning of societal forms or processes
themselves”.According to M.D. Jenson, “Social change may be defined as modification in ways
of doing and thinking of people.As H.T. Mazumdar says, “Social change may be defined as a
new fashion or mode, either modifying or replacing the old, in the life of people or in the
operation of a society”.According Gillin and Gillin, “Social changes are variations from the
accepted modes of life; whether due to alternation in geographical conditions, in cultural
equipment, composition of the population or ideologies and brought about by diffusion, or
inventions within the group.By analyzing all the definitions mentioned above, we reach at the
conclusion that the two type of changes should be treated as two facts of the same social
phenomenon. Two type of changes are e.g. (i) changes in the structure of society, (ii) changes in
the values and social norms which bind the people together and help to maintain social order.
These two type of changes should not, however, be treated separately because a change in one
automatically induces changes in the other.For example, a change in the attitude of the people
may bring about changes in the social structure. Towards the close of the 19 century, there was a
tendency in the countries of Western Europe for families to grow smaller in size. There is a
general agreement that this has been brought about mainly by voluntary restriction of births”. In
this case, a change in the attitude of the people is mainly responsible for change in the social
structure. On the other hand, a change in the social structure may bring about attitudinal change
among the members of the society. Transformation of rural society into industrial society is not
simply a change in the structure of society. For example, industrialisation has destroyed domestic
system of production.The destruction of domestic system of production has brought women from
home to factory and office. The employment of women gave them a new independent outlook.
The attitude of independence instead of dependence upon men has become the trait of women’s
personally. Hence, these two type of changes should not be treated separately but both of them
should be studied together.The problem of social change is one of the central foci of sociological
inquiry. It is so complex and so significant in the life of individual and of society that we have to
explore the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of social change in all its ramifications.

Characteristics of Social Change:

The fact of social change has fascinated the keenest minds and still poses some of the great
unsolved problems in social sciences. The phenomenon of social change is not simple but
complex. It is difficult to understand this in its entirety. The unsolved problems are always
pressurising us to find an appropriate answer. To understand social change well, we have to
analyse the nature of social change which are as follows:

1. Social Change is Social:Society is a “web of social relationships” and hence social change
obviously means a change in the system of social relationships. Social relationships are
understood in terms of social processes and social interactions and social organizations.

Thus, the term social change is used to describe variation in social interactions, processes and
social organizations. Only that change can be called social change whose influence can be felt in
a community form. The changes that have significance for all or considerable segment of
population can be considered as social change.

2. Social Change is Universal:Change is the universal law of nature. The social structure, social
organization and social institutions are all dynamic. Social change occurs in all societies and at
all times. No society remains completely static.

Each society, no matter how traditional and conservative, is constantly undergoing change. Just
as man’s life cannot remain static, so does society of all places and times. Here adjustment take
place and here conflict breaks down adjustment. Here there is revolution and here consent. Here
men desire for achieving new goals, and here they return to old ones.

3. Social Change occurs as an Essential law:Change is the law of nature. Social change is also
natural. Change is an unavoidable and unchangeable law of nature. By nature we desire change.
Our needs keep on changing to satisfy our desire for change and to satisfy these needs, social
change becomes a necessity. The truth is that we are anxiously waiting for a change. According
to Green, “The enthusiastic response of change has become almost way of life.

4. Social Change is Continuous: Society is an ever-changing phenomenon. It is undergoing

endless changes. It is an “ongoing process”. These changes cannot be stopped. Society is subject
to continuous change. Here it grows and decays, there it finds renewal, accommodates itself to
various changing conditions.Society is a system of social relationship. But these social
relationships are never permanent. They are subject to change. Society cannot be preserved in a
museum to save it from the ravages of time. From the dawn of history, down to this day, society
has been in flux.Social change manifests itself in different stages of human history. In ancient
times when life was confined to caves (Stone Age), the social system was different from that of
the computer age today. There is no fixity in human relationships. Circumstances bring about
many a change in the behaviour patterns.

5. Social Change Involves No-Value Judgement:Social change does not attach any value
judgement. It is neither moral nor immoral, it is amoral. The question of “what ought to be” is
beyond the nature of social change. The study of social change involves no-value judgement. It
is ethically neutral. A correct decision on what is empirically true is not the same as correct
decision on what ought to be.

6. Social Change is Bound by Time Factors: Social change is temporal. It happens through
time, because society exists only as a time-sequences. We know its meaning fully only by
understanding it through time factors. For example, the caste system which was a pillar of
stability in traditional Indian society, is now undergoing considerable changes in the modern
India.There was less industrialisation in India during 50s. But in 90s, India has become more
industrialized. Thus, the speed of social change differs from age to age. The reason is that the
factors which cause social change do not remain uniform with the changes in time.

7. Rate and Tempo of Social Change is Uneven: Though social change is a must for each and
every society, the rate, tempo, speed and extent of change is not uniform. It differs from society
to society. In some societies, its speed is rapid; in another it may be slow. And in some other
societies it occurs so slowly that it may not be noticed by those who live in them. For example,
in the modern, industrial urban society the speed and extent of change is faster than traditional,
agricultural and rural society.

8. Definite Prediction of Social Change is Impossible: It is very much difficult to make out
any prediction on the exact forms of social change. A thousand years ago in Asia, Europe and
Latin America the face of society was vastly different from that what exists today. But what the
society will be in thousand years from now, no one can tell.But a change there will be. For
example, industrialisation and urbanisation has brought about a series of interrelated changes in
our family and marriage system. But we cannot predict the exact forms which social
relationships will assume in future. Similarly, what shall be our ideas, attitudes and value in
future, it is unpredictable.

9. Social Change Shows Chain-Reaction Sequences: Society is a dynamic system of

interrelated parts. Changes in one aspect of life may induce a series of changes in other aspects.
For example, with the emancipation of women, educated young women find the traditional type
of family and marriage not quite fit to their liking.They find it difficult to live with their parents-
in-law, obeying the mother-in-law at every point. They desire separate homes. The stability of
marriages can no longer be taken for granted. The changing values of women force men to
change their values also. Therefore, society is a system of interrelated parts. Change in its one
aspect may lead to a series of changes in other aspects of the society.

10. Social Change takes place due to Multi-Number of Factors: Social change is the
consequence of a number of factors. A special factor may trigger a change but it is always
associated with other factors that make the triggering possible. Social change cannot be
explained in terms of one or two factors only and that various factors actually combine and
become the ’cause’ of the change. M. Ginsberg observes: “A cause is an assemblage of factors
which, in interaction with each other, undergo a change”. There is no single master key by which
we can unlock all the doors leading to social change. As a matter of fact, social change is the
consequence of a number of factors.

11. Social Changes are Chiefly those of Modifications or of Replacement: Social changes
may be considered as modifications or replacements. It may be modification of physical goods or
social relationships. For example, the form of our breakfast food has changed. Though we eat the
same basic materials such as meats, eggs corn etc. which we ate earlier, their form has been
changed.Ready-to-eat cornflakes, breads, omelets are substituted for the form in which these
same materials were consumed in earlier years. Further, there may be modifications of social
relationships. For example, the old authoritarian family has become the small equalitarian
family. Our attitudes towards women’s status and rights, religion, co-education etc. stand
modified today.

12. Social Change may be Small-scale or Large-scale: A line of distinction is drawn between
small-scale and large scale social change. Small-scale change refers to changes within groups
and organizations rather than societies, culture or civilization. According W.E. Moore, by small-
scale changes we shall mean changes in the characteristics of social structures that though
comprised within the general system identifiable as a society, do not have any immediate and
major consequences for the generalised structure (society) as such.

13. Short-term and Long-term Change: The conceptualization of the magnitude of change
involves the next attribute of change, the time span. That is to say, a change that may be
classified as ‘small-scale from a short-term perspective may turn out to have large-scale
consequences when viewed over a long period of time, as the decreasing death rate since the
1960 in India exemplifies.

14. Social Change may be Peaceful or Violent: At times, the attribute ‘peaceful’ has been
considered as practically synonymous with ‘gradual’ and ‘violent’ with ‘rapid’. The term
‘violence’ frequently refers to the threat or use of physical force involved in attaining a given
change. In certain sense, rapid change may ‘violently’ affect the emotions, values and
expectations of those involved.According to W.E. Moore, “A ‘true’ revolution, a rapid and
fundamental alternation in the institutions or normative codes of society and of its power
distribution, is rapid and continuous by definition and is likely to be violent, but may well be
orderly as opposed to erratic”.‘Peaceful’ has to do with the changes that take place by consent,
acceptance or acquisition and that are enforced by the normative restraints of society.

15. Social Change may be Planned or Unplanned: Social change may occur in the natural
course or it is done by man deliberately. Unplanned change refers to change resulting from
natural calamities, such as famines and floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruption etc. So social
change is called as the unchangeable law of nature. The nature is never at rest.Planned social
change occurs when social changes are conditioned by human engineering. Plans, programmes
and projects are made by man in order to determine and control the direction of social
change.Besides that by nature human beings desire change. The curiosity of a man never rests;
nothing checks his desire to know. There is always a curiosity about unknown. The needs of
human beings are changing day by day. So to satisfy these needs they desire change.

16. Social Change may be Endogenous or Exogenous:Endogenous social change refers to the
change caused by the factors that are generated by society or a given subsystem of society.
Conflict, communication, regionalism etc. are some of the examples of endogenous social
change. On the other hand, exogenous sources of social change generally view society as a
basically stable, well-integrated system that is disrupted or altered only by the impact of forces
external to the system (e.g., world situation, wars, famine) or by new factors introduced into the
system from other societies. For example, technological transfer and brain drain, political and
cultural imperialism may lead to the diffusion of cultural traits beyond the limits of single
societies.

17. Change Within and Change of the System: The distinction between kinds of change has
been developed by Talcott Parsons in his analysis of change ‘within’ and change ‘of the system,
i.e., the orderly process of ongoing change within the boundaries of a system, as opposed to the
process resulting in changes of the structure of the system under consideration. Conflict theorists
draw our attention to the fact that the cumulative effect of change ‘within’ the system may result
in a change ‘of’ the system.To conclude, some of the attributes most frequently used in
describing change are: magnitude of change (small-scale, large-scale changes), time pan,
direction, rate of change, amount of violence involved. These dimensions should not be taken as
either/or attributes but rather as varying along a continuum from one extreme to another (e.g.,
revolutionary vs evolutionary).Other categorization that have been devised involve division of
changes on the basis of such characteristics as continuous vs spasmodic, orderly vs erratic and
the number of people (or roles) affected by or involved in change.Although no hard and fast
categories have yet been developed into which we can fit different types of change, the use of the
foregoing distinctions, may be helpful in clarifying one’s conceptualization of any type of
change or at least, they can help one to understand the complexities involved in developing a
definition of the subject of social change.

Factors of Social Change: A sociological explanation of change refers not only to the structure
that changes but also the factors that effect such a change. Social change has occurred in all
societies and in all periods of time. We should, therefore, know what the factors are that produce
change. Of course there is little consensus among the representatives of theoretical proposition
on the sources.Besides, the linear as well as the cyclical theorists paid little attention to the
determinations of factors involved in social change. Morris Ginsberg has made a systematic
analysis of the factors which have been invoked by different writers to explain social
change.Here, our analysis is confined to sociological implantation of the origins and causes of
change. Cause will be defined here as set of related factors which, taken together, are both
sufficient and necessary for the production of a certain effect.Attempt has been made to take up
each factors of social change by itself and find out the way in which it effects social change.
These factors are treated independently, purely for purpose of understanding and we are not of
the view that they can influence social change independent of other factors.

Technological Factor:Technological factor constitute one important source of social change.

Technology, an invention, is a great agent of social change. It either initiates or encourages social
change. Technology alone holds the key to change. When the scientific knowledge is applied to
the problems of life, it becomes technology. In order to satisfy his desires, to fulfill his needs and
to make his life more comfortable, man builds civilisation.The dawn of this new civilization is
the single most explosive fact of our lifetimes. It is the central event, the key to the
understanding of the years immediately ahead. We have already crossed the first wave
(agricultural revolution). We are now the children of the next transformation i.e. the third
wave.We go forward to describe the full power and reach of this extraordinary change. Some
speak of a “Looming Space Age”, “Information Age”, “Electronic Era”, or “Global ‘ Village”.
Brezezinski has told us, we face a “Technetronic Age”. Sociologist Daniel Bell describes the
coming of a “Post-Industrial Society”. Soviet futurists speak of the STR-’The Scientific-
Technological Revolution”. Alvin Toffler has written extensively about the arrival of a “Super
Industrial Society”.Technology is fast growing. Every technological advance makes it possible
for us to attain certain results with less effort, at less cost and at less time. It also provides new
opportunities and establishes new conditions of life. The social effects of technology are far-
reaching.In the words of W.F. Ogburn, “technology changes society by changing our
environment to which we in turn adapt. This change is usually in the material environment and
the adjustment that we make with these changes often modifies our customs and social
institutions”.Ogburn and Nimkoff have pointed that a single invention may have innumerable
social effects. According to them, radio, for example, has influenced our entertainment,
education, politics, sports, literature, knowledge, business, occupation and our modes of
organisation. They have given a list consisting of 150 effects of radio in U.S.A.The pace of
change in the modern era is easily demonstrated by reference to rates of technological
development. The technological revolution enabled human kind to shift from hunting and
gathering to sedentary agriculture and later to develop civilizations.Technological revolutions
enabled societies to industrialize urbanize, specialize, bureaucratize, and take on characteristics
that are considered central aspects of modern society. “Modern technology,” remarks the
economic historian David Landes, “produces not only more, faster; it turns out objects that could
not have been produced under any circumstances by the craft methods of yesterday.Most
important, modern technology has created things that could scarcely have been conceived in the
pre-industrial era the camera, the motor car, the aeroplane, the whole array of electronic devices
from the radio to the high speed computer, the nuclear power plant, and so on almost
adinfinitum…. The result has been an enormous increase in the output and variety of goods and
services, and this alone has changed man’s way of life more than anything since the discovery of
fire…”

Every technological revolution has brought about increase in the world population. Development
and advancement of agriculture resulted in the increase of population in the agricultural
communities; rise of commerce gave birth to the populous towns, international trade and
international contact and the industrial revolution set the human society on the new
pedestal.Technological changes have influenced attitudes, beliefs and traditions. The factory
system and industrialization, urbanization and the rise of working class, fast transport and
communication have demolished old prejudices, dispelled superstitions, weakened casteism, and
has given rise to the class based society.Ogborn even goes to the extent of suggesting that the
starter in motor car had something to do with the emancipation of women in the America and
Western Europe. Development in transport and communication has changed the outlook of the
people.Railways in India have played tremendous role in bringing about social mixing of the
people. It has helped people to move out of their local environments and take up jobs in distant
corners of the country. Movement of people from East to West and North to South has broken
social and regional barriers.There have come into existence new vocations and trades. People
have begun to give up their traditional occupations and are taking to work in the factories and in
the offices-commercial as well as Government. This has also made possible the vertical
mobility.A person can now aspire to take up an occupation with higher status than he could have
ever thought of in the pre-technological days. Technology has brought about Green Revolution
with abundance and variety for the rich.The rapid changes of every modern society are
inextricably interwoven or connected with and somehow dependent upon the development of
new techniques, new inventions, new modes of production and new standards of
living.Technology thus is a great bliss. It has made living worthwhile for the conveniences and
comfort it provides, and has created numerous vocations, trades and professions. While, giving
individual his rightful place, it has made the collectivity supreme.Technologies are changing and
their social consequences are profound. Fundamental changes brought by technology in social
structure are discussed as under:

1. Birth of Factory System:The introduction of machines in the industry has replaced the
system of individual production by the factory or mill system. It has led to the creation of huge
factories which employ thousands of people and where most of the work is performed
automatically.

2. Urbanisation:The birth of gigantic factories led to urbanisation and big cities came into
existence. Many labourers, who were out of employment in rural areas migrated to the sites to
work and settled around it. As the cities grew, so did the community of ‘labourers and with it
was felt the need for all civic amenities which are essential for society. Their needs were fulfilled
by establishing market centers, schools, colleges, hospitals, and recreation clubs. The area further
developed when new business came to it with the formation of large business houses.

3. Development of New Agricultural Techniques:The introduction of machinery into the

industry led to the development of new techniques in agriculture. Agricultural production was
increased due to the use of new chemical manure. The quality was also improved by the use of
superior seeds. All these factors resulted in increase of production. In India, the effect of
technology is most apparent in this direction because India is preeminently an agricultural
country.

4. Development of Means of Transportation and Communication:With the development of

technology, means of transportation and communication progressed at a surprising rate. These
means led to the mutual exchanges between the various cultures. Newspapers, radios, televisions
etc. helped to bring news from every corner of the world right into the household. The
development of the car, rail, ship and aeroplane made transportation of commodities much
easier. As a result national and international trade made unprecedented progress.

5. Evolution of New Classes: Industrialisation and urbanisation gave birth to the emergence of
new classes in modern society. Class struggle arises due to division of society into classes having
opposite-interests.
6. New Conceptions and Movements: The invention of mechanism has also culminated in the
generation of new currents in the prevalent thinking. ‘Trade Union’ movements, ‘Lockouts’,
‘Strikes”, “Hartals’, ‘Processions’, ‘Pen down’ became the stocks-in-trade of those who want to
promote class interest. These concepts and movements become regular features of economic
activity.

The effects of technology on major social institution may be summed up in the following
manner:

Family:Technology has radically changed the family organisation and relation in several
ways.Firstly, small equalitarian nuclear family system based on love, equality, liberty and
freedom is replacing the old, authoritarian joint family system. Due to invention of birth, control
method, the size of family reduced.Secondly, Industrialisation destroying the domestic system of
production has brought women from home to the factories and office. The employment of
women meant their independence from the bondage of man. If brought a change in their attitudes
and ideas. It meant a new social life for women. It consequently affected every part of the family
life.Thirdly due to technology, marriage has lost its sanctity. It is now regarded as civil contract
rather than a religious sacrament. Romantic marriage, inter-caste marriage and late marriages are
the effects of technology. Instances of divorce, desertion, separation and broken families are
increasing.Lastly, though technology has elevated the status of women, it has also contributed to
the stresses and strains in the relations between men and women at home. It has lessened the
importance of family in the process of socialisation of its members.

Religion:Technology has effected wide range of changes in our religious life. Many religious
practices and ceremonies which once marked the individual and social life, have now been
abandoned by them. With the growth of scientific knowledge and modern education, the faith of
the people in several old religious beliefs and activities have shaken.

Economic life:The most striking change due to technological advance, is the change in
economic organisation. Industry has been taken away from the household and new types of
economic organisation like factories, stores, banks, joint stock companies, stock-exchanges, and
corporation have been setup. It has given birth to capitalism with all its attendant evils.Division
of labour, specialization of function, differentiation and integration all the products of
technology. Though it has brought in higher standard of living, still then by creating much more
middle classes, it has caused economic depression, unemployment, poverty, industrial disputes
and infectious diseases.

Effects on State:Technology has affected the State in several ways. The functions of the State
has been widened. A large number of functions of family, such as educative, recreation, health
functions have been transferred to the State.The idea of social welfare State is an offshoot of
technology. Transportation and communication are leading to a shift of functions from local
Government to the Central Government. The modern Government which rule through the
bureaucracy have further impersonalised the human relations.

Social life: Technological innovations have changed the whole gamut of social and cultural life.
The technological conditions of the modern factory system tend to weaken the rigidity of the
caste system and strengthen industrializations. It has changed the basis of social stratification
from birth to wealth. Urbanization, a consequence of technological advance, produces greater
emotional tension and mental strain, instability and economic insecurity.There is masking of
one’s true feelings. Socially, the urbanites are poor in the midst of plenty. “They feel lonely in
the crowd”. On all sides, one is confronted with “human machines which possess motion but not
sincerity, life but not emotion, heart but not feelings”. Technology has grown the sense of
individualism. It has substituted the ‘handi work’ with ‘head work’.It is clear from the above
explanation that technology has profoundly altered our modes of life and also thought. It is
capable of bringing about vast changes in society. But is should not be considered as a sole factor
of social change. Man is the master as well as a servant of the machine. He has the ability to alter
the circumstances which have been the creation of his own inventions or technology.

Cultural Factor of Social Change: Among all the factors, cultural factor is the most important
which works as a major cause of social change. Culture is not something static. It is always in
flux. Culture is not merely responsive to changing techniques, but also it itself is a force directing
social change.Culture is the internal life forces of society. It creates itself and develops by itself.
It is men who plan, strive and act. The social heritage is never a script that is followed slavishly
by people. A culture gives cues and direction to social behaviour.Technology and material
inventions may influence social change but direction and degree of this depends upon the
cultural situation as a whole. “Culture is the realm of final valuation”. Men interpret the whole
world. He is the master as well as the servant of his own inventions or technology.To employ
Maclver’s simile, technological means may be represented by a ship which can set sail to various
ports. The port we sail to remains a cultural choice. Without the ship we could not sail at all.
According to the character of the ship we sail fast of ‘slow, take longer or shorter voyages.Our
lives are also accommodated to the conditions on ship board and our experiences vary
accordingly. But the direction in which we travel is not predestinated by the design of the ship.
The port to which we sail, the direction in which we travel, remains totally of a cultural choice.It
should be noted that technology alone cannot bring vast changes in society. In order to be
effective “The technology must have favourable cultural support”. When the cultural factor
responds to technological change, it also reacts on it so as to influence the direction and character
of social change.It may be noted that culture not only influences our relationship and values but
also influences the direction and character of technological change. For example, different
countries like Great Britain, Soviet Union, U.S.A. and India may adopt the same technology, but
in so far as their prevalent outlook on life differs, they will apply it in different directions and to
different ends.The atomic energy can be used for munition of war and for production purposes.
The industrial plant can turn out armaments or necessaries of life. Steel and iron can be used for
building purposes and for warships. Fire can be used for constructive and destructive purposes.

Demographic Factor of Social Change:

The demographic factor plays the most decisive role in causing social change. The quantitative
view of demography takes into account the factors that determine the population: its size,
numbers, composition, density and the local distribution etc.The population of every community
is always changing both in numbers and in composition. The changes in population have a far-
reaching effect on society. During the 19th century, the population of most countries of Western
Europe fell down. During the same time also, the death rate of these countries declined. This
double phenomenon is unprecedented in the history of man.Population changes have occurred all
through human history. It is due to various reasons such as migration, invasion, and war,
pestilence, changing food supply and changing mores. There was depopulation and
overpopulation in times past. The swift and steady decline of both the birth rate and death in the
past 70 years or so witnesses to a great social transformation.In a society where the size or
number of female children is greater than the number of male children, we will find a different
system of courtship, marriage and family disorganisation from that where the case is reverse.
Women command less respect in that community where their numbers are more.It has always
been recognised that there exists a reciprocal relation between population and social structure.
The social structure influences population changes and is affected by them. It is beyond doubt
that economic conditions and population rates are interdependent. Increasing 254 Social Change
interaction results from an increase in the size and density of population. Increase in population
also leads to an increase of social differentiation and a division of labour.With the changes in
size, number and density of population, changes take place in composition. The most important
reasons for the contemporary population explosion are the tremendous technological changes on
the one hand and a most spectacular advance in controlling the diseases by science and
preventive medicines on the other hand.Advancement in science and technology is indirectly
boosting the world population by delaying the death rate. For example, take the case of
‘Malaria’. This disease was responsible for the death of million of people in India and other
countries.But it has now been completely eliminated by destroying the malaria carrying
mosquitoes with the use of pesticides. Surgery too has advanced so much today. The vital organs
of human body such as kidney and heart can be transplanted or replaced when worn out.The
growth of population has given birth to a great variety of social problems such as unemployment,
child labour, wars, competition and production of synthetic goods. It has led to urbanization with
all its attendant evils.Countries with growing population and relatively limited resources have an
incentive to imperialism and to militarism. These attitudes in turn, encourage a further increase
of population. Increase in population threatens the standards of living and thus inspires a change
of attitude.Due to unprecedented growth of population in the 19th century, the practice of birth
control took a new development. This practice (use of contraceptive), in turn, had many
repercussions on family relationships and even on attitudes towards marriage.With a change in
population, there is also a change in a pattern of ‘consumption’. Societies having large number of
children are required to spend relatively large amounts of money on food and education. On the
other hand, societies with large proportions of elderly people have to spend relatively more
amount on medical care.In some cases, population changes may initiate pressures to change
political institutions. For example, changes in the age, sex or ethnic composition of a people of
then complicates the political process of country.Besides, there is a close relationship between
the growth of population and the level of physical health and vitality of the people. Because there
are many mouths to feed, none gets enough nutritious food to eat, as a result chronic malnutrition
and associated diseases become prevalent.These, induce physical incompetence, apathy and lack
of enterprise. Due to these people’s low level of physical well-being, they are socially backward
and unprogressive. They show their indifference to improve their material welfare. An underfed,
disease-ridden people are lethargic people.Moreover, if the growth of population is checked, it
would mean a higher standard of living, the emancipation of women from child-bearing
drudgery, better care for the young and consequently a better society.Demographers have shown
that variation in the density of population also affects nature of our social relationship. In a low
population density area, the people are said to exhibit a greater degree of primary relationship
whereas in the area of high density of population, the relationship between people is said to
superficial and secondary. In the opinion of Worth, high density areas witness the growth of
mental stress and loneliness of life.The importance of demography as a factor of social change
has been realised by various sociologists and economists. An eminent French sociologist, Emile
Durkheim, went on to the extent of developing a new branch of sociology dealing with
population which he called “Social Morphology” which not only analyses the size and quality of
population but also examine how population affects the quality of social relationships and social
groups.Durkheim has pointed out that our modern societies are not only characterised by
increasing division of labour but also specialisation of function. The increasing division of labour
and specialization of function have a direct correlation with the increasing density of population.
He stresses on the fact that in a simple society with comparatively lesser number of people, the
necessity of complex division of labour is less felt.This society, according to Durkheim, is based
on “mechanical solidarity”. But as the groups grow in size and complexity with the increase in
population, the “services of the experts” are more required. The society, according to him, moves
towards “organic solidarity”. There is, so to say, a drift from mechanical to organic solidarity.M.
David Heer, in his book “Society and Population”, has developed a “theory of demographic
transition”. The theory was popularised just after the end of World War-II. It has provided a
comprehensive explanation of the effects of economic development both on fertility and
mortality decline. Schneidar and Dornbusch, in their book “Popular Religion”, have pointed that
decline in mortality rate evokes several changes in social structure. They have stressed on the
point that due to decline in mortality rate in USA since 1875, negative attitude towards religious
beliefs have been cultivated by the people.They also point out that in a society wherein children
die before reaching the age of five, parents may not develop a strong emotional attachment to
their children and also in a high mortality society, arranged marriages are common, but in a low
mortality society love marriages become the dominant feature. Again when mortality rate is
high, individual tends to have a weaker orientation towards the future and stronger orientation
towards the present.Thomas Robert Malthus, an English cleargyman, mathematician and
economist, was one of the earliest demographers. In his work, “An Essay on the Principles of
Population”, published in 1978, he mentioned that under normal conditions, population would
grow by geometrical progression, whereas the means of subsistence would grow by arithmetical
progression. The imbalance or lag or gap between the two would create a lot of problems for
society.That is why, Malthus has pleaded for two types of checks which can keep the population
down. He spoke of hunger and disease as positive check, and late marriage and enforced celibacy
as the preventive check.From the above analysis, we find that demographic factor has been
contributing to the great transformations in society’s socioeconomic and political structure
throughout human history. For example, most countries in Asia where more than half world
population is now living, is characterised by high birth rate. These countries in general and
Indian society in particular, are passing through a critical period of great poverty, unemployment
and moral degeneration.The gap between the living standards of general masses of these
countries and that of the developed countries is widening. The gap is cruelly frustrating the third
world country’s hopes for development.With the current rate of population increase, it is
expected that the total requirements for future health, education, housing and many other welfare
needs are bound to increase. This will certainly bring the drastic changes not only in the
microstructures, but also in macrostructures of Indian society.

12.Culture and Society

Q.Describe the inter-relationship between culture and society

Culture consists of the beliefs, behaviors, objects, and other characteristics common to the
members of a particular group or society. Through culture, people and groups define themselves,
conform to society's shared values, and contribute to society. Thus, culture includes many
societal aspects: language, customs, values, norms, mores, rules, tools, technologies, products,
organizations, and institutions. This latter term institution refers to clusters of rules and cultural
meanings associated with specific social activities. Common institutions are the family,
education, religion, work, and health care.

Sociologists define society as the people who interact in such a way as to share a common
culture. The cultural bond may be ethnic or racial, based on gender, or due to shared beliefs,
values, and activities. The term society can also have a geographic meaning and refer to people
who share a common culture in a particular location. For example, people living in arctic
climates developed different cultures from those living in desert cultures. In time, a large variety
of human cultures arose around the world.

Culture and society are intricately related. A culture consists of the “objects” of a society,
whereas a society consists of the people who share a common culture. When the terms
culture and society first acquired their current meanings, most people in the world worked and
lived in small groups in the same locale. In today's world of 6 billion people, these terms have
lost some of their usefulness because increasing numbers of people interact and share resources
globally. Still, people tend to use culture and society in a more traditional sense: for example,
being a part of a “racial culture” within the larger “U.S. society.”

Culture is changing constantly. Certain products of culture are governments, languages,

buildings and man made things. It is a powerful tool for the survival of mankind. Cultural
patterns of ancient people are reflected in their artifacts and are studied by archaeologists to
understand their way of life. Culture is an important part of a society for the very existence of
society. Culture also plays an important role to establish discipline in a society.

According to the behavior patterns and perceptions, there are three levels of culture:-

First one is the body of cultural traditions that makes you to differentiate a society from
others. When people speak German, Japanese or Italian, then they are referred as the language,
beliefs and traditions shared by each set of people that is different from others.

Second one is the subculture in which different societies from different parts of the world
preserve their original culture. Such people are the part of a subculture in the new society. For
example, subcultures in United States consist of ethnic groups like Mexican Americans, African
Americans and Vietnamese Americans. The members of each subculture share a common
language, identity, food tradition and other traits through a common ancestral upbringing.

The third level is the cultural universals that consist of behavior patterns shared by the
humanity as a whole. Some examples of such behavior patterns are communicating with a
verbal language, use of age and gender to classify people, differentiation based on marriage and
relationships.

Society is referred to as a group of people who share common area, culture and behavior
patterns. Society is united and referred as a distinct entity. Society consists of a government,
health care, education system and several occupations of people. In a society each and every
individual is important because each individual can contribute something to the society. Also you
can find smaller groups of people with a certain goal which include groups of students,
government agencies or groups that raise money for a specific cause in a society. Many different
cultures can be found within a society. You can find several differences within a country or
town.

Culture reflects the characteristics that describe a society at a particular time; and the culture is
mostly associated with the art forms. On the other hand, society is a long-standing group of
people sharing cultural aspects such as language, dress, norms of behavior and artistic forms.

Wikipedia defines culture as “The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual
achievement regarded collectively”. The word culture has been derived from Latin word
‘cultura’, meaning cultivation. In 18th or 19th century, the word culture was used in Europe to
refer to a process of cultivation or improvement. Later in the 19th century, the term evolved and
started being used for referring to the betterment or refinement of the society and, then to
fulfillment of national ideals or aspirations. In 20th century, it finally emerged as an important
concept in anthropology describing the human related phenomena that cannot be considered
genetically inherited. It is an attribute referring to members of groups. Culture is always
transmitted by the society, not by an individual.

Wikipedia defines society as “A group of people involved with each other through persistent
relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, subject to
the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations”. The word society has been
derived from the Latin word ‘societas’, meaning bond or interaction among parties or friends.
When one says that the society which he recently shifted in is much more tolerant than the old
one, it means he is talking about the community where he is residing now.

Culture is a historic perspective and traditional beliefs and practices that are ongoing over the
generations, whereas, society has to do everything with laws, government, constitutions, family,
and many things. In short, one has to live a social life considering all these aspects in life.
Society can also have many different cultures but one culture is always dominant.

Comparison between Culture and Society:

Culture Society
 The totality of socially  The totality of social
Meaning
transmitted behavior relationships among
patterns, arts, beliefs, humans.
(TheFreeDictionary.com)
institutions, and all  A group of humans
 other products of broadly distinguished
human work and from other groups by
thought. mutual interests,
 These patterns, traits, participation in
and products are characteristic
considered as the relationships, shared
expression of a institutions, and a
particular period, common culture.
class, community, or
population.

Derived from Latin word ‘cultura’ Latin word ‘societas’

Is the sum total of beliefs,
practices and moral values
Sum total
that are ongoing over the
generations
Products, arts, music and
Reflected
cuisine of a society
Culture is more real concept
Concept
than society
It is a collective body of
Knowledge knowledge, including
attitudes, norms, etc.
Related to Culture is related to a person
A culture represents an
Represents
individual
Is the sum total of all different
social groups and their
interactions
Intellectual and artistic
sensitivity
Society is more abstract
concept than culture
It is the resultant behavior of
the people who know the
body of knowledge.
A person is related to his own
society
A small and a large group of
the same culture represents a
society

Culture is basically the sharing of values and knowledge by a society.

13.Cultural Lag

Q.What is cultural lag?

For a better understanding of the relationship between culture and technology, let us analyse here
the concept of “cultural lag”.

The concept of ‘cultural lag’, has become a favourite one with sociologists, it is an expression
that has a particular appeal in an age in which inventions discoveries and innovations of many
kinds are constantly disturbing and threatening older ways of living. In this context, it will serve
also to introduce the principle that cultural conditions are themselves important agencies in the
process of social change.The concept of ‘cultural lag’ was first explicitly formulated by W.F.
Ogburn in his treaties entitled ‘Social Change’. Lag means crippled movement. Hence, ‘cultural
lag’ means the phases of culture which fall behind other phases that keep on moving
ahead.Ogburn’s idea of ‘cultural lag’ is perhaps one of the most important concept influencing
the fact of discussion regarding technology and social change. Ogburn distinguishes between
“material” and ‘non-material’ culture.By ‘material culture’ he means things which are ‘tangible’,
visible, seen or touched like goods, tools, utensils, furniture, machine. But the ‘non-material’
culture includes things which cannot be touched or tangible such as family, religion, skill, talent.
Government and education etc.According to Ogburn, when changes occur in ‘material culture’,
those in turn stimulate changes in ‘non-material’ culture, particularly in what he terms the
‘adaptive’ culture. According to Ogburn, material culture changes by a process which is different
in pace from changes in non-material culture.The larger the technological knowledge of a
society, the greater the possibility of a new combinations and innovations. Thus, material culture
tends to grow exponentially. Because society cannot develop methods of controlling and
utilizing new technology before the technology is accepted and used. There exists a “cultural
lag” in creating controls and altering social relationship related to new conditions brought about
by new technology.Cultural lag is due to man’s psychological dogmatism. He is wedded to
certain ideologies regarding sex, education and religion. On account of his dogmatic beliefs and
ideologies, he is not prepared to change his social institutions. The failure to adopt social
institutions to the changes in the material culture leads to cultural lag.But Maclver points out that
“unfortunately it is often adopted without adequate analysis and consequently it has not been
developed in a clear and effective manner. According to him, the distinction is not a workable
one. Nor again should be assumed that, it is always the ‘material’ or that the main problem is one
of adapting the ‘non-material’ to the ‘material’ culture.Maclver also observes that the term ‘lag’
is not properly applicable to relations between technological factors and the cultural patterns or
between the various components of the cultural pattern itself. He has used different words like,
‘technological lag’, ‘technological restraint’, for the resulting imbalance in the different parts of
culture.Kingsley Davis, in his ‘Human Society’ holds that the aspect of culture cannot be divided
into material and non-material and that this distinction in no way helps us to understand the
nature of technology. Other sociologists, Sutherland, Wood Ward and Maxwell, in their book
‘Introductory Sociology’ point out that Ogburn is guilty of over simplifying the processes of
social change.Social change is a complex phenomenon. The rate, speed and direction of social
change is not the same everywhere. So it cannot be explained by simply saying that change first
takes place in material culture and thereafter in non-material culture. Ogburn has taken an over
simple materialistic view of society.In spite of various shortcomings, Ogburn’s theory of cultural
lag has been proved to be beneficial for the understanding of the cultural factor in bringing about
social change. It has been acknowledged by all that there is an intimate connections between the
technological advance and our cultural values.Hence, we may note here that our culture, our
thoughts, values, habits are the consequences of technological changes; the latter also is the
consequences of changes of the former. Both technology and cultural factors are the two
important sources of social change. The two are not only interdependent but also interactive.
Man does not simply want a thing but he wants a thing which may also be beautiful and
appealing to his senses. Dowson and Gettys, in introduction to Sociology’, rightly remark,
“Culture tends to give direction and momentum to social change to set limits beyond which
social change cannot occur.It is the culture which has kept the social relationship intact. It makes
people think not of their own but also of the others. Any change in cultural valuation will have
wider repercussion on the personality of the individual and the structure of the group. Every
technological invention, innovation, new industrial civilization or new factor disturbs an old
adjustment.The disturbance created by mechanism was so great that it seemed to be the enemy of
culture, as indeed all revolutions seem. The wealth-bringing machine brought also, ugliness,
shoddiness, haste, standardization. It brought new hazards, new diseases, and industrial
fatigue.That was not the fault of the machines and power plants. It was due to the ruthlessness
and greed of those who controlled these great inventions. But human values or cultural values
reasserted themselves against economic exploitation. Culture began, at first very slowly, to
redirect the new civilization. It made the new means of living at length more tractable to the uses
of personality and new arts blossomed on the ruins of the old.To conclude, social systems are
directly or indirectly the creation of cultural values. So eminent sociologist Robert Bierstedt has
rightly remarked, “What people think, in short, determines in every measure… what they do and
what they want”. Thus, there a definite relation is a definite relation between changing beliefs
and attitudes and changing social institutions. So Hobhouse says, there is “a broad correlation
between the system of institutions and mentally behind them”.

14.Deviant Sub-Culture

Q.Describe deviant sub-culture

A Sub-Culture is a smaller culture held by a group of people within the main culture of a society,
in some ways different from the dominant culture of a society, but with many aspects in
common.Subcultures come in a diversity of forms, associated with street gangs, prison inmates,
drug addicts, football hooligans, religious cults, hippie communes, and punk rockers. On a larger
societal scale, subcultures include working-class and underclass subcultures, racial/ethnic
subcultures, immigrant subcultures, regional subcultures, and youth subcultures.
The existence of many subcultures is characteristic of complex societies such as the United
States. Conflict theorists argue that subcultures often emerge because the dominant society has
unsuccessfully attempted to suppress a practice regarded as improper, such as the use of illegal
drugs.The impact of subculture within the United States is evident in the celebration of seasonal
traditions. December is dominated by the religious and commercial celebration of Christmas
holiday – an event well-entrenched in the dominant culture of American society. However, the
Jewish subculture observes Hanukkah, African Americans observe the relatively new holiday of
Kwanzaa and some atheists join in rituals celebrating the winter Solstice (K.Peterson, 1992).
A subculture develops an ‘argot’ or specialized language, which distinguishes it from the wider
society. Argot allows ‘insiders’, the members of the subculture, to understand words with special
meanings. It also establishes patterns of communication which cannot be understood by
‘outsiders’. Sociologists associated with the interactionist perspective emphasize that language
and symbols offer a powerful way for a subculture to maintain its identity. The particular argot
of a given subculture provides a feeling of cohesion to the members and contributes to the
development of group identity (Halliday, 1978).
For example, in Mauritius, the youth especially the boys have a different argot of our national
language, the ‘Creole Language’. It actually distinguishes them from the rest of our society.
Words like ‘Chek sa’, ‘Mamou’, ‘Payer net’, ‘Met la faya’, ‘Tai Carte’, ‘Pren Nisa’, ‘Siloy Net’
and so on, form part of the everyday jargon of our Mauritian youths today.
Subcultures develop in a number of ways – they often emerge because a segment of society faces
problems or even privileges unique to its position. Subcultures may be based on common age
(teenagers or old people), region, ethnic heritage or beliefs (a militant political group).
Although not all subcultures are deviant, the term subculture is often used to refer to the values
and attitudes of deviant groups, and especially deviant groups of juveniles. Deviant subcultures--
groups that develop values and norms considered outside the culture of the dominant population;
examples of deviant subcultures include some musical groups, youth gangs, alternative lifestyles,
and non-traditional religious communities.A deviant subculture may be considered "deviant"
because it is involved in behaviour that threatens the mainstream population or because it is
labeled as deviant by the mainstream population.

Example of the Skinhead Counterculture

Beginning in about 1968, a new counter culture surfaced in Great Britain. The Skinheads were
young people with shaved heads who often sported suspenders, tattoos and steel-toed shoes. In
part, Skinhead groups emerged as vocal and sometimes violent supporters of certain British
Soccer teams. These young people generally came from working-class backgrounds and had
little expectation of ‘making it’ in mainstream society. They listened to music that extolled
violence and even racism, performed by such groups as Britain’s Skrewdriver, France’s Brutal
Combat and the United States’ Tulsa Boot Boys. More seriously, some Skinhead groups
championed racist and anti-Semitic ideologies and engaged in vandalism, violence and even
murder. Immigrants from India, Pakistan and the West Indies became a common target of
Skinhead attacks.Today, while some Skinheads around the world adopt only the distinctive dress
and music associated with this counterculture, most seem to espouse White Supremacy and racial
hatred. In almost all the countries where Skinhead groups exist, they have committed acts of
reckless violence against racial and ethnic minorities, including Jews.Since the 1990s, lesbians,
gay men; the homeless and people with disabilities have also become targets of Skinhead attacks.
It appears that Skinheads attack those viewed as ‘weaker’, in order to bolster their own feelings
of superiority.Skinheads constitute a youthful counterculture which challenges the values of
larger societies. Their dress and music represent a symbolic rejection of the traditions of previous
generations.
Different sociologist hold different view points regarding the reasons for deviant behavior. "Typological,"
or "Criminal types" theories say criminals are different from noncriminals physically and/or psychology.
Lombroso's "positive" school of criminology (200 years old) said criminals are characterized by stigmata
- abnormalities such as an asymmetrical cranium, irregular teeth, a flattened nose, scanty beard, low
sensitivity to pain. These represented a degeneration into a savage type. because of their predisposition,
criminals were seen as unable to abstain from crime unless unusually good life circumstances intervened.
Empirical evidence failed to sustain this view - criminals and noncriminals did not differ on these
physical traits. Various other typological approaches have since been tried. Intelligence testers" - (H.H.
Goddard) - saw criminals as mentally deficient, unable to appreciate the consequences of behavior.
According to Goddard, almost all criminals were feebleminded and almost all feebleminded persons were
criminal. "Criminal somatypes" (William Sheldon) - attempted to differentiate criminals from
noncriminals based on body type. Hooton, in the 1930's, claimed to show that criminals were biologically
inferiority. Latest variation of this is represented in Wilson and Herrnstein's “Crime and Human Nature”.
This 1985 book argues that constitutional factors can have an effect on criminality. They note that the
average offender differs from non-offenders in physique, intelligence, and personality.
"Social Organization" theories argue that variations in crime rates are due to variations in social
organization. Suggested that deviance emerged from social change, particularly rapid changes
and the social disorganization they produced. A classic 1920's work, “The Polish Peasant in
Europe and America”, argued that traditional societies have low levels of crime and deviance
because of their personal and communal social controls. The city is more disorganized than the
traditional societies from which many Immigrants derived, leading to an increase in deviance.
"Chicago School" (Park and Burgess, Shaw and McKay) studies of Chicago in the 1920s showed
that delinquency varied widely from neighborhood to neighborhood. Rates were generally
highest in the low-rent areas in the center of the city. Some areas had high rates for more than 50
years, despite an almost complete change in ethnic composition. The researchers concluded that
delinquency rates were more likely to be a function of social conditions than of individual traits.
These types of studies were criticized on various grounds. While cities do have higher rates of
some types of crime, it is not clear that social disorganization is responsible. More importantly,
there is a strong anti-lower class bias in this work; white collar and corporate crime are ignored.

Another major theory is Merton's theory of anomie. Merton was interested in whether certain
types of societies would be more or less likely to generate deviant behavior. He speculated that
the societies most prone to deviant behavior would be those in which the greatest emphasis was
placed on achieving specific goals (e.g. monetary success) but in which legitimate means for
reaching those goals were unavailable to some sectors of society. (Legitimate means include
education, working hard, making wise investments.) Hence, according to Merton, deviance is the
result of an almost universal cultural desire for material security, success, and comfort on one
hand, and limited opportunities to achieve these things on the other hand. Merton defines anomie
as a confused, normless state of the individual faced with the dilemma described above. This
state of anomie increases the likelihood that crime will be used to reach desired goals. There are
five general responses to goal attainment:

1. Conformist - The individual accepts both the legitimate cultural goals of success and the
institutionalized or conventional means for reaching these goals. (Goals +, Means +)

2. Innovationist - The individual accepts the goals but employs illegitimate means for
attainment. You want the culturally valued things (such as money) but you don't accept the
societal norms for achieving these things. (Goals +, Means -). EX: Burglars, fences, loan sharks.

3. Ritualists - individual abandons the goals of society, but nonetheless continues to abide by
institutional norms. (Goals -, Means +). EX: Poorly paid clerk who never misses a day of work -
he has given up on the goal of success, but continues to follow appropriate means.

4. Retreatists - individual rejects both the goals and the means of society. An individual often
enters this mode after repeated failure in the conformist mode. (Goals -, Means -). EX:
Alcoholics, drug users.

5. Rebellion mode - The individual withdraws allegiance from society, which he/she sees as
unjust, and seeks to establish a new, modified society. (Goals +/-, Means +/-). EX: Hippies,
Russian revolution.Criticism of Merton are 1. More appropriate to monetary crimes than
deviance generally 2. Has an anti-lower class bias - because they have less resources, the poor
should be less likely to commit crime. Official statistics greatly overstate offense rates among the
poor, which make the theory look better than it really is. Self-report measures of crime show
little correlation between social class and criminality.

Functionalist approaches argues that deviance is functional for society. Durkheim argued that

crime and deviance serve important, latent functions for society. Crime is ubiquitous and
inevitable. Example: Prostitution obviated the need for "mutual complementariness" of sexual
desire; provided a social service to those otherwise deprived of sexual satisfaction (thus
diminishing sexual aggression); and allowed the maintenance of a double standard that protected
the "virtue" of the respectable woman and thereby the structure of the family. "The upright might
rail against the whore...but only her presence allowed society to 'reduce the sexual irregularities
of respectable women' and avoid a Hobbesian state of sexual promiscuity and
licentiousness.Another example: Racketeering was a "natural response" to the peculiar features
of the New York dock land, performing the function, which other agencies could not do, of
stabilizing a chaotic market and establishing an order and structure in the industry."

Socialization approaches includes many explanations. A number of theories stress the groups
within which deviance occurs and the socialization processes by which deviant lifestyles are
created. These theories are generally more appropriate for achieved forms of deviance (crime,
prostitution, drug use) than for those that are ascribed (physical handicaps, mental retardation)
One of the most influential socialization theories is Sutherland's theory of differential
association. This theory holds that deviance is learned in much the same way that lawful or
conforming behaviors are learned. According to the theory, each person is surrounded by people,
definitions, norms, and behavior patterns that differ in that some are favorable to law violation
while others are not. Whether or not a person becomes deviant will be a function of the relative
mixture of these procriminal and anticriminal experiences. A person becomes deviant because of
an excess of definitions favorable to violations of the law over definitions unfavorable to
violation of law.

Conflict theories argue that economic and class interests affect deviance. Deviantization is a tool
of the most powerful groups in society. Illegal acts are those which threaten the "ruling class"
interests. The law is a coercive weapon of the state's dominant class. Crime rates appear to be
high among the poor because the criminal laws were written by the rich AND because crime is a
rational response to social inequality. Instead of thinking of crime as impulsive or pathological,
conflict theorists tend to regard many crimes as highly rational given the inequitable distribution
of wealth. The strongest support for conflict theory lies in the difference between street crime
and white collar crime. Sutherland examined court cases involving anti-trust violations, false and
misleading advertising, unfair labor practices, embezzlement and fraud. He concluded these
offenses were generally more costly and injurious to public safety and street crime, but these
offenses seldom received heavy criminal sanctions - or often any criminal sanctions at all.
Virtually all the participants (the offenders, the regulators, the judges) treated these offenses as if
they were not real crimes. Hence, it is argued that deviantization is more a function of vested
political interests than of the objective harmfulness of the deviantized behavior.
15.Culture and Civilization

Q.Distinguish between culture and civilization

Difference between Culture and Civilization, Sociologists View

Culture Civilization

Civilization consists of technology or the authority of man

Culture includes religion, art
over natural phenomenon as well as social technology
philosophy, literature, music, dance,
which control man's behavior. Civilization includes all
etc. which brings satisfaction and
those things by means of which some other objective is
pleasure to many. It is the expression
attained. Type writers, motors, etc. come under this
of final aspects of life.
category.

Culture is what we are. Civilization is what we have.

Culture has no standard of Civilization has a precise standard of measurement. The

measurement because it is an end in universal standard of civilization is utility because
itself. civilization is a means.

Culture cannot be said to be

advancing. It cannot be asserted that Civilization is always advancing. The various constituents
the art, literature, thoughts are ideals of civilizations namely machines, means of transportation,
of todays and superior to those of communication, etc. are constantly progressive.
past.

Culture is internal and an end. It is

Civilization is external and a means. It is the means for the
related to internal thoughts, feelings,
expression and manifestation of the grandness, it is like the
ideals, values, etc. It is like the soul
body of an individual.
of an individual.
16.Society and Environment

Q.Explain the relation between society and environment

Sociologists interested in societal-environmental relationships is divided into two separate and

largely harmoniously coexisting subdisciplines: environmental sociology and the sociology of
natural resources. Sociology of natural resources is the more longstanding of the two
subdisciplines, The difference between the two are given below.

Tendencies Within Environmental Sociology and the Sociology

of Natural Resources

Dimension Environmental sociology Sociology of

natural resources

1.Origins 1.Grew out of the 1.Long-standing

environmental movement emphasis
among rural
sociologists,
leisure=outdoor
recreation
researchers, and
2.Definition of 2.``Singular,’’ encompassing, social
environment cumulative disruption scientists in
resource
agencies
3.Main features 3. Pollution, resource scarcity,
of the environment global environment, 2.Local ecosystem
stressed ecological footprints or
landscape
4. Definition of 4. Reduction of aggregate
sustainability levels of pollution
and raw materials usage 3. Conservation,
(local) carrying
capacity

5. Predominant cadre 5. Liberal arts sociologists

of practitioners 4. Long-term
sustained yields
of natural
resources, social
6. Scale=unit of analysis 6. Nation-state equity in allocation
Metropolitan focus and
use of resources,
reduction
7. Overarching 7. Explaining environmental of social conflict
problematic degradation over
natural resources
5. Natural resource
agency staff;
college of
agriculture=natural
8. Theoretical 8. Highly theoretical, resources staff;
commitments often meta theoretical rural
sociologists

6. Community or
region
Nonmetropolitan
focus

7. Improving
public policy,
minimizing
environmental
impacts and
conflicts,
improving resource
management

8. Deemphasis on
social theory

Concepts of environmental sociology

1.Neo-Malthusianism:-

Works such as Hardin's the tragedy of the commons (1968) reformulated Malthusian thought
about abstract population increases causing famines into a model of individual selfishness at
larger scales causing degradation of common pool resources such as the air, water, the oceans, or
general environmental conditions.

2.Eco-Marxism:-
Some sociologists wanted to stretch Marxist ideas of social conflict to analyze environmental
social movements from the materialist framework instead of interpreting environmental
movements as a more cultural "New Social Movement" separate than material concerns. So
"Eco-Marxism" was based on using Neo-Marxist conflict sociology concepts .