Discuss about Social Thought and Social Change………………….
Enlightenment and Social Change
Social order Alteration which involves sociocultural evolution and social progress define the idea that is referred to as Social Change. Social change in society has been effected by such ideologies, movements or even revolutions such as those presented in Marxism, Civil rights movement, Social movements as well as Women’s Suffrage movements. The onset of the above movements has resulted to social enlightenment [or simply enlightenment]. Enlightenment or the age of reason was mainly concerned with reformation of society as well as well as advancement of knowledge. The two ideas work in tandem and when one undergoes change it has got profound effects on the other. This has been encouraged since society keeps on changing and therefore new rules keep emerging to fit the requirements of a new society.
As mentioned above society has always been elastic. That is to mean it has always been changing to fit the needs of its current society. The elasticity of society has resulted to social progress whereby human kind is trying to better itself economically, politically and socially. This has happened mainly through the numerous direct human contacts through Sociocultural evolution, through social activism and also through social enterprises. The social progress concept was initiated early in the 19th Century through social theories proposed by Herbert Spenser and Auguste Comte both who were social evolutionists (Jary & Julia, 1991). Social progress can be said to have laid the foundation for the for history’s Enlightenment’s philosophies. Social change has paved way for different other ideologies –mainly political ideologies which embody different theories too which try to explain processes through which social change can be achieved. The Fascists on the right [who advanced the theory of fascist corporatism which basically involved management of organizations that were privately owned or corporations as well as economy management by the government. The different corporations that represented both employer and employee would represent their professional concern. This could lead to harmony in society as theorized by the fascist and hence social enlightenment] (Mark, 2000) and the socialists on the left have all coined their ideologies from social progress [Socialist held the view that the behaviour of individuals was largely dependant, and was shaped by their social environment. Relying heavily on the ideologies of capitalism as posited by Karl Marx, it becomes clear why Socialist ideologies were coined from social progress] (Enrico, 1900). Enlightenment is a product of social progress especially after philosophers and social commentators realized that people in society had the capability to initiate change and therefore ultimately change they way they lived. Before this realization, society relied heavily on spiritual beings to effect change in the society. However, with the increased awareness that human kind could effect and therefore improve the society it was realised that human kind could also understand the society. The mastering of the society enabled human kind to develop new science and hence the birth of scientific knowledge about what encompassed the society. Karl Marx thus describes the social progress as interaction between relations of production and productive forces. Karl Marx was of the idea that a social order cannot be destroyed until all the productive forces which the society is adequate for have been developed fully. Furthermore, he explained that newer production methods do not replace older methods until the prime time of their existence materialise within the societies framework. Thus, Marx proposed capitalism which he viewed as a process of gradual and continued change. Marx therefore viewed capitalism to be non-reactionary and progressive in nature. Marx states that the Bourgeoisie obsession of constantly revolutionising production instruments and consequently relations of production spell doom for the capitalism ideology as it always strives for newer markets and higher profits. This obsession as stated by Marx would result in the death of capitalism which would then be replaced by socialism before communism eventually takes over.
History and Progress
Society develops in different gradual stages (Brewer, 2008), according to Karl Marx’s Theory’s history development history does develop because of various reasons. He identified progress in society to be affected by material progress and the productive forces that a specific society has got, this relates to capital goods, labour and technology. Marx further stated that processes related to production have got a degree of inevitability which does lead to the development of the necessary productive forces. The relations of production have over the years helped in determining the forces of production and how they develop. Marx stated that in capitalistic environment forces of development tend to be accelerated as the society has got the accumulation or maximisation of profits in mind. The speed or the rate at which society changes according to Marx cannot be controlled by human being, he states that the factors and types of production do develop at their own pace and independently too. The ideas of Marx regarding history and society’s development fall under historical materialism which is considered as the materialistic conception of history. Historical materialism concerns itself with development causes and the human changes that occur in society which are human initiated to help them acquire the basic necessities in life (Henry, 1939). Historical materialism explains historical change to include ideologies, social classes and the political structures as the core elements that do influence change in society. Proponents of historical materialism do associate division of labour, the various means of production and the production forces present to contribute a lot in the changes that a society faces (Callanicos, 2005). History and progress as it relies on historical materialism in society can be attributed to the following factors:
a) Labour division into social classes whereby people own property and they depend on others to provide labour for them.
b) How human beings work with nature to be able to get means of subsistence
c) Class systems are dependent on the different modes of production
d) The productive forces influence the mode of production
e) Society is progressing and it moves from one stage to the other. During this process, the dominant class is usually overthrown by a new emerging class (Kiely, 2005) which changes the political landscape that enforced the ‘old’ relations of production which are deemed retrogressive and they (the new emerging class) usher in productive forces that work in tandem with their views (Karl & Martin, 1993).
Legal-Rational Authority and Bureaucracy
According to Max Weber, authority stems form observation of modern bureaucratic organisation. This has helped in understanding the happenings of the modern world. For instance it has helped in understanding the basis of men’s exercise of authority over women. Furthermore, it explains why both genders i.e. men and women do comply to superior’s exercise of power over them (the genders) voluntarily. Max Weber came up with three types of authority
a) Charismatic authority
b) Traditional authority
c) Rational-legal authority
Weber explains that rational authority is stemmed in impersonal rules established legally. He further explains that the rational type of authority has distinguished in the modern societies the social relations present. Charismatic authority according to Max Weber is vested on a leader’s appeal and also upon the belief of the divine coupled with the characteristics of the individual who gives the order for example in the Christian faith such is vested in Jesus Christ. The traditional form of authority, obedience was expected because being enforced by the figure of authority (a lord, a king or a queen) was set by conventions or customs. The subordinates held the belief that the authority being expressed over them by their superiors was legally sanctioned. It differed from rational-legal authority because the traditional authority was not codified and it basically existed was invested in hereditary lines (Coser, 1977). Max Weber regarded bureaucracy as comprising legal-rational authority. He argued that in its pure form, bureaucracy was the ultimate control system. Max Weber considered bureaucracy to be applicable most relevantly to large scale capitalistic enterprise and also to public administration. This can be seen as support of posited legal rules. Additionally Weber saw that bureaucracy could be applied to both socialist and capitalist systems. In relation to legal-rational authority, Weber starts by explaining that legal-rational authority was a domination which of the rationalism process which included the belief that normative rules were the core establishment of authority as well as the exercise of authority. Therefore, it can be construed from Weber’s thoughts that legal-rational authority is the domination of a group of people by an individual through rules (which are shared) that have set up the perceived authority. Therefore according to him, bureaucracy serves as the best example of legal-rational authority.
Division of Labour and Social Solidarity
The ties in society that help bind people to each other are referred to as solidarity. It is the integration and the type and degree of integration that a society or a group of people shows within themselves and their neighbours too (Gellner, 2007). The foundation of solidarity always varies with different communities. In complex societies there exist very many theories that have helped to add social solidarity. In the simple societies on the other hand, social solidarity may be formed from simple values that are shared within a society or even formed from the existing kinship. Asabiyyah emphasises on social cohesion, group consciousness and unity to symbolise the requirements of social solidarity (Alatas, 2006). This has been described as an organic form of solidarity compared to Emile Durkheim who emphasise on mechanical solidarity. Durkheim states that social solidarity reflects the type of society in question. He introduced “organic solidarity” and “mechanical solidarity” to include part of the theory of division of labour in society that he introduced in 1893. Durkheim explained that in a society that exhibits mechanical solidarity the integration and cohesion is to derive homogeneity from individual persons. People will tend to be connected through work similarities, their lifestyles, religion and education. The mechanical solidarity under Durkheim’s approach tends to work in small scale societies that are very traditional. Organic solidarity on the other hand stems from work specialization and the way different people compliment each other. This has been associated mostly with the modern world and the existence of industrial societies. This can also be described in the cohesion people have due to the interdependence that exists. Society has got different people who have specialised in different areas of expertise, therefore the different knowledge in the different fields have got to work together because no certain field encompasses all there is to in know in society, each level of expertise requires to rely on other areas of expertise in order to function fully and thus social solidarity is enhanced. The interdependence between specializations creates rules to be followed by the various professions and thus division of labour is formed. Increase in social interactions and for that matter the differentiation based on function leads up to division of labour. There are majorly two causes attributed to the division of labour (Durkheim, n.d):
a) Increase in the dynamic density, which has got three major parts, population concentration, development of towns and their subsequent transformation and transmission of communication and the speed involved in such process
b) Increase in the volume of people
Durkheim however states that division of labour has got its detriments:
a) It has brought about class conflict
b) it has effected industrial failure and seen a rise in bankruptcy
c) it has lead to a stagnation in science. He explains that due to specialization in scientific field, science cannot be studied by a single person like it used to be before specialization.
The main link between social solidarity and division of labour lies on the need for specialization. When society comes together, they bring with them their individual talents. This means that they can serve each other on different aspects. A person who is best suited for the medical field will serve others in this capacity. However, he cannot rely on his medical talent to manufacture vehicles for instance. He has to rely on a motor vehicle engineer to manufacture the vehicle for him. This interdependence would not have existed if the two professionals were in different societies. A society full of doctors would not have realised the importance of vehicles and vice versa. Therefore when different people meet to form a society [social solidarity] they also during the process encourage specialization [division of labour].
References
Alatas, S.F. (2006), “A Khaldunian Exemplar for a Historical Sociology for the South.”Current Sociology 54 doi:10.1177/0011392106063189
Brewer, A. 2008. “Adam Smith’s Stages of History.” University of Bristol
Callanicos, A. 2004. “Making History: Agency, Structure and Change in Social Theory.” ISBN: 9789004136274
Coser, L. (1977). “Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context.” New York. Harcourt Brace Jovanivich.
Durkheim, E. The Division of Labour in Society”. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0029079608 / 9780029079607 / 0-02-907960-8
Enrico, F. 1900. Socialism and Modern Science (Darwin, Spencer, Marx). (3 Ed) Translated by Robert, R. L. International Library Publishing Co.
Gellner, E. (2007). “Cohesion and Identity: the Maghreb from Ibn Khaldun to Emile Durkheim.”
Henry N. (1939). “Civilization in East and West : An introduction to the study of human progress.” London, Oxford university press.
Jary, D. & Julia, J. (1991), “Collins Dictionary of Sociology”. Glasgow: Harper Collins. ISBN 0- 00-470804-0
Karl, M, & Martin, N. 1993. “Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy.” Penguin Classics. ISBN 0140445757
Kiely, R. 2005. “The Clash of Globalisation.” ISBN: 9789004143180
Mark Mazower. 2000. Dark Continent: Europe’s 20th Century. Vintage Books. ISBN 9780679757047
Place your order now……………………..
