Sociological Perspective: Social Change and Environment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Development of sociology
The sociological imagination
Sociological theories and frameworks
Structural functionalism
Conflict perspective
Interactionism
Conclusion
Works Cited
Footnotes

Introduction

Nowadays, it became a commonplace assumption among many people that, as time goes on; human societies continue undergoing a qualitative transformation – the process that has a number of discursive implications, within the context of how we address life challenges.

Moreover, even though that there are still a few individuals here and there that try to oppose the earlier mentioned change, due to being ‘immoral’, there can be no doubt that the ongoing socio-technological progress, which induces such a change, in the first place, has been predetermined by the objective laws of history. In this paper, I will explore the validity of the above-stated at length, while specifying how different sociological theories address the subject matter in question.

Development of sociology

Social change can be best defined as a process of the society’s operative principles attaining an entirely new quality, which in turn causes a number of formerly legitimate socio-cultural concepts/notions to be seen as utterly outdated. The manner, in which social change extrapolates itself, can be well discussed alongside of what account for the integral components of the change paradigm – cultural change, ideological change and technological change.

The first notion refers to the process of people’s association with the so-called ‘traditional values’ becoming increasingly weakened. The validity of the provided definition can be well illustrated, in regards to the fact that, unlike what it used to be the case with them, even as recently as a hundred years ago, today’s Westerners have grown almost completely secular and cosmopolitical.

In its turn, this creates objective preconditions for these people to eventually cease associating the sense of their self-identity with what happened to be their ethno-cultural or religious affiliation – something that we witness happening in the EU countries, as we speak. It is needless to mention, of course, that the earlier mentioned process will have an enormous effect on the Western society’s very fabric.

The notion of ‘ideological change’ presupposes that for the duration of time, the principles of governorship, deployed in a particular society, grow increasingly adjusted with the currently predominant socio-cultural discourse. For example; whereas, at the turn of the 20^th century, the majority of the most powerful European countries were monarchies, at the end of the same century it effectively ceased to be the case. In its turn, this can be referred to as the part of a larger process of humanity remaining on the path of progress, while being put through the developmental phases of feudalism, industrialism (capitalism) and post-industrialism.

This process’s most immediate effect is that, as time goes on, people grow ever more aware of the counterproductive essence of a variety of socially constructed rituals and ‘taboos’. To exemplify this statement, we can well mention the fact that; as of today, the overwhelming majority of the world’s countries does provide women with the opportunity to take part in the political elections. Yet, at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the suffragist movement was only beginning to gain a momentum, even in such progressive countries as Britain and France, women used to be treated as ‘second class’ citizens.

Our overview of social change, as a dialectically predetermined phenomenon, would not be complete without mentioning the phenomenon’s most important aspect – the fact that it is being essentially ‘fueled’ by the ongoing progress in the field of an empirical science, which nowadays attained an exponential momentum. After all, it is not only that technology affects people’s perception of the surrounding reality, but it also alters the very reality in question, in the literal sense of this word. In the paper’s following sub-chapter, I will illustrate how it is being done.

The sociological imagination

The major aspects of how technology changes just about every human society can be outlined as follows:

Technology promotes secularism

As it was implied earlier, even though that many Westerners continue to be formally affiliated with one of the world’s main religions (such as Christianity), they are in fact rather ‘godless’, because such their affiliation has no effect, whatsoever, on the actual essence of these people’s lifestyles.

The reason for this is simple – while being provided with the opportunity to take practical advantage of a number of different life-enhancing gadgets, which came into being due to the ongoing scientific progress, people come to realize that it is namely science and not religion, which is capable of making their lives more enjoyable. This partially explains the well-known phenomenon that the extent of a particular society’s material prosperity negatively relates to the measure of its members’ religiosity (See Appendix).

Technology enables the human population’s continual growth

As of now, the population of Earth is estimated to account for 7 billion. It is understood, of course, that the substantial proportion of these people does suffer from being undernourished (as it is being the case in Africa, for example). Nevertheless, the Earth population’s rapid expansion, which took place during the course of a few recent decades, would not be possible if it was not up to the fact that, within the same time-period, the efficiency of the world’s agriculture has tripled. Within the context of ensuring this specific accomplishment, technology came in indispensable.

Technology reduces the humanity’s dependence on natural resources

The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated in regards to the fact that; whereas, 80% of the original Atlantic telephone cable’s self-cost accounted for copper, the material cost of today’s fiber-optical Atlantic telephone cable accounts for only 10%.

Yet; whereas, the old cable could only sustain 128 parallel calls, the fiber-optical one sustains 750.000 parallel calls.¹ What it means is that in the future, the influence of the resource-rich countries in the arena of international politics will be effectively undermined. The technology’s earlier mentioned effect can also be discussed, as such that contributes to ensuring humanity’s self-sustainability more than anything else does.

Technology lessens the society members’ likelihood to affiliate themselves with the strongly authoritarian political ideologies and causes them to grow increasingly comfortable with the ideals of secularism.

The classical definitions of ideology do mention the fact that, in order for an individual to become strongly committed to a particular political cause, he or she must necessarily be a somewhat arrogant person. Therefore, it will be thoroughly appropriate to suggest that, while increasing the integrity of people’s connectivity across the globe, technology reduces the extent of their susceptibility to political ideologies, because it does broaden their intellectual horizons – hence, making it less likely for them to remain politically narrow-minded. Eventually, this will result in more and more people questioning the legitimacy of the notion of ‘national sovereignty’, which is conceptually inconsistent with the process of Globalization.

Sociological theories and frameworks

Even though that the number of sociological theories that address the phenomenon of social change is rather extensive, in this part of the paper, we will only review the ones that immediately relate to the discussed subject matter.

The sociological theory of Emil Durkheim (Positivist)

Having been the proponent of a scientific positivism, Durkheim believed in the dialectical essence of social change. His theory’s most important premises can be generalized as follows: Society is the integrated part of the surrounding reality. As such, it functions in accordance with the basic societal laws, consistent with the laws of nature. Society is in the position to regulate the functioning of its systemic components.

The ‘social facts’ (dialectically predetermined specifics of how people interrelate with each other within the society), studied by sociology, are thoroughly objective, which in turn presupposes the possibility for them to be subjected to a scientific inquiry. As the sociologist noted, “We (sociologists) must penetrate much more deeply into reality, in order to understand it…

We must look for a means of comparing historical data, and establish a series of phenomena which vary on parallel lines”.² According to Durkheim, the sociology’s primary objective, is to gain an insight into what causes people to subscribe to the communal forms of existence, while willing to consider the maintenance of the undermined social order (by the government), as such that represents a universally applicable and fully objective sociological category.

The sociological paradigm of Durkheim allows the division of human societies on archaic (simple/primitive) and industrial (complex). In the archaic society, people’s individual identities are being ‘dissolved’ within what happened to be this society’s ‘collective archetype’. This explains why in primitive societies, people tend to lead highly ritualized lifestyles, while striving to objectify themselves within the surrounding environment – hence, their endowment with the essentially tribal (mechanic) sense of solidarity.

The existential mode of people in the industrial society, on the other hand, is characterized by their endowment with what Durkheim used to refer to as the organic sense of solidarity. That is, in this type of societies, individuals tend to assess the measure of their relatedness with others, along the lines of what happened to be the particulars of their social/professional affiliation. The reason for this is simple – the very functioning of an industrial society is being made possible by the strongly defined division of labor among its members.

Durkheim also used to promote the idea that, the more primitive a particular society happened to be; the higher is the measure of its members’ psychological homogeneity. In its turn, this homogeneity creates objective preconditions for such a society to fall behind, in terms of a socio-cultural progress, because individuals who tend to perceive the surrounding reality similarly, are incapable of evolving.

Alternatively, the measure of the society’s complexity positively correlates with its members’ likelihood to gain an awareness, as to what the concept of ‘society’ stands for, and consequently – to find circumstantially appropriate solutions to the pressing problems of a socio-political importance. Thus, Durkheim’s theory refers to a social change, as such that is being triggered by the process of human societies continuing to evolve, in the socio-cultural sense of this word. This, of course, implies the change’s dialectically defined necessity.

The sociological theory of Georg Zimmel (Functionalist)

This particular sociologist’s approach to addressing social change can be best defined as phenomenological. Unlike Durkheim, who used to stress out the social change’s objectiveness, Simmel preferred to think of it in terms of a subjective ‘thing in itself’. That is, according to Simmel, the forms of people’s socially integrated existence are not defined by what happened to be the affiliated socio-economic circumstances, but by the very nature of the concerned individuals’ unconscious anxiety to achieve individuation.

This anxiety, however, consists of a number of mutually incompatible sub-anxieties, “(An individual) is always member and body, part and whole, complete and in need of completion”.³ The earlier mentioned dichotomy creates objective prerequisites for the forms of social organization to remain essentially the same, throughout the course of millennia, even though they often adopt seemingly incompatible subtleties.

This is the reason why, when we analyze the societal significance of the court of Louis XIV, the U.S. Department of State and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, for example, it will appear that there is indeed much in common between them. All three of the mentioned organizations serve (served) the cause of maintaining the legitimacy of predominant socio-cultural discourses in the concerned countries.

Hence, the essence of Simmel’s methodological approach to sociology – contrary to what Durkheim used to suggest, Simmel insisted that the sociology’s subject matter are historically archetypical social situations, which regardless of what happened to be the form of a particular society’s political governing, constitute a metaphysical foundation, upon which this society is based. The sociologist used to refer to these situations as ‘social forms’, while classifying them as independent, on the one hand, and dependent, on the other. The independent ‘social forms’ are concerned with people’s inborn tendency to seek individuation through love, competition, alienation/integration.

The dependent ones are concerned with the functioning of legal systems, the process of individuals entering in economic relations with each other, and the discursive popularity of social activities that presuppose their participants’ willingness to indulge in role-playing. The main feature of ‘social forms’ is that they reflect people’s earlier mentioned psychological predispositions – the actual inhibitors of social change.

There are certain limitations to people’s ability to achieve self-actualization, while acting within the framework of a particular ‘social form’. These limitations include the particulars of their class-affiliation, the discursive oppressiveness of legally upheld rules and regulations, and the society’s stance on what can be considered the moral/immoral means of attaining a social prominence.

Therefore, according to Zimmel, when it comes to defining the essence of qualitative dynamics within the society, sociologists should never cease taking into consideration the causes and implications of what appear to be the currently predominant socio-cultural discourse, while remaining thoroughly aware of this discourse’s effect on their own ability to rationalize.

This, of course, presupposes that the process of social change is rather ‘metaphysical’ than purely physical, because it is nothing but the reflection of the workings of people’s unconscious psyche, which are procedurally chaotic. As such, this process cannot be triggered externally, by definition.

The sociological theory of Karl Marx (Materialist)

Being thoroughly materialist, the Marxist paradigm of what accounts for the qualitative dynamics within a particular society is based upon the assumption that it is specifically the ongoing accumulation of the so-called ‘surplus product’, on the part of the representatives of social elites, which causes this society to grow increasingly stratified.

However, the very same process causes the intensification of social antagonisms within the society, which in turn is supposed to lead towards the overthrow of the capitalist system of a political governing, concerned with subjecting the representatives of the society’s lower classes to the different forms of an economic exploitation.⁴ Thus, the Marxist sociology views the process of a social change as the byproduct of the earlier mentioned antagonisms between the rich, on the one hand, and the poor on the other, becoming progressively more acute – hence, the phenomenon’s objectiveness.

The sociological theory of Daniel Bell (Technocratic)

The main premise of this theory, is that the transformation of ‘social forms’ is the direct consequence of the ongoing technological process. This presupposes that is namely the factor of technology, which defines the qualitative subtleties of how a particular society functions.⁵

The validity of this idea can be illustrated in relation to the fact that, throughout the course of history, the social change’s actual momentum never ceased being reflective of the associated historical era’s ability to yield scientific discoveries. For example, the emergence of psychology was predetermined by the fact that, throughout the course of the late 19^th century, scientists obtained a number of scientifically legitimate insights into how human brain addresses challenges.

In its turn, the legitimization of psychology altered the sociological fabric of Western societies, in respect of undermining the influence of religion on these societies’ members. After all, as time goes on, more and more Westerners choose in favor of being counseled by psychologists, rather than by priests. This, in turn provides an additional boost to the earlier mentioned process of a societal secularization, which now became the integral part of a post-industrial living in the West.

Structural functionalism

Nowadays, the notion of social change has often been deemed synonymous with the notion of modernization. After all, it is namely because humanity continues to take advantage of technology, as the mean of enhancing the efficiency of its socio-economic and cultural pursuits, which alter human societies structurally and functionally.

Nevertheless, it would prove counterproductive referring to modernization in terms of a ‘thing in itself’ – the notion in question has been brought about by the never-ending competition between the representatives of Homo Sapiens species to take possession of the limited natural and human resources. In light of this suggestion, we can identify what can be considered the additional set of the change-inducing societal factors:

War

During the course of war, the pace of technological progress assumes an exponential momentum, which in turn causes the affected societies’ rapid modernization. For example, before the outset of the WW1, there were only 600 internal-combustion vehicles in Britain; whereas, by the time this war ended, the country’s automotive industry has managed to manufacture 60.000 cars, which differed drastically in quality/technology from the ones produced before the war.

The same can be same about the wartime transformation of the British aviation industry from being concerned with producing ‘flying bookshelves’ to manufacturing rather powerful warplanes. In other words, war is probably the most substantial contributor to the process of modernization, which in turn induces social change.

The reason for this is apparent – only the states (in the time of war) are able to invest adequately in the economy’s technologically intense sectors, while overlooking the scope of potential hazards – these hazards to not come even remotely close to the danger of the country’s territory facing the prospect of being occupied by the enemy. This is exactly the reason why wars contribute to the cause of progress/modernization more than anything else does.

Globalization/standardization

Although that Globalization usually gets to be discussed as an essentially post-industrial phenomenon, this is far from being the actual case. After all, even as far back, as during the time of antiquity, the attempts have been made to introduce a universally recognized currency, which in turn was meant to ‘globalize’ the world to an extent. Thus, it will only be logical to suggest that in essence, the term Globalization is synonymous with the notion of standardization. As such, Globalization appears to be the logical consequence of the fact that humanity continues to remain on the path of progress, while growing progressively less ‘animalistic’.

The rationale behind this suggestion is rather simple – since the standardization is supposed to increase the overall efficiency of the economy’s functioning, it necessarily means that in the ‘globalized’ societies, there will more of a ‘surplus product’ for the society-members to enjoy. As the logical consequence, they will have more time on their hands to go about attaining ‘individuation’, as opposed to being primarily concerned with taking care of their physiological needs. Eventually, this should lead them towards adopting a thoroughly secularized worldview. One of the long-term effects of this is that it will cause the eventual collapse of the discursively outdated social institutions/customs – the event that can be well discussed in terms of a revolutionary-rapid social change.

Natural environment

Being thoroughly biological, people’s foremost priority is concerned with securing their place in the environmental niche of choice. In its turn, the alteration of the associated environmental conditions will have a size-related effect on the niche in question. Consequentially, there will be a plenty of social tribulations, leading to a social change. Therefore, the ecology’s effect on the human societies’ very functioning does not need to be doubted – especially nowadays, when due to the sheer pace of its technological advancement, humanity itself is being in the position to alter the surrounding natural environment.

Conflict perspective

As it was pointed out earlier, there are a number of objective reasons for human societies (with the exemption of the ones that never managed to evolve beyond the Stone Age) to continue undergoing a qualitative transformation. One of this transformation’s extrapolations is the fact that, as time goes on, more and more people reassess the validity of their former opinions about the surrounding social reality.

This, of course, creates preconditions for them to consider joining the newly emerged social/political movements, which aim to increase the effectiveness of how a particular society addresses the issues of a socio-political importance. By joining these movements, people are able to ensure that the expected social change does occur.

In order to prove the legitimacy of this suggestion, we can well mention the social effects of the trade-unionist movement, which emerged at the beginning of the 20^th century. Whereas, prior to the institutionalisation of trade unions, the hired industrial workers used to be denied even the most basic means of a social protection against being mercilessly exploited, the continual rise of the trade-unionist movement was able to improve this situation rather drastically.

This is the reason why, as of today, it became a commonplace practice among the managers of privately owned companies to provide employees with the extensive package of social benefits, such as bestowing the latter with the free dental/medical insurance, for example. It is needless to mention, of course, that the earlier mentioned development had contributed to the process of Western societies becoming ever more observant of the principle of a social fairness.

Essentially the same can be said about the effects of the so-called Civil Rights movement, which started to gain momentum in America, during the course of the sixties. One of the reasons why this movement originated, in the first place, is that throughout the course of the mentioned historical period, the officially sponsored policy of subjecting Black Americans to a racial discrimination became discursively outdated.

Given the fact that back then, the America’s high-ranking governmental officials preferred not to acknowledge this, it became up to the ordinary citizens to seek the banning of the race-discriminatory laws. As the realities of a contemporary living in America indicate, the Civil Rights movement did succeed rather splendidly in promoting the cause of an interracial egalitarianism.

The above-provided examples do legitimize the idea that social movements can indeed be considered capable of inducing social change – even if it continues to be resisted by the representatives of social elites, who strive to maintain the status quo within the society. In their turn, social movements are being triggered by the inconsistency between people’s newly acquired awareness of what accounts for their true self-actualization agenda, on the one hand, and the public institutions’ failure to recognize it, on the other.

Therefore, it is thoroughly appropriate to suggest that social movements can be thought of in terms of the social change’s powerful agents. Moreover, due to the revolutionary breakthroughs in the field of informational technologies, which took place in recent decades, social movements are likely to influence the surrounding social reality to an increasingly higher extent.

Interactionism

The emergence of the term ‘environmental sociology’ can be traced to the works of Robert Park. According to this sociologist, the very etymology of the concept of ecology presupposes that, being essentially physical; ecosystems are the legitimate subjects of a scientific inquiry.⁶

Because people play an important role, within the context of how ecosystems develop spatially, it means that the qualitative aspects of the human societies’ functioning reflect the objective works of nature. The fact that humanity experiences an acute ecological crisis, has naturally led sociologists towards becoming increasingly aware that the ways of mankind cannot be discussed outside of how the factor of a natural environment affects people’s views of themselves.

Therefore, it can be well suggested that environmental sociology reflects the necessity in researching the objective characteristics of an interrelation between human societies and the natural environment. Hence, the environmental sociology’s actual subject – researching the measure of a particular society’s influence on the natural environment and also forecasting how this influence may result in the affiliated environment beginning to affect the dynamics within the society in question, as well.

While addressing the concerned subject matter, environmental sociology assesses the subtleties of the social, political and economic order within the society, in order to answer whether this society can be referred to as an ‘environmentally friendly’. The reason for this is apparent – the realities of a post-industrial living invariably suggest that the extent of the society members’ environmental awareness positively relates to the measure of concerned society’s geopolitical competitiveness.

For example, it is largely because the citizens of Haiti have no idea, as to what the notion of an environmental awareness stands for, that their country is now being commonly discussed in terms of a ‘failed state’. This, of course, illustrates the validity of the environmental sociology’s main conceptual premise that it is specifically the state of ecological affairs, within a particular society, which reflects this society’s ability to evolve, in the Darwinian sense of this word.

There can only a be a few doubts as to the fact that in the near future, the environmental sociology’s methodological apparatus will be deemed even more discursively adequate, because there is indeed a good reason to expect the rapid worsening of the environmental conditions on Earth. As a result, the societal dynamics within the world’s countries will grow increasingly affected by what happened to be the affiliated ecological circumstances.

Conclusion

In light of what has been said earlier, it appears that it is indeed fully appropriate to think of social change, as the most crucial inhibitor of the humanity’s ‘existential fitness’. Even though that the different schools of sociology address the phenomenon differently, there can be no doubt that social change is the notion that fully adheres to the provisions of the Theory of Evolution, which in turn suggests the process’s positivist objectiveness. I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in regards to the subject matter in question, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis.

Works Cited

Durkheim, E. ‘Debate on explanation in history and sociology’ in The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method ed. S. Lukes. Free Press, New York, 1982. Web.

Hoag, C. ‘The Atlantic telegraph cable and capital market Information flows’, The Journal of Economic History, vol. 66, no. 2, 2006, pp. 342-353. Web.

Mezhuev, V. ‘The idea of world history in the doctrine of Karl Marx’, Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 51, no. 2, 2012, pp. 9-43. Web.

Shils, E. ‘The Sociology of Robert E. Park’, American Sociologist, vol. 27, no. 4, 1996, pp. 88-106. Web.

Simmel, G. ‘Eros, platonic and modem’ in Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms: Selected Writings ed. D. Levine. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1971. Web.

Summers, J. ‘Daniel Bell and the end of ideology’, Dissent, vol. 58, no. 2, 2011, pp. 80-85. Web.

Footnotes

Christopher Hoag, 2006, ‘The Atlantic telegraph cable and capital market Information flows’, The Journal of Economic History, vol. 66, no. 2, p. 350. Web.
Emile Durkheim, ‘Debate on explanation in history and sociology’ in The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method ed. S. Lukes. Free Press, New York, 1982, p. 218. Web.
Georg Simmel, ‘Eros, platonic and modem’ in Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms: Selected Writings ed. D. Levine. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 237. Web.
Vadim Mezhuev, ‘The idea of world history in the doctrine of Karl Marx’, Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 51, no. 2, 2012, p. 20. Web.
John Summers, ‘Daniel Bell and the end of ideology’, Dissent, vol. 58, no. 2, 2011, p. 81. Web.
Edward Shils,‘The Sociology of Robert E. Park’, American Sociologist, vol. 27, no. 4, 1996, p. 90. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!