Micro Sociology and Macro Sociology

The study of everyday behavior in situations of face-to-face interaction is usually called microsociology. Macrosociology is the analysis of large-scale social systems, like the political system or the economic order. It also includes the analysis of long- term processes of change, such as the development of industrialism. At first glance, it might seem that microanalysis and macro analysis are distinct from one another. In fact, the two are closely connected. Macro analysis is essential if we are to understand the institutional background of daily life. The ways in which people live their everyday lives are greatly affected by the broader institutional framework, as is obvious when the daily cycle of activities of a culture like that of the medieval period is compared with life in an industrialized urban environment.

Micro studies are in turn necessary for illuminating broad institutional patterns. Face-to-face interaction is clearly the main basis of all forms of social organization, no matter how large scale. People do not live their lives as isolated individuals, nor are their lives completely determined by national states. Sociology tells us that our everyday life is lived in families, social groups, communities and neighborhoods. At this level the meso (or 'middle') level of society it is possible to see the influences and effects of both micro- and macro-level phenomena.

Many sociological studies of specific local communities deal with the macro sociological impact of huge social changes, such as industrialization and economic globalization. People do not live their lives as isolated individuals, nor are their lives completely determined by national states. Sociology tells us that our everyday life is lived in families, social groups, communities and neighborhoods. At this level the meso (or 'middle') level of society it is possible to see the influences and effects of both micro- and macro-level phenomena. Many sociological studies of specific local communities deal with the macro sociological impact of huge social changes, such as industrialization and economic globalization. But they also explore the way that individuals, groups and social movements cope with such changes and attempt to turn them to their advantage.

Article Credit : http://www.sociologyguide.com/

Evolutionary progress

Evolutionary progress is the idea that evolution is progressive, that is trending at a large scale towards some absolute goal such as increasing complexity. Prominent historical figures who have championed some form of evolutionary progress include Alfred Russel Wallace, Herbert Spencer, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Henri Bergson. Evolutionary progress is not currently highly regarded, although there is evidence that the ideas are still prevalent.

Charles Darwin seems to have believed in some form of progress (Darwin, 1859):

The inhabitants of each successive period in the world's history have beaten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, insofar, higher in the scale of nature; and this may account for that vague yet ill-defined sentiment, felt by many palaeontologists, that organisation on the whole has progressed.

As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.

Ruse (1997) presents a detailed and carefully researched survey of the idea of progress in evolutionary biology. He argues that belief in evolutionary progress is still prevalent among evolutionary biologists today, although it is often denied or veiled. Ruse (1997) writes, "A major conclusion of this study is that some of the most significant of today's evolutionists are progressionists, and that because of this we find (absolute) progressionism alive and well in their work." He claims that progressionism has harmed the status of evolutionary biology as a mature, professional science.

In examining the issue of evolutionary progress, the first step is to define progress. Ayala (1988) defines progress as "systematic change in a feature belonging to all the members of a sequence in such a way that posterior members of the sequence exhibit an improvement of that feature." He argues that there are two elements in this definition, directional change and improvement according to some standard. Whether a directional change constitutes an improvement is not a scientific question; therefore Ayala suggests that science should focus on the question of whether there is directional change, without regard to whether the change is "improvement". This may be compared to Gould's suggestion of "replacing the idea of progress with an operational notion of directionality".

Dawkins, on the other hand, proposes that Darwinian evolution is fundamentally progressive if progress is simply defined as "an increase, not in complexity, intelligence or some other anthropocentric value, but in the accumulating number of features contributing towards whatever adaptation the lineage in question exemplifies."

Article Credit : http://en.wikipedia.org/

Phenomenology

At the simplest level religion is the belief in the power of supernatural. These beliefs are present in all the societies and variations seem endless. A belief in the supernatural almost always incorporates the idea that supernatural forces have some influence or control upon the world. The first indication of a possible belief in the supernatural dates from about 60,000 years ago. Archaeological evidences reveal that Neanderthal man buried his dead with stone tools and jewellery.Religion is often defined as people’s organized response to the supernatural although several movements which deny or ignore supernatural concerns have belief and ritual systems which resemble those based on the supernatural. However these theories about the origin of religion can only be based on speculation and debate.

Though religion is a universal phenomenon it is understood differently by different people. On religion, opinions differ from the great religious leader down to an ordinary man. There is no consensus about the nature of religion. Sociologists are yet to find a satisfactory explanation of religion.

Durkheim in his The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life defines religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things that is to say things set apart and forbidden. James G Frazer in his The Golden Bough considered religion a belief in powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.Maclver and Page have defined religion as we understand the term, implies a relationship not merely between man and man but also between man and some higher power. According to Ogburn religion is an attitude towards superhuman powers.Max Muller defines religion as a mental faculty or disposition which enables man to apprehend the infinite.

To answer the question how did religion begin – two main theories animism and naturism were advanced. The early sociologists, adhering to evolutionary framework, advocated that societies passed through different stages of development and from simplicity to complexity is the nature of social progress. The scholars who have contributed to the field of magic, religion and science can broadly be divided into four different types such as

• evolutionary scholars
• fundamentalist
• symbolic theorists
• analytical functionalists

Article Credit : http://www.sociologyguide.com/

Post Modernism

Postmodern society is diverse and pluralistic. Postmodern society's images are perceived through films, videos, TV programmes and websites and circulated around the world. We come into contact with many ideas and values, having little connection with the history of the areas in which we live, or with our own personal histories. One important theorist of postmodernity is the French author Jean Baudrillard, who was strongly influenced by Marxism in his early days, believes that the electronic media have destroyed our relationship to the past and created a chaotic, empty world. He argues that the spread of electronic communication and the mass media has reversed the Marxist theorem that economic forces shape society. Instead, signs and images influence social life.

In a media-dominated age, Baudrillard says, meaning is created by the flow of images, as in TV programmes. Much of our world has become a sort of make-believe universe in which we are responding to media images rather than to real persons or places. Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman offers a two ways of thinking about postmodern ideas. On the one hand, we could argue that the social world has rapidly moved in a post- modern direction. The enormous growth and spread of the mass media, new information technologies, more fluid movement of people across the world and the development of multicultural societies. All of these mean that we no longer live in a modern world, but in a postmodern one. Modernity is dead and we are entering a period of postmodernity. The second view is that the postmodern changes cannot be analyzed using old sociological theories and concepts and we need to devise new ones. In short, we need a postmodern sociology for a postmodern world.

Bauman accepts that the modern project that originated in the European Enlightenment to rationally shape society no longer makes sense, at least not in the way thought possible by Comte, Marx or other classical theorists. However, since the turn of the century he has moved away from the term 'postmodern' which he says has become corrupted through too diverse usage and now describes the world as one of 'Liquid Modernity', reflecting the fact that it is in constant flux and uncertainty in spite of all attempts to impose a modern order and stability onto it.

Jiirgen Habermas a staunch critic of postmodern theory argued that now is not the time to give up on the 'project' of modernity. He sees modernity as 'an incomplete project' and instead of resigning it to the dustbin of history, we should be extending it: pushing for more democracy, freedom and rational policies. The postmodern analyses are now losing ground to the theory of globalization, which has become the dominant theoretical framework for understanding the direction of social change in the twenty-first century.

Anthony Giddens in his writings developed a theoretical perspective on the changes happening in the present day world. According to Giddens we live today in what is called a runaway world, a world marked by new risks and uncertainties of the sort. But we should place the notion of trust, which is the confidence in individuals and institutions alongside that of risk. In a world of rapid transformation, traditional forms of trust tend to become dissolved. Living in a more globalized society, however, our lives are influenced by people we never see or meet, who may be living on the far side of the world from us. Trust and risk are closely bound up with one another. We need to have confidence if we are to confront the risks that surround us, and react to them in an effective way. Living in an information age, means an increase in social reflexivity. According to Anthony Giddens social reflexivity refers to the fact that we have constantly to think about, or reflect upon, the circumstances in which we live our lives. When societies were more geared to custom and tradition, people could follow established ways of doing things in a more unreflective fashion. For us, many aspects of life that for earlier generations were simply taken for granted become matters of open decision-making.

In a global age, nations certainly lose some of the power they used to have. For instance, countries have less influence over economic policy than they once had. However, governments still retain a good deal of power. Acting collaboratively, nations can get together to reassert their influence over the runaway world. The agencies and movements working outside the formal framework of politics can have an important role. But they will not supplant orthodox democratic politics. Democracy is still crucial, because groups in the area of 'sub-politics' make divergent claims and have different interests. Democratic government must assess and react to these varying claims and concerns.

German sociologist, Ulrich Beck, also rejects postmodernism. According to Beck rather than living in a world 'beyond the modern', we are moving into a phase of 'the second modernity'. The second modernity refers to the fact that modern institutions are becoming global, while everyday life is breaking free from the hold of tradition and custom. The old industrial society is disappearing and getting replaced by a 'risk society'. What the postmodernists see as chaos, or lack of pattern, Beck sees as risk or uncertainty. The management of risk is the prime feature of the global order. The advance of science and technology creates new risk situations that are very different from those of previous ages. Science and technology provide many benefits for us. Yet they create risks that are hard to measure. Many decisions taken at the level of everyday life also become infused with risk. In 'The Cosmopolitan Vision' Beck argues that the national outlook fails to grasp that the political, economic and cultural action and their consequences know no borders. In the age of globalization, where national borders are becoming more permeable and individual states are less powerful, social reality is being transformed in a thoroughly cosmopolitan direction. If allowed to develop without direction, cosmopolitanization presents many threats as opportunities, particularly for those who are exploited by multinational corporations traversing the globe seeking cheaper labour and maximal profits.

Article Credit : http://www.sociologyguide.com/

Perspectives in Sociology

Three Major Perspectives in Sociology

Sociologists analyze social phenomena at different levels and from different perspectives. From concrete interpretations to sweeping generalizations of society and social behavior, sociologists study everything from specific events (the micro level of analysis of small social patterns) to the “big picture” (the macro level of analysis of large social patterns).

The pioneering European sociologists, however, also offered a broad conceptualization of the fundamentals of society and its workings. Their views form the basis for today's theoretical perspectives, or paradigms, which provide sociologists with an orienting framework—a philosophical position—for asking certain kinds of questions about society and its people.

Sociologists today employ three primary theoretical perspectives: the symbolic interactionist perspective, the functionalist perspective, and the conflict perspective. These perspectives offer sociologists theoretical paradigms for explaining how society influences people, and vice versa. Each perspective uniquely conceptualizes society, social forces, and human behavior

The symbolic interactionist perspective

The symbolic interactionist perspective, also known as symbolic interactionism, directs sociologists to consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean, and how people interact with each other. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber's assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world, the American philosopher George H. Mead (1863–1931) introduced this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.

According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols. Verbal conversations, in which spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make this subjective interpretation especially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the “sender,” and, during effective communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the “receiver.” In other terms, words are not static “things”; they require intention and interpretation. Conversation is an interaction of symbols between individuals who constantly interpret the world around them. Of course, anything can serve as a symbol as long as it refers to something beyond itself. Written music serves as an example. The black dots and lines become more than mere marks on the page; they refer to notes organized in such a way as to make musical sense. Thus, symbolic interactionists give serious thought to how people act, and then seek to determine what meanings individuals assign to their own actions and symbols, as well as to those of others.

Consider applying symbolic interactionism to the American institution of marriage. Symbols may include wedding bands, vows of life‐long commitment, a white bridal dress, a wedding cake, a Church ceremony, and flowers and music. American society attaches general meanings to these symbols, but individuals also maintain their own perceptions of what these and other symbols mean. For example, one of the spouses may see their circular wedding rings as symbolizing “never ending love,” while the other may see them as a mere financial expense. Much faulty communication can result from differences in the perception of the same events and symbols.

Critics claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the “big picture.” In other words, symbolic interactionists may miss the larger issues of society by focusing too closely on the “trees” (for example, the size of the diamond in the wedding ring) rather than the “forest” (for example, the quality of the marriage). The perspective also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions.

The functionalist perspective

According to the functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society's functioning as a whole. The government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law‐abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For example, during a financial recession with its high rates of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer programs. Families tighten their budgets. And a new social order, stability, and productivity occur.

Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, or cohesion, in which members of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society as a whole. Emile Durkheim suggested that social consensus takes one of two forms:

Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when people in a society maintain similar values and beliefs and engage in similar types of work. Mechanical solidarity most commonly occurs in traditional, simple societies such as those in which everyone herds cattle or farms. Amish society exemplifies mechanical solidarity.

In contrast, organic solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when the people in a society are interdependent, but hold to varying values and beliefs and engage in varying types of work. Organic solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized, complex societies such those in large American cities like New York in the 2000s.

The functionalist perspective achieved its greatest popularity among American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s. While European functionalists originally focused on explaining the inner workings of social order, American functionalists focused on discovering the functions of human behavior. Among these American functionalist sociologists is Robert Merton (b. 1910), who divides human functions into two types: manifest functions are intentional and obvious, while latent functions are unintentional and not obvious. The manifest function of attending a church or synagogue, for instance, is to worship as part of a religious community, but its latent function may be to help members learn to discern personal from institutional values. With common sense, manifest functions become easily apparent. Yet this is not necessarily the case for latent functions, which often demand a sociological approach to be revealed. A sociological approach in functionalism is the consideration of the relationship between the functions of smaller parts and the functions of the whole.

Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of an event such as divorce. Critics also claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency on the part of society's members. Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social environment, even when such change may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees active social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate naturally for any problems that may arise.

The conflict perspective

The conflict perspective, which originated primarily out of Karl Marx's writings on class struggles, presents society in a different light than do the functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives. While these latter perspectives focus on the positive aspects of society that contribute to its stability, the conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever‐changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this means social revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak. Conflict theorists, for example, may interpret an “elite” board of regents raising tuition to pay for esoteric new programs that raise the prestige of a local college as self‐serving rather than as beneficial for students.

Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict perspective in favor of the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain considerable interest in conflict theory. They also expanded Marx's idea that the key conflict in society was strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the ever‐changing nature of society.

Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society. The theory ultimately attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in preserving society and social order.

Article Credit : http://www.cliffsnotes.com/

The Founders of Sociology

The Founders of Sociology

Each field of academic study has its own cast of characters, and sociology is no exception. Although countless individuals have contributed to sociology's development into a social science, several individuals deserve special mention.

Auguste Comte

The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857)—often called the “father of sociology”—first used the term “sociology” in 1838 to refer to the scientific study of society. He believed that all societies develop and progress through the following stages: religious, metaphysical, and scientific. Comte argued that society needs scientific knowledge based on facts and evidence to solve its problems—not speculation and superstition, which characterize the religious and metaphysical stages of social development. Comte viewed the science of sociology as consisting of two branches: dynamics, or the study of the processes by which societies change; and statics, or the study of the processes by which societies endure. He also envisioned sociologists as eventually developing a base of scientific social knowledge that would guide society into positive directions.

Herbert Spencer

The 19th‐century Englishman Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) compared society to a living organism with interdependent parts. Change in one part of society causes change in the other parts, so that every part contributes to the stability and survival of society as a whole. If one part of society malfunctions, the other parts must adjust to the crisis and contribute even more to preserve society. Family, education, government, industry, and religion comprise just a few of the parts of the “organism” of society.

Spencer suggested that society will correct its own defects through the natural process of “survival of the fittest.” The societal “organism” naturally leans toward homeostasis, or balance and stability. Social problems work themselves out when the government leaves society alone. The “fittest”—the rich, powerful, and successful—enjoy their status because nature has “selected” them to do so. In contrast, nature has doomed the “unfit”—the poor, weak, and unsuccessful—to failure. They must fend for themselves without social assistance if society is to remain healthy and even progress to higher levels. Governmental interference in the “natural” order of society weakens society by wasting the efforts of its leadership in trying to defy the laws of nature.

Karl Marx

Not everyone has shared Spencer's vision of societal harmony and stability. Chief among those who disagreed was the German political philosopher and economist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who observed society's exploitation of the poor by the rich and powerful. Marx argued that Spencer's healthy societal “organism” was a falsehood. Rather than interdependence and stability, Marx claimed that social conflict, especially class conflict, and competition mark all societies.

The class of capitalists that Marx called the bourgeoisie particularly enraged him. Members of the bourgeoisie own the means of production and exploit the class of laborers, called the proletariat, who do not own the means of production. Marx believed that the very natures of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat inescapably lock the two classes in conflict. But he then took his ideas of class conflict one step further: He predicted that the laborers are not selectively “unfit,” but are destined to overthrow the capitalists. Such a class revolution would establish a “class‐free” society in which all people work according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.

Unlike Spencer, Marx believed that economics, not natural selection, determines the differences between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He further claimed that a society's economic system decides peoples' norms, values, mores, and religious beliefs, as well as the nature of the society's political, governmental, and educational systems. Also unlike Spencer, Marx urged people to take an active role in changing society rather than simply trusting it to evolve positively on its own.

Emile Durkheim

Despite their differences, Marx, Spencer, and Comte all acknowledged the importance of using science to study society, although none actually used scientific methods. Not until Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) did a person systematically apply scientific methods to sociology as a discipline. A French philosopher and sociologist, Durkheim stressed the importance of studying social facts, or patterns of behavior characteristic of a particular group. The phenomenon of suicide especially interested Durkheim. But he did not limit his ideas on the topic to mere speculation. Durkheim formulated his conclusions about the causes of suicide based on the analysis of large amounts of statistical data collected from various European countries.

Durkheim certainly advocated the use of systematic observation to study sociological events, but he also recommended that sociologists avoid considering people's attitudes when explaining society. Sociologists should only consider as objective “evidence” what they themselves can directly observe. In other words, they must not concern themselves with people's subjective experiences.

Max Weber

The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) disagreed with the “objective evidence only” position of Durkheim. He argued that sociologists must also consider people's interpretations of events—not just the events themselves. Weber believed that individuals' behaviors cannot exist apart from their interpretations of the meaning of their own behaviors, and that people tend to act according to these interpretations. Because of the ties between objective behavior and subjective interpretation, Weber believed that sociologists must inquire into people's thoughts, feelings, and perceptions regarding their own behaviors. Weber recommended that sociologists adopt his method of Verstehen (vûrst e hen), or empathetic understanding. Verstehen allows sociologists to mentally put themselves into “the other person's shoes” and thus obtain an “interpretive understanding” of the meanings of individuals' behaviors.

Article Credit : http://www.cliffsnotes.com/

Randall Collins

Image Credit : sociology.sas.upenn.edu

Randall Collins, Ph.D. (born 1941 in Knoxville, Tennessee) is an American sociologist who is a Sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania as well as a member of the Advisory Editors Council of the Social Evolution & History journal. He is a leading contemporary social theorist whose areas of expertise include the macro-historical sociology of political and economic change; micro-sociology, including face-to-face interaction; and the sociology of intellectuals and social conflict. He is considered to be one of the leading non-Marxist conflict theorists in the United States.

Early life

Collins spent a good deal of his early years in Europe where his father was part of the military intelligence during WWII and also a member of the state department. Collins attended a New England prep school, afterward studying at Harvard and University of California Berkeley, where he encountered the work of Herbert Blumer and Erving Goffman who were both professors at Berkeley at the time. He completed his Ph.D. in 1969 and has taught at numerous universities such as University of Virginia, the Universities of California Riverside and San Diego. He is a visiting professor at Chicago, Harvard, and Cambridge, as well as various schools in Europe, Japan and China. He currently teaches at the University of Pennsylvania.

Research

Collins is a social scientist who views theory as essential to understanding the world. He says "The essence of science is precisely theory...a generalized and coherent body of ideas, which explain the range of variations in the empirical world in terms of general principles". This is Collins' way of examining the social world, emphasizing the role and interaction of larger social structures.

Collins argues sex, smoking, and social stratification and much else in our social lives are driven by a common force: interaction rituals. Interaction Ritual Chains is a major work of sociological theory that attempts to develop a "radical microsociology." It proposes that successful rituals create symbols of group membership and pump up individuals with emotional energy, while failed rituals drain emotional energy. Each person flows from situation to situation, drawn to those interactions where their cultural capital gives them the best emotional energy payoff. Thinking, too, can be explained by the internalization of conversations within the flow of situations; individual selves are thoroughly and continually social, constructed from the outside in.

Collins has also argued that violent confrontation goes against human physiological hard-wiring. It is the exception, not the rule—regardless of the underlying conditions or motivations. This is in opposition to explanations by social scientists that violence is easy under certain conditions, like poverty, racial or ideological hatreds, or family pathologies.

Fiction writing

Early in his academic career, Collins left academia on several occasions to write fiction. One of his novels is The Case of the Philosopher's Ring, featuring Sherlock Holmes.

Article Credit : Wikipedia

Sociological Imagination

The term sociological imagination was coined by the American sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1959 to describe the type of insight offered by the discipline of sociology. The term is used in introductory textbooks in sociology to explain the nature of sociology and its relevance in daily life.

Definitions

Sociologists differ in their understanding of the concept, but the range suggests several important commonalities.

C. Wright Mills defined sociological imagination as "the vivid awareness of the relationship between personal experience and the wider society."

Sociological Imagination: The application of imaginative thought to the asking and answering of sociological questions. Someone using the sociological imagination "thinks himself away" from the familiar routines of daily life.

Another way of describing sociological imagination is the understanding that social outcomes are based on what we do. To expand on that definition, it is understanding that some things in society may lead to a certain outcome. The factors mentioned in the definition are things like norms and motives, the social context are like country and time period and the social action is the stuff we do that affects other people. The things we do are shaped by: the situation we are in, the values we have, and the way people around us act. These things are examined to how they all relate to some sort of outcome. Sociological imagination can be considered as a quality of mind that understands the interplay of the individual and society.

Things that shape these outcomes include (but are not limited to): social norms, what people want to gain out of something (their motives for doing something), and the social context in which they live (ex.- country, time period, people with whom they associate). Basically, as an aspect of sociological imagination, what people do is shaped by all these things that result in some sort of outcome.

Sociological imagination is the capacity to shift from one perspective to another. To have a sociological imagination, a person must be able to pull away from the situation and think from an alternative point of view. It requires us to "think ourselves away from our daily routines and look at them anew". To acquire knowledge, it is important to break free from the immediacy of personal circumstances and put things into a wider context, rather than following a routine. The actions of people are much more important than the acts themselves.

Mills believed in the power of the sociological imagination to connect "personal troubles to public issues."

There is an urge to know the historical and sociological meaning of the singular individual in society, particularly in the period in which he has his quality and his being. To do this one may use the sociological imagination to better understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner self and external career of a variety of individuals.

Another perspective is that Mills chose sociology because he felt it was a discipline that “...could offer the concepts and skills to expose and respond to social injustice.” He eventually became disappointed with his profession of sociology because he felt it was abandoning its responsibilities, which he criticized in his classic The Sociological Imagination. In some introductory sociology classes, the sociological imagination is brought up, along with Mills and how he characterized the sociological imagination as a critical quality of mind that would help men and women "to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves.

Article credit : http://en.wikipedia.org/

Institutionalization

The concept of “institutionalization” actually refers to the process of institutionalization of norms. To understand this concept the meaning of the terms-norm and institution must be known.

The term ‘Norm’ refers to “an abstract pattern held in the mind, that sets certain limits for behaviour”. The term ‘institution’ refers to “recognised normative pattern” of a society or part of a society.

The concept of’ institutionalization ‘ refers to the process in which norms become institutionalized, that is, when they are sanctioned by the group or its part and accepted and internalised by a large number of members.

Institutions emerge mostly as unplanned products of social living. People search for practical ways of meeting their needs. In their attempts they find some workable patterns which become standardized in course of time through constant repetition. As time passes they acquire a body of supporting sanctions.

People tend to orient their behaviour in accordance with these standardized practices. They may also define and redefine these practices in tune with the changes that take place in their environment. This is how institutions normally arise.

‘Institutionalization’ consists of the establishment of definite norms which assign status posi­tions and role functions in connection with such behaviour. A norm is a group expectation of behaviour.

Institutionalization involves replacement of spontaneous or experimental behaviour with behaviour which is expected, patterned, regular, and predictable “—Horton and Hunt.

Social norms are ever operative in society. But these operative norms differ from one social system to another. For example, Muslim societies permit polygyny, but the Hindu and Christian Societies have not permitted it.

Hindus have tabooed beef-eating, Muslims the pork-eating, but both are permitted in the Christian society. As H.M. Johnson has pointed out, a social norm can be said to be institutionalized in a particular social system when the following three conditions are met:-

(i) When a large number of the members of the social system accept the norm.

(ii) When the norm is taken seriously and internalised by a sizeable number of people who accept it.

(iii) When the norm is sanctioned, that is, when certain members of the system are expected to be guided by the norm in appropriate circumstances.

Example:

Dating in America has been institutionalized. Most of the Americans have accepted it as a necessary and proper activity through which young people mature emotionally and eventually find agreeable partners. In the same way, a few societies have institutionalized premarital sexual intercourse, making it a normal and expected part of the activities leading to marriage.

Though this practice has not become institutionalized in America the present trends there, for example, providing contraceptives to the unmarried, and allowing them to have all-night visitations, etc., reveal that it may become institutionalized very shortly providing for an accepted and safeguarded pattern of behaviour. But in the traditional Hindu society both the practices of dating and premarital sexual intercourse are abhorred.

Other Aspects of Institutionalization:

1. Institutionalized norms apply to members of the social system according to their social positions within the system. For example, in family, father, mother, son, daughter all are bound by some family norms which do not apply equally to all.

The rights and obligations of the mother are different from those of the mother and children and they are not the same between parents and children. Still all the members know and support the entire normative pattern of the family because it has become a part of their common culture.

2. The internalisation of a norm by an ‘average’ member of a social system is a matter of degree. The given norm may be internalised by the people in different degrees or different norms may be internalised in different degrees. For example, the obligation of parents to protect their child is normally deeply internalised. The obligation to vote in elections according to the dictates of con­science is not that deeply internalised.

3. Further, ‘widespread’ acceptance of a norm in a social system is also a matter of degree. There is no specification as to the exact proportion of the members of a social system who must know about and accept norms before the norm can be said to be institutionalized. The necessary proportion varies from case and the complexity of the social system. In a large-scale social system, it is impossible for us to expect all the members to know and accept all the operative norms.

4. Finally, even the beliefs and patterns of overt behaviour may become institutionalized. For example, a dogma is a religious belief that, members of a particular religious group ‘must’ accept. Similarly, members of a political party are expected to accept its political ideology.

Article Credit : http://www.shareyouressays.com/

Measurement

Levels of Measurement

The level of measurement refers to the relationship among the values that are assigned to the attributes for a variable. What does that mean? Begin with the idea of the variable, in this example "party affiliation." That variable has a number of attributes. Let's assume that in this particular election context the only relevant attributes are "republican", "democrat", and "independent". For purposes of analyzing the results of this variable, we arbitrarily assign the values 1, 2 and 3 to the three attributes. The level of measurement describes the relationship among these three values. In this case, we simply are using the numbers as shorter placeholders for the lengthier text terms. We don't assume that higher values mean "more" of something and lower numbers signify "less". We don't assume the the value of 2 means that democrats are twice something that republicans are. We don't assume that republicans are in first place or have the highest priority just because they have the value of 1. In this case, we only use the values as a shorter name for the attribute. Here, we would describe the level of measurement as "nominal".

Why is Level of Measurement Important?

First, knowing the level of measurement helps you decide how to interpret the data from that variable. When you know that a measure is nominal (like the one just described), then you know that the numerical values are just short codes for the longer names. Second, knowing the level of measurement helps you decide what statistical analysis is appropriate on the values that were assigned. If a measure is nominal, then you know that you would never average the data values or do a t-test on the data.

There are typically four levels of measurement that are defined:

Nominal

Ordinal

Interval

Ratio

In nominal measurement the numerical values just "name" the attribute uniquely. No ordering of the cases is implied. For example, jersey numbers in basketball are measures at the nominal level. A player with number 30 is not more of anything than a player with number 15, and is certainly not twice whatever number 15 is.

In ordinal measurement the attributes can be rank-ordered. Here, distances between attributes do not have any meaning. For example, on a survey you might code Educational Attainment as 0=less than H.S.; 1=some H.S.; 2=H.S. degree; 3=some college; 4=college degree; 5=post college. In this measure, higher numbers mean more education. But is distance from 0 to 1 same as 3 to 4? Of course not. The interval between values is not interpretable in an ordinal measure.

In interval measurement the distance between attributes does have meaning. For example, when we measure temperature (in Fahrenheit), the distance from 30-40 is same as distance from 70-80. The interval between values is interpretable. Because of this, it makes sense to compute an average of an interval variable, where it doesn't make sense to do so for ordinal scales. But note that in interval measurement ratios don't make any sense - 80 degrees is not twice as hot as 40 degrees (although the attribute value is twice as large).

Finally, in ratio measurement there is always an absolute zero that is meaningful. This means that you can construct a meaningful fraction (or ratio) with a ratio variable. Weight is a ratio variable. In applied social research most "count" variables are ratio, for example, the number of clients in past six months. Why? Because you can have zero clients and because it is meaningful to say that "...we had twice as many clients in the past six months as we did in the previous six months."

It's important to recognize that there is a hierarchy implied in the level of measurement idea. At lower levels of measurement, assumptions tend to be less restrictive and data analyses tend to be less sensitive. At each level up the hierarchy, the current level includes all of the qualities of the one below it and adds something new. In general, it is desirable to have a higher level of measurement (e.g., interval or ratio) rather than a lower one (nominal or ordinal).

Article credit : http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/

Categorical variable

In statistics, a categorical variable is a variable that can take on one of a limited, and usually fixed, number of possible values, thus assigning each individual to a particular group or "category."  In computer science and some branches of mathematics, categorical variables are referred to as enumerations or enumerated types. Commonly (though not in this article), each of the possible values of a categorical variable is referred to as a level. The probability distribution associated with a random categorical variable is called a categorical distribution.

Categorical data is the statistical data type consisting of categorical variables or of data that has been converted into that form, for example as grouped data. More specifically, categorical data may derive from either or both of observations made of qualitative data, where the observations are summarised as counts or cross tabulations, or of quantitative data, where observations might be directly observed counts of events happening or might be counts of values that occur within given intervals. Often, purely categorical data are summarised in the form of a contingency table. However, particularly when considering data analysis, it is common to use the term "categorical data" to apply to data sets that, while containing some categorical variables, may also contain non-categorical variables.

A categorical variable that can take on exactly two values is termed a binary variable or dichotomous variable; an important special case is the Bernoulli variable. Categorical variables with more than two possible values are called polytomous variables; variables are often assumed to be polytomous unless otherwise specified. Discretization is treating continuous data as if it were categorical. Dichotomization is treating continuous data or polytomous variables as if they were binary variables. Regression analysis often treats category membership as a quantitative dummy variable.

Examples of categorical variables

Examples of values that might be represented in a categorical variable:

• The blood type of a person: A, B, AB or O.
• The state that a resident of the United States lives in.
• The political party that a voter in a European country might vote for: Christian Democrat, Social Democrat, Green Party, etc.
• The type of a rock: igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic.
• The identity of a particular word (e.g., in a language model): One of V possible choices, for a vocabulary of size V.

article credit : http://en.wikipedia.org/

Peer Group

DEFINITION OF 'PEER GROUP'

A group of individuals or entities who share similar characteristics and interests. Peer groups, in the case of people, have characteristics which include similarities such as socio-economic status, level of education, and ethnic background and so on amongst its individual members.

In the context of financial markets, peer group usually refers to companies that operate in the same industry sector and are of similar size.

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'PEER GROUP'

In investment research, peer group analysis is a vital part of establishing a valuation for a particular stock. The emphasis here is on comparing "apples to apples," which means that the constituents of the peer group should be fairly similar to the company being researched, particularly in terms of their main areas of business and market capitalization.

Peer group analysis can enable investors to spot valuation anomalies for a specific stock. For example, a stock that is trading at an earnings multiple of 15 – compared with an average multiple of 10 for its peer group – could justifiably be considered to be overvalued. 

Article Credit : http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peer-group.asp

Social Change

Characteristics and Factors

Meaning:

Change is a process. Change denotes any alternation, difference or modification that takes place in a situation or in any object through time. It is the universal law of nature. It refers to the difference that exists between the past and the present situation. Change is an “on-going” process, No society remains completely static.

Society is subject to constant changes. The term social change refers to changes taking place in human society. Basically the changes in human inter-actions and inter relations, indicate social change. Society is the net-work of social relationship. Hence, social change obviously implies a change in the system of social relationship. So any difference or any modification or transformation in the established pattern of human interaction and standards of conduct amounts to change.

Abolition of child marriage, inter-caste marriage, high status to Indian women is some of the important instances of social change.

Definitions:

The meaning of the term “Social Change” can be better understood if we will discuss few definitions formulated by the eminent sociologists. Some of the important definitions are stated below.

Kingsley Davis, “By Social change is meant only such alterations as occur in social organizations, that is, structure and functions of society.”

Maclver and Page, “Social change refers to a process responsive to many types of changes, to changes in man-made conditions of life” to changes in the attitude and beliefs of men and to changes that go beyond the human control to the biological and physical nature of things.

Lundberg, “Social change refers to any modifications in the established patterns of inter-human relationship and standard of conduct.”

H.T. Mazumdar, “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 society.”

Morris Ginsberg, “By social change I understand a change in social structure, i.e. the size of a society, the composition or balance of its parts or the type of its organisation.”

Gillin and Gillin, “Social changes are variations from the accepted modes of life; whether due to alternation in geographical conditions, in cultural equipments, composition of the population or ideologies whether brought about by diffusion or inventions within the group.

Alvin Toffler, “Change is the process through which future invades our life.”

M.E. Jones, “Social change is a term used to describe variations in, or modifications of, any aspect of social process, social patterns, social interaction or social organisations.”

From the above definitions it may be concluded that social change is:

(i) A process.

(ii) It is a change in social organisation, that is the structure and functions of society.

(iii) Social change means human change, which takes place in the life patterns of the people. Basically it refers to the change in social relationship.

(iv) It refers to all historical variations in human societies. It means changes in all fundamental relations of man to man. Which includes changes in political institutions, class structure, economic systems, mores and modes of living.

From the analysis of the above definitions we come to know that the phenomenon of social change is not simple but complex. It is very vast and a complicated process. It is a process in which we always face problems in its conditions, forms, limitations, direction, sources, causes as well as consequences. But it would be worthwhile to analyse the nature of social change for clear understanding. The following natures of social change are discussed below.

Characteristics:

(1) Change is Social:

Social change means a change in the system of social relationship. Social relationship is understood in terms of social process, social interactions and social organizations. So in any variation of social process, social interactions and social organizations social change-takes place.

In an another instance it is found that society is like an organization, which never dies. New civilizations and societies come up by replacing old societies and thereby retaining some of its elements in its change. Thus social change is different from individual change. Its cause and consequences are always social which make it social.

(2) Universal:

Social change is universal. Because it is present in all societies and at all times. No society remains completely static. The society may be primitive or modern, rural or urban, simple or complex, agrarian or industrial, it is constantly undergoing change. The rate or the degree of change may vary from society to society from time to time but every society keeps on changing. A changeless society is an unreality.

(3) Continuous:

Social change is a continuous process but not an intermittent process. Because the changes are neither stopped nor the societies are kept in museum to save them from change. It is an on-going process without any break. In the process of change every society grows and decays, where it finds renewal and accommodates itself to various changing conditions. The sources, direction, rate and forms of change may vary time to time but it is always continuous.

(4) Inevitable:

Change is inevitable. It is the human nature that desires change and also it is his tendency to bring change and to oppose or accept change. Human wants are unlimited which always keep on changing. To satisfy these wants social change has become a necessity not only to him but also to the society.

(5) Temporal:

Social change is temporal. Change in anything or any object or in a situation takes place through time. Time is the most important factor and social change denotes time-sequence. According to Maclver, “It is a becoming, not a being; a process, not a product”. Innovation of new things, modification and renovations of the existing behaviour take time.

So a social change is temporary or permanent on the basis of time. Sometimes some social changes may bring about immediate results while some others may take years to produce results. Similarly, some social changes spread rapidly and also disappear rapidly. Movements, style, fashion and cults are the examples of this type. But in the biological process of ageing short time does not cause change.

(6) Degree or rate of change is not uniform:

Though social change is an ever-present phenomenon, its degree or rate or what we call the speed is not uniform. It varies from society to society and even in the same society from time to time. Sometimes the degree of change is high and sometimes low depending upon the nature of society like open and close, rural and urban and traditional and modern etc. For example, in the rural social structure the rate of change is slower because the rate of change is not governed by any universal law, whereas it is quick in the urban societies.

(7) Social Change may be planned or unplanned:

Social change takes place sometimes with planning and sometimes without planning. Social change which occurs in the natural course is called the unplanned change. The unplanned changes are spontaneous, accidental or the product of sudden decision. Usually the change resulting from natural calamities like flood; drought, famines, volcanic eruption, etc. are the instances of unplanned changes.

Here in this unplanned change there is no control on the degree and direction of social change. It is the inborn tendency of human beings that they desire change. So sometimes plans, programmes and projects are made effective by them to bring change in the society. This is called planned change. As it is consciously and deliberately made, there is every possibility to have control on the speed and direction of change. For example, the five years plan made by the government.

(8) Social change is multi-causal:

A single factor may cause a particular change but it is always associated with a number of factors. The physical, biological, demographical, cultural, technological and many other factors interact to generate change. This is due to mutual interdependence of social phenomenon.

(9) Social change creates chain-reactions:

Social change produces not a single reaction but chain-reactions as all the parts of the society are inter-related and interdependent. For example, the economic independence of women has brought changes not only in their status but also a series of changes in home, family relationship and marriages etc.

(10) Prediction is uncertain:

We can see some elements for prediction in social change. But the prediction we make is uncertain. It is because of three reasons. They are:

(a) There is no inherent law of social change.

(b) The forces of social change may not remain on the scene for all times to come.

(c) The process of social change does not remain uniform.

Apart from the above characteristic features it may be said that social change can be qualitative or quantitative. It is a value free term as it does imply any sense of good or bad, desirable or undesirable. It is a concept distinct from evolution, process and development which are regarded as key concepts in the literature of social change.

Factors of Social Change:

Social change takes place in all societies and in all periods of time. But here question arises why does social change takes place? The word ‘Why’ represents the reasons, the causes or the factors which are responsible for social change. From the discussion of the nature of social change we know that there are some potential factors responsible for bringing social change. Hence, it is multi-causal. Cause refers to a set of related factors which, taken together, are both sufficient and necessary for the production of certain effect. Here it is necessary to take up each factor by itself and to find out the way in which it affects social change. Some of these factors are shown in the following diagram.

Demographic Factors:

Demography plays an important role in the process of social change. The term “demography” has been derived from two Greek words, ‘Demos’ and ‘Graphs’ meaning the “people” and to “draw” or “write” respectively. The dictionary meaning of demography is the scientific study of human population, primarily with respect to their size, structure and their development.

In the study of social change demographic factors have been viewed from two different angles. They are the qualitative and quantitative. Qualitatively speaking it refers to physical potentialities, mental abilities etc. that are determined by genetic order, though the hereditary quality of successive generation play some role in cultural determination, it cannot be ascribed the place of a deterministic cause of social change. But the demographic factor in its quantitative aspect has been playing the most decisive role in causing social change.

The quantitative view of demography takes into account, the size, composition and density of human population that are determined by natural reproduction, migration and social mobility. This aspect has been acknowledged by many past as well as modern thinkers. There are three important factors that determine the rise, fall or density of population. They are:

(a) High Fertility (High Birth rate)

(b) Low Morality (Low Death Rate)

(c) Migration.

Biological Factors:

Social change is a complex process. It is caused by multiple factors. All factors of social change are closely related to each other. But at the same time each individual factor brings change in society in its own way. Accordingly biological factor plays an important role in the causation of social change. An ordinarily biological factor refers to those which are concerned with the genetic constitution of the human beings.

A biological factor includes both non-human beings such as animals, birds, herbs, insects, plants etc. and human beings. Human beings use animals, birds, plants and herbs according to the direction of his own culture. At the same time human beings protect themselves from different harmful elements. If there is increase or decrease of these animals, birds, plants etc. it will bring a number of changes in human society.

Rapid decline of useful animals, birds and plants will also create a number of problems in human society and influences social change. Similarly rapid increase or decrease of population also brings a number of changes in society. Different biological process like human procreation, fertility and mortality also influence the rate of change in a society. Size, density, Migration, immigration etc. bring a number of changes in society.

Rapid population growth influences our environment causes poverty, food shortage and multiple health problems and thereby brings changes in society. Migration accelerate the process of urbanization. Urbanization creates multiple problems like slum, quality of health and life style. Increasing urbanization and declining number of useful animal and birds affects our environment.

Similarly the nature and quality of human beings in a society influences the rate of social change. Sociologist like pareto opines that the biological evolution of mankind brings social changes. Elites in a society are determined by inherited biological instincts. Besides composition of population also influences social change.

Both age composition and sex composition are very closely related to social change. Number of population in the productive age group deeply influences the rate and speed of social change. If the number of child and unproductive or ageing population increases, a country faces a number of economic problems. If the number of ageing population decreases, the youths may be deprived of wisdom and experience which resulted in slow change.

Besides the process of natural selection, social selection also affects the rate and speed of social change. The process of natural selection works through twin alternatives like adaptation and annihilation. Here man is required to adapt to natural environment. But in social selection the forces created within human society and operating through human relationships creates situations that deeply affect the reproduction process and survival rates of population.

Cultural Factors:

In sociology the word ‘Culture’ denotes acquired behavior which are shared by and transmitted among the members of the society. Man learns his behavior and behavior which is learnt is called culture. Singing, dancing, eating, playing belong to the category of culture.

It includes all that man has acquired in the mental and intellectual sphere of his individual and social life. It is the expression of our nature, in our modes of living and thinking, in our everyday intercourse, in art, in literature, in recreation and enjoyment. For the clear understanding of the term ‘Culture’ here, it is necessary to discuss some of the important definitions of culture.

Definitions:

According to White, “Culture is a symbolic, continuous, cumulative and progressive process.”

Malinowski defines culture, “as the handiwork of man and as the medium through which he achieves his end.”

Maclver and Page defines, “Culture is the realm of styles, of values, of emotional attachments, of intellectual adventures.”

In the words of Green, “Culture is the socially transmitted system of idealized ways in knowledge, practices and beliefs, along with the artifacts that knowledge and practice produce and maintain as they change in time.”

Culture, as is defined by Tylor, refers to, “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”

From the above definitions of culture, the features of culture may be summarized below. They are:

(1) Culture is social, but not individual.

(2) Culture is idealistic.

(3) Culture is communicative.

(4) Culture is an acquired quality.

(5) Culture meets the recurring demand of mankind.

(6) Culture has the characteristics of adaptation.

(7) Culture has the quality of becoming integrated.

Culture plays a very significant role in social change. No culture even remains constant. It always keeps on changing. So it is treated as an important source or instrument of social change. The very nature of culture makes it dynamic. The terms like continuous, cumulative adoptive, transmissive etc. signify the elements of dynamism within the culture. Besides, there are host of other internal and external variables that interact upon the culture and cause changes within it.

Change in culture takes place by three important factors. They are discovery, invention and diffusion. A discovery may be a material item or a non material item. But any discovery brings about social change only when it is widely used. An invention generates pressure for change in different parts of social life. Diffusion is the process by which cultural traits spread from one culture to another or from one part of culture to another. It is a two-way process. Because in this process one culture gives something to the other and at the same time takes something from it.

Several sociologists have highlighted the determining role of culture effecting social change. Some of the important effects are given below. They are:

(i) Culture gives speed and direction to social change:

If the culture is too much conservative, then its rate of change becomes too low and vice versa. People whether accept change or not depends upon their attitudes and values which are the products of the culture.

(ii) Culture influences the direction and character of technological change:

Our belief and social institutions not only correspond to the changes in technology but these determine the use to which the technological inventions will be put. It is the culture that decides the purpose to which a technical invention must be put.

(iii) Culture shapes economy and is effective towards economic growth:

Culture not only gives direction to technology but it shapes the economy which is too much effective towards economic growth.

(iv) It keeps the social relationship intact:

It makes people think not of their own but also of the others. By regulating the behavior of the people and satisfying their primary drives pertaining to hunger, shelter and sex, it has been able to maintain group life.

Concept of Cultural Lag:

To examine the role of cultural factors in social change, it is necessary to discuss the concept of “Cultural Lag”.

W.F. Ogburn, an American sociologist introduced the concept of ‘Cultural Lag’ in his book “social change: which was published in the year 1920. The word ‘lag’ connotes crippled movement. Hence cultural lag means the flatering of one aspect of culture behind another. According to Ogburn there are two aspects of culture. One is the material and another one is the non-material.

(i) Material Culture:

It includes those elements or things which are tangible, visible and touchable like goods, tools, machines and furnitures etc.

(ii) Non-material Culture:

It includes those elements which are neither tangible nor touchable rather these are experienced by men like customs, values, ideologies, religion and behavior pattern etc.

It is found that technological innovations and discoveries stimulate the material culture to a great extent. As a result, the changes are quick 4n material culture. But non-material culture responds very slowly to such changes in material culture. So the material culture goes ahead leaving behind the non-material culture. This is called the “cultural lag”. For example-The development in the field of industry requires a corresponding change in the system of education. The failure of education to meet the needs of modern industrial development leads to cultural lag.

Causes of Cultural Lag:

What is the cause of this cultural lag?

Regarding the answer we find many factors causing cultural lag.

They are:

(1)Difference in the degrees of changeability of various elements of culture.

(2)Changes in law.

(3)Man’s psychological dogmatism.

Criticisms:

The theory of ‘cultural lag’ of Ogburn is not free from the criticisms.

(a) There is no clear-cut distinction between material and non- material culture. Again, it is not necessary that non-material culture should invariably lag behind material culture.

(b) A major defect in Ogburn’s theory is that he uses the “cultural lag” for expanding all gaps in the process of social change. Maclver has suggested the use of different terms for the various types of disequilibrium and conflicts, such as technological lag, technological restraint and cultural clash etc.

(c) According to the theory of cultural lag, while one thing progresses forward, another lags. Hence this word should not be used in the context of those objects which are the encouraging as well as the restraining and are similar and possess a common standard of evaluation.

(d) Finally Ogburn has not provided any standard or scale to measure the units of material and non-material culture. So it is difficult to find out whether one aspect of culture changes faster than the other or not.

Inspite of the above short comings, the theory of “cultural lag” of Ogburn has been proved to be beneficial for understanding the cultural factors in bringing about social change.

Technological Factors:

The technological factors also play important role in causing social change. Then what is technology? How it brings social change?

In the study of sociology, technology has a wider connotation. It implies an appropriate organization and systematic application of scientific knowledge to meet the human requirements. Technology is a product of utilization. When the scientific knowledge is applied to the problems of life, it becomes technology. Technology is fast growing. Modern age is the “Age of Technology”.

According to W.F. Ogburn, “Technology changes society by changing our environments to which we In turn adopt. This change is usually in the material environment and the adjustment that we make with these changes often modifies customs and social institution initiates a corresponding social change.

Sources of Technological Change:

There are mainly two important sources of technological change. They are:

(i) Inventions.

(ii) Discovery.

(i) Invention denotes creation of new ways of using existing knowledge or new ways of combining existing artifacts. A single invention in technology can produce a large scale change in society. One important example of invention is the invention of automobile.

(ii) Discovery means the new way of looking at the environment. Technological innovation originates also from another source called discovery.

Example-Discovery of modern medicines is the result of discoveries in biology and partly the result of invention.

Invention and discovery are significant characteristic of our age. Apart from these two, there are three technological factors which are mainly responsible for social change.

They are:

(a) Technological Innovations.

(b) Changes in production technology.

(c) Changes in transportation and communication.

(a) Technological Innovations:

The technological innovations have brought about revolutionary changes in man’s idea about the world and universe. The world is no more a mysterious creation for man because even in case of the natural calamities like flood, cyclone, earthquake and drought etc. are no more being viewed as the divine punishments against man’s bad deeds. No man has been able to find out their causes. As a result of which the degree of gaining control over them has increased.

(b) Changes in production technology:

Invention of new agricultural tools and chemical measures has led to the gradual development of an agrarian system. Industrialization has caused a number of changes in family, status of women, mode of living of people, religion and ideologies of people etc. It has also led to the growth of urban centers with new types of social organization.

(c) Changes in transportation and communication:

Rapid development in transportation and communication has greatly influenced the socio-cultural life. It has broken down the regional barriers. Due to transportation world wide trade and commerce has been possible and communication technology has increased national awakening.

Apart from the above factors, cultural factors play significant role in bring about technological change. Customs, traditions, folkways, mores habits, conservatism etc. have resisted the technological inventions and contribute to it.

Effects of Technology:

No device, technological or otherwise, whether originating within a society or borrowed from outside, obviously set up a network of effects. The status of the individual is no more ascribed rather achieved. A man is judged in what he has, not what he is.

The social relation is gradually becoming superficial, temporary as well as selfish by nature. Changes in technology have resulted in some fundamental changes in social structure. The impact of technological changes may be discussed under the following broad headings.

Technology and Different Process:

(a) Industrialisation:

Industrialisation refers to the process by which industries have been set up. It has given birth to the factory system and replaced domestic system. The invention of machines has led to the creation of big factories which employ thousands of people and where most of the work is performed automatically. It has created new social class and has improved the condition of women. It has affected the nature, character and the growth of economy.

(b) Urbanization:

Industrialisation has led to urbanization. As a result of industrialisation people have started moving towards the industrial areas, the areas neither very far from the cities nor from the villages with the hope of getting employment in those industries and factories. Hence only when a large portion of inhabitants in an area comes to cities, urbanization is said to occur. Towns like Kanpur, Jamshedpur and Ahmadabad in India owe their birth to the factories established there.

(c) Modernization:

It is a process by which adoption of the modern ways of life and values take place. It has brought about remarkable changes in social relationship and installed new ideologies in the place of traditional areas. It has changed the social structure, which adds impetus to the growth of science and technology. As a result of which the rate of change increases rapidly.

Technology and Social Life:

The changes in technology have changed the whole gamut of social life. It has performally altered out modes of life and thought. The different institutions which are already changed may be discussed below one by one. They are:

(a) Caste:

Due to technological changes the structure as well as the functions of caste are already changed.

(i) The ascribed status has been replaced by achieved status.

(ii) There is no restriction on food, water as well as social relationship.

(iii) Marriage under caste system is no more endogamous.

(iv) Hereditary occupational structure has been replaced by occupation based on one’s own choice depending on one’s own capacity, ability and talent.

(b) Joint Family:

Indian traditional family which was purely of joint pattern has started changing its size, structure and functions by the impact of technology.

(i) Change in its unity and natural co-operation of its members.

(ii) Change in the control and rub of Karta.

(iii) Fragmentation of land or distribution of common property.

(iv) It has lost its importance and has started disintegrating day by day.

(c) Marriage:

Marriage is an important institution which has been undergoing tremendous changes due to the impact of technology.

(i) It has lost its sanctity.

(ii) It is treated more as a civil contract than a sacred bond.

(iii) It is becoming more and more unstable.

(iv) The rate of divorce is increasing rapidly day by day.

(d) Religion:

Religion has undergone the following changes.

(i) The role of superstition has been declined.

(ii) People are becoming more and more secular, rational and scientific in their outlook.

(iii) Conservative or orthodox religious activities have been replaced by simple activities.

(iv) The religious toleration among the people has been destroyed.

(e) State:

State have undergone the following changes.

(i) State have become secular in nature.

(ii) There is a shift of functions from local government to the central government of the whole state.

(iii) Modern inventions have strengthened nationalism.

(iv) It has increased the size and power of bureaucracy.

Technology and Economic Life:

Technology has altered man’s economic life in many ways.

(a) War:

The highly dangerous effect of technology is evident through war. The most spectacular invention of our age, the atomic energy, has vastly influenced our life. As an agent of war, it brought about the most appalling annihilation of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As an agent of peace it may bring an unprecedented era of plenty and prosperity.

(b) Transportation and Communication:

Great technological advancement have contributed significantly to the field of transportation and communication. The means of transport has progressed at a surprising rate. The intermixing of people belonging to various countries led to the removal of much misunderstanding, hatred and jealously. It has encouraged the sense of universal brotherhood. The introduction of machinery into industry, news paper, radio, television, telephone, telegraph etc. have facilitated the spread of new principles and have become propaganda machines for political parties.

(c) Agriculture:

Changes in technology have led to the development of new techniques in agriculture. Agricultural production is increased due to the use of modern equipments, improved seeds in quantity and quality. Hence it has greatly affected the rural community. As India is predominantly an agricultural country, its future depends upon the progress of agriculture.

From the above analysis we come to know that with the development of technology changes in different areas are constantly increasing and these are becoming more stable. 

Article Credit : http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/