society change essay

Essay on the Impacts of Shopping

by Vishav (Punjab)

I scored 6 in my writing, but I need minimum 7 band. Please check my essay, it will be very helpful for me. Shopping is becoming more and more popular as a leisure activity. However, some people feel that this has both positive and negative effects. Why is shopping so popular? What effects does its increase in popularity have on individuals and on society? In free time, people spend most of the time in purchasing something in showrooms or markets. Although, every person have different opinion on shopping and some believe that shopping works as a stress buster and it helps in keeping us up-to-date in market. But, I believe shopping leads to a problem because people buy lot more Unnecessary things and till the end they stuck in financial problems. On the one hand, Shopping is very much famous in terms of passing time. There are many reasons behind this, like weather conditions in these days are very unpredictable. So, people spend most of the time in window shopping in multi-brand malls where air conditions works for 24 by 7 in case of summers and heaters in season of winters. In recent research,it was found that every weekend cloths outlets are earning 5 times more than weekdays. On the other hand, increment in popularity of shopping has effected tragically to the many people and leads to weaken the social life of individuals. Earlier people used to meet each other in free time; So, that time they were socially very much active. But, now people spend time in purchasing things on their credit cards which turns out to be another problem for them. According to an article of New York times, 20% of suicide cases were due to financial crises which arisen because of loans taken for person needs. In conclusion, I believe we should not spend our precious time into shopping and instead of that an individual can go out for travel and spend less time and money in shopping. In this way, people will be able to make better social life yet money will spent in traveling but it will also release stress and motivate to work more and earn.

Essay on Change

by Svetlana (Russian Federation)

Some people prefer to spend lives doing the same things and avoiding change. Others, however, think that change is always a good thing. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. It is true that people perceive change in different ways. Some members of the community believe that change is always for the better, while others think otherwise. Those who are in favor of change may argue that it poses a possibility for a particular person to improve him- or herself, both mentally and socially. From the mental perspective, changes relating to traveling and receiving education help one broaden one's mind and learn something new. As for the social perspective - it is empathy for others that he or she may acquire after suffering changes in his or her private life, because it is known that those who experienced various changes in relationships with their family or acquaintances may then better understand other people's feelings. This way, change improves not only person's mental, but also social and private aspect. In contrast, those who avoid changes point out the difficulties to readapt to them that many people experience. For instance, some large companies, Finnair for example, practice giving professional psychological and medicine support to those employees who were sacked due to companies' structural changes. Apparently, such policies infer that a spate of people may suffer from the difficulty to accustom to the changes and find their new way in life. In addition, it can be pointed out that changes regarding private affairs not always make a person better. For many people such changes simply cause a nervous breakdown, and, again, may jeopardize their health, since psychological aspect of a person is tightly connected to his or her general well-being. In conclusion, my view of the problem is that change is an indispensable part of our lives, so people should accept this fact and try to learn how to tackle it rather than avoid it, which is impossible. Please give me feedback for my essay on change

A Country's Problems Essay

by vishal (India)

Countries around the world will be facing significant challenges relating not only to the environment, but population and education as well. What problems will your country face in the next ten years? How can these problems be overcome? Time 5.06 pm Human being and related problems are such issue which is globally spread around the globe. The major issues are related to the welfare of human kind, for example , Poverty , Rise in population and Illiteracy are the least but not last , prevails in human society globally. This essay will highlight such issues and associated reasons with them. It also emerges with solution for such crisis. Beginning with the point of such issue which are being faced by an every realm is Poverty, Population and Education. The rising population around the world is producing the need of money which is the big reason for any nation. Increasing number of people establishing the scarcity of resources. The further problems; like, Education and environment are dependent on population. This is very clear to understand that more people need more food , education, homes which can be bought by money is earned by the people . But more people and less jobs does not give opportunity to earn enough money. That is the reason, people could not think for education and environment and in next 10 years possibly my country will not have miserable condition . Considering the possible way out economics suggests in my country is to break vicious circle of poverty by introducing investment, so that more jobs could be created and people can survive in the world peacefully. Many organisations like “International Monetary fund” evaluates the performance of each nation and provides fund to the nation so that Poverty and other crucial problems, Environment and Poverty can be resolved. Home country’s government also generates revenues, from the Industry, taxes and penalties, which is used by the authority to invest and generate earning sources for the people. This is the one authentic solution which proves it best. Based upon the above paragraph, it can be said that yes each nation struggles more or less the common problems like Poverty, Education and Environment. But it is not impossible and unsolved problems. The appropriate investment and right use of money can easily resolve it. Time ends 5.40

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

Bargain eBook Deal! 30% Discount

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Improve your IELTS Writing Score - Quickly!

Jul 06, 24 06:40 AM

Skimming and Scanning Tips for IELTS Reading

Jun 21, 24 02:29 AM

5 Key Grammar Rules for IELTS

Jun 14, 24 10:05 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Before you go...

30% discount - just $25.86 for all 4 writing ebooks.

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

20.1 Understanding Social Change

Learning objectives.

• Understand the changes that accompany modernization.
• Discuss the functionalist and conflict perspectives on social change.

Social change refers to the transformation of culture, behavior, social institutions, and social structure over time. We are familiar from Chapter 5 “Social Structure and Social Interaction” with the basic types of society: hunting-and-gathering, horticultural and pastoral, agricultural, industrial, and postindustrial. In looking at all of these societies, we have seen how they differ in such dimensions as size, technology, economy, inequality, and gender roles. In short, we have seen some of the ways in which societies change over time. Another way of saying this is that we have seen some of the ways in which societies change as they become more modern. To understand social change, then, we need to begin to understand what it means for a society to become more modern. We considered this briefly in Chapter 5 “Social Structure and Social Interaction” and expand on it here.

Modernization

Modernization refers to the process and impact of becoming more modern. More specifically, it refers to the gradual shift from hunting-and-gathering societies to postmodern societies, as outlined in Chapter 5 “Social Structure and Social Interaction” , and perhaps especially to the changes brought by the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century.

The terms modern and modernization have positive connotations; it sounds good to modernize and to be modern. Modernization implies that progress has been made and is continuing to be made, and who would not want progress? Yet modernization also has a downside, as we will see in this section and in the later discussion of the environment.

A related problem with the terms and concepts of modern and modernization is that many people think of Western nations when considering the most modern nations in the world today. This implies that Western society is the ideal to which other societies should aspire. While there are many good things about Western societies, it is important to avoid the ethnocentrism of assuming that Western societies are better because they are more modern. In fact, one reason that many people in the Middle East and elsewhere dislike the United States is that they resent the “Westernization” of their societies from the influence of the United States and other wealthy Western nations. When they see Coca-Cola and Pepsi logos and the McDonald’s golden arches in their nations, they fear Western influence and the loss of their own beliefs and traditions.

These caveats notwithstanding, societies have become much more modern over time, to put it mildly. We thus cannot fully understand society and social life without appreciating how societies have changed as they have become more modern. Not surprisingly, sociologists have recognized the importance of modernization ever since the discipline of sociology began in the 19th century, and much of the work of sociology’s founders—Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and others—focused on how and why societies have changed as they became more modern.

We can draw on their efforts and related work by later sociologists and by anthropologists to develop an idea of the differences modernization has made for societies and individuals. Several dimensions and effects of modernization seem apparent (Nolan & Lenski, 2009).

First, as societies evolve, they become much larger and more heterogeneous . This means that people are more different from each other than when societies were much smaller, and it also means that they ordinarily cannot know each other nearly as well. Larger, more modern societies thus typically have weaker social bonds and a weaker sense of community than small societies and place more of an emphasis on the needs of the individual.

As societies become more modern, they begin to differ from nonmodern societies in several ways. In particular, they become larger and more heterogeneous, they lose their traditional ways of thinking, and they gain in individual freedom and autonomy.

Thomas Hawk – Big City Turn Me Loose and Set Me Free – CC BY-NC 2.0.

We can begin to appreciate the differences between smaller and larger societies when we contrast a small college of 1,200 students with a large university of 40,000 students. Perhaps you had this contrast in mind when you were applying to college and had a preference for either a small or a large institution. In a small college, classes might average no more than 20 students; these students get to know each other well and often have a lot of interaction with the professor. In a large university, classes might hold 600 students or more, and everything is more impersonal. Large universities do have many advantages, but they probably do not have as strong a sense of community as is found at small colleges.

A second aspect of modernization is a loss of traditional ways of thinking. This allows a society to be more creative and to abandon old ways that may no longer be appropriate. However, it also means a weakening or even ending of the traditions that helped define the society and gave it a sense of identity.

A third aspect of modernization is the growth of individual freedom and autonomy. As societies grow, become more impersonal, and lose their traditions and sense of community, their norms become weaker, and individuals thus become freer to think for themselves and to behave in new ways. Although most of us would applaud this growth in individual freedom, it also means, as Émile Durkheim (1895/1962) recognized long ago, that people feel freer to deviate from society’s norms and thus to commit deviance. If we want a society that values individual freedom, Durkheim said, we automatically must have a society with deviance.

Is modernization good or bad? This is a simplistic question about a very complex concept, but a quick answer is that it is both good and bad. We see evidence for both responses in the views of sociologists Ferdinand Tönnies, Weber, and Durkheim. As Chapter 5 “Social Structure and Social Interaction” discussed, Tönnies (1887/1963) said that modernization meant a shift from Gemeinschaft (small societies with strong social bonds) to Gesellschaft (large societies with weaker social bonds and more impersonal social relations). Tönnies lamented the loss of close social bonds and of a strong sense of community resulting from modernization, and he feared that a sense of rootlessness begins to replace the feeling of stability and steadiness characteristic of small, older societies.

Weber (1921/1978) was also concerned about modernization. The hallmarks of modernization, he thought, are rationalization, a loss of tradition, and the rise of impersonal bureaucracy. He despaired over the impersonal quality of rational thinking and bureaucratization, as he thought it was a dehumanizing influence.

Durkheim (1893/1933) took a less negative view of modernization. He certainly appreciated the social bonds and community feeling, which he called mechanical solidarity , characteristic of small, traditional societies. However, he also thought that these societies stifled individual freedom and that social solidarity still exists in modern societies. This solidarity, which he termed organic solidarity , stems from the division of labor, in which everyone has to depend on everyone else to perform their jobs. This interdependence of roles, Durkheim said, creates a solidarity that retains much of the bonding and sense of community found in premodern societies.

We have already commented on important benefits of modernization that are generally recognized: modernization promotes creativity and individual freedom and autonomy. These developments in turn usually mean that a society becomes more tolerant of beliefs and behaviors that it formerly would have disapproved and even condemned. Modern societies, then, generally feature more tolerance than older societies. Many people, undoubtedly including most sociologists, regard greater tolerance as a good thing, but others regard it as a bad thing because they favor traditional beliefs and behaviors.

Beyond these abstract concepts of social bonding, sense of community, and tolerance, modern societies are certainly a force for both good and bad in other ways. They have produced scientific discoveries that have saved lives, extended life spans, and made human existence much easier than imaginable in the distant past and even in the recent past. But they have also polluted the environment, engaged in wars that have killed tens of millions, and built up nuclear arsenals that, even with the end of the Cold War, still threaten the planet. Modernization, then, is a double-edged sword. It has given us benefits too numerous to count, but it also has made human existence very precarious.

Sociological Perspectives on Social Change

Sociological perspectives on social change fall into the functionalist and conflict approaches. As usual, both views together offer a more complete understanding of social change than either view by itself (Vago, 2004). Table 20.1 “Theory Snapshot” summarizes their major assumptions.

Table 20.1 Theory Snapshot

The Functionalist Understanding

The functionalist understanding of social change is based on insights developed by different generations of sociologists. Early sociologists likened change in society to change in biological organisms. Taking a cue from the work of Charles Darwin, they said that societies evolved just as organisms do, from tiny, simple forms to much larger and more complex structures. When societies are small and simple, there are few roles to perform, and just about everyone can perform all of these roles. As societies grow and evolve, many new roles develop, and not everyone has the time or skill to perform every role. People thus start to specialize their roles and a division of labor begins. As noted earlier, sociologists such as Durkheim and Tönnies disputed the implications of this process for social bonding and a sense of community, and this basic debate continues today.

Several decades ago, Talcott Parsons (1966), the leading 20th-century figure in functionalist theory, presented an equilibrium model of social change. Parsons said that society is always in a natural state of equilibrium, defined as a state of equal balance among opposing forces. Gradual change is both necessary and desirable and typically stems from such things as population growth, technological advances, and interaction with other societies that brings new ways of thinking and acting. However, any sudden social change disrupts this equilibrium. To prevent this from happening, other parts of society must make appropriate adjustments if one part of society sees too sudden a change.

Functionalist theory assumes that sudden social change, as by the protest depicted here, is highly undesirable, whereas conflict theory assumes that sudden social change may be needed to correct inequality and other deficiencies in the status quo.

Kashfi Halford – More Riot Police – CC BY-NC 2.0.

The functionalist perspective has been criticized on a few grounds. The perspective generally assumes that the change from simple to complex societies has been very positive, when in fact, as we have seen, this change has also proven costly in many ways. It might well have weakened social bonds, and it has certainly imperiled human existence. Functionalist theory also assumes that sudden social change is highly undesirable, when such change may in fact be needed to correct inequality and other deficiencies in the status quo.

Conflict Theory

Whereas functional theory assumes the status quo is generally good and sudden social change is undesirable, conflict theory assumes the status quo is generally bad. It thus views sudden social change in the form of protest or revolution as both desirable and necessary to reduce or eliminate social inequality and to address other social ills. Another difference between the two approaches concerns industrialization, which functional theory views as a positive development that helped make modern society possible. In contrast, conflict theory, following the views of Karl Marx, says that industrialization exploited workers and thus increased social inequality.

In one other difference between the two approaches, functionalist sociologists view social change as the result of certain natural forces, which we will discuss shortly. In this sense, social change is unplanned even though it happens anyway. Conflict theorists, however, recognize that social change often stems from efforts by social movements to bring about fundamental changes in the social, economic, and political systems. In his sense social change is more “planned,” or at least intended, than functional theory acknowledges.

Critics of conflict theory say that it exaggerates the extent of social inequality and that it sometimes overemphasizes economic conflict while neglecting conflict rooted in race/ethnicity, gender, religion, and other sources. Its Marxian version also erred in predicting that capitalist societies would inevitably undergo a socialist-communist revolution.

Key Takeaways

• As societies become more modern, they become larger and more heterogeneous. Traditional ways of thinking decline, and individual freedom and autonomy increase.
• Functionalist theory favors slow, incremental social change, while conflict theory favors fast, far-reaching social change to correct what it views as social inequalities and other problems in the status quo.

For Your Review

• If you had to do it over again, would you go to a large university, a small college, or something in between? Why? How does your response relate to some of the differences between smaller, traditional societies and larger, modern societies?
• When you think about today’s society and social change, do you favor the functionalist or conflict view on the kind of social change that is needed? Explain your answer.

Durkheim, É. (1933). The division of labor in society . London, England: The Free Press. (Original work published 1893).

Durkheim, É. (1962). The rules of sociological method (S. Lukes, Ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1895).

Nolan, P., & Lenski, G. (2009). Human societies: An introduction to macrosociology (11th ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tönnies, F. (1963). Community and society . New York, NY: Harper and Row. (Original work published 1887).

Vago, S. (2004). Social change (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1921).

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Online Students

For All Online Programs

International Students

On Campus, need or have Visa

Campus Students

For All Campus Programs

What is Social Change and Why Should We Care?

Social change is a concept many of us take for granted or don't really even understand. No society has ever remained the same. Change is always happening. We accept change as inevitable, and it is, end of story, right? Well, not exactly.

Sociologists define social change as changes in human interactions and relationships that transform cultural and social institutions. These changes occur over time and often have profound and long-term consequences for society. Well-known examples of such change have resulted from social movements in workers’ rights, civil rights, women's rights and LGBTQIA+ rights, to name just a few. Relationships have changed, institutions have changed, and cultural norms have changed as a result of these social change movements. That's pretty heady stuff. Don't you think?

What interests me, and what I hope interests you, is our collective power to influence social change.

What is the Main Purpose of Social Change?

While we accept that change is constant, we do not have to accept that we are powerless in its wake. It is the extent to which we care about the direction of social change that we can try to shape it and help to create the kind of "change we wish to see in the world." Whether or not Gandhi actually uttered these words doesn't matter. What matters is that the phrase begs the question, what kind of change do we wish to see in the world?

One person’s opinion about what is good or positive social change might well be another person’s idea of bad or negative social change. For example, those who believe in a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term fight fervently for that right and believe wholeheartedly that it is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor, while those who oppose abortion believe firmly in the righteousness of their cause, too, and have built a movement that can claim victory in the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Institutions have changed, cultural and political norms have changed, and personal relationships have changed as a result of the collective power of people determined to make what they believe to be positive social change. Not all agree, but there can be no denying that it has been an activist movement powered by citizens working together to make change.

As executive director of the 50-year-old nonprofit, Global Citizens Circle  (GCC), I think every day about the question of what kind of change I want to see in the world as I work to carry forward the mission of the organization to foster constructive change in our communities, our nation and our world.

I imagine that our partner and host institution, Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), also thinks about this question on a daily basis as it seeks to "transform the lives of students." And surely, our Belfast-based partner, The Social Change Initiative (SCI), thinks about it as it strives "to improve the effectiveness of activism for progressive social change."

We, all three institutions, care and understand that we can influence social change for the better. We may exercise our power to influence change in different ways. GCC does it through discussion among people of diverse opinions and backgrounds. SNHU does it by offering affordable and innovative educational social science degree programs  online and similar campus majors, and now even in refugee camps in Kenya, Lebanon, Malawi, Rwanda and South Africa. SCI exercises its influence by bringing together social activists and philanthropists around the world.

These are lofty goals to be sure, and they demand our constant attention and unrestricted imagination to envision a better world. You may think that's great, but wonder why you should care, why you should take time out of your incredibly busy schedule to take action and more importantly, how you can even go about helping to create positive social change.

I'd like to suggest that it's not that hard if we begin at the most basic level, that of relationship building.

Find Your Program

Change begins with how and when we interact with others.

When we listen respectfully to others who have different opinions and life experiences than our own, we take the first step in listening; we accept that there are myriad perspectives and points of view on most issues of concern.

If we truly want to be a participant in real change, we cannot stop at acceptance. We must have conversations that push and pull, that ask us to give and take. And if we are willing to do that, we can find those points of agreement and come together on them. We needn't concede those points that define our values but find ways to work together towards positive change that reflects our shared values. It is the art of principled compromise that has the power to create a more lasting change.

We are living in turbulent times, though one could argue that has always been true. The increasing polarization of populations throughout the world that hear “the truth” from entirely different media sources is something new, making the art of principled compromise more difficult. The level of incivility in political dialogue has risen throughout the world, and it’s as if we’ve collectively forgotten our shared humanity.

We can surely claim that technology is to blame, and it is, but it has also fueled positive social change movements when used to bring people together for the betterment of a society. A non-political example of this is the Ice Bucket Challenge that brought millions together to learn about and support the research for a cure of the devastating disease of ALS.

Global Citizens Circle has for five decades brought together diverse groups of people for challenging discussions on issues ranging from conflict resolution and reconciliation to education reform and economic equality. We've seen Catholics and Protestants from Northern Ireland sit down together and discuss their shared hope for peace. We've hosted South African exiles who were once labeled "terrorists" in their own country and who later became leaders of that country. At our discussion circles, we've seated powerful businesspeople next to the homeless and disenfranchised, and activists next to academics, and we have borne witness to the change that has occurred.

Through the pandemic, we gathered people globally online and brought the same principles and values of respect and dignity to dialogue on difficult issues such as racial justice after the murder of George Floyd, the hard realities of police reform and youth vulnerability and resilience in times of conflict.

Have these programs spurred social change? They have in ways we don’t always see; but with intentional nurturing of connections made during these programs, we plant the seeds.

Building Relationships to Foster Constructive Social Change

The conversation topics were often difficult, but listening and learning from others was not. Change begins this way. We must nurture civil discourse and work with intentionality to bring together people with different perspectives.

Convening gatherings of people, educating students in classrooms and online, and supporting activists who put themselves in the forefront of advocating for social change are how Global Citizens Circle, Southern New Hampshire University and The Social Change Initiative use their influence and power to direct change toward a more equitable and inclusive society.

Ultimately, however, it is not the programs that each of our organizations offer that create lasting change, but it is the relationships of trust and respect that do. That takes time and a sustained willingness to be open to the possibility that we might learn something from those with whom we disagree.

Building those kinds of relationships, even when, no, especially when, it seems impossible, is the key to cultivating constructive social change. So, take the lead, start now and stay at it.

Explore more content like this article

What Does a Counselor Do?

How to Become a Victim Advocate

What is Forensic Psychology?

About southern new hampshire university.

SNHU is a nonprofit, accredited university with a mission to make high-quality education more accessible and affordable for everyone.

Founded in 1932, and online since 1995, we’ve helped countless students reach their goals with flexible, career-focused programs . Our 300-acre campus in Manchester, NH is home to over 3,000 students, and we serve over 135,000 students online. Visit our about SNHU  page to learn more about our mission, accreditations, leadership team, national recognitions and awards.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

65 Introduction to Social/Community Change Writing

Amy Minervini

by Amy Minervini

Writing for change is the practice of exploring topics that are meaningful to you, your community, and other stakeholders. You will use rhetorical elements, informative and persuasive skills, and audience analysis to highlight issues and injustices that warrant change. To begin to think about this type of writing, ask yourself a number of questions: What issues in your daily life, in your neighborhood or city, or in the news impact you and others? Why is this particular issue problematic? What changes could be made that would help to be a part of the solution? Who is in charge of making these decisions? What is the best way to reach these individuals or groups? What formats or mediums will be the best way to garner support and effect change? Letter writing — whether to the school board, local officials, newspaper editors, or legislators — is an effective modality to promote actionable change. Service-learning programs and blogging, too, are excellent ways to make a difference in your sphere and in the world.

Key Characteristics

Writing for social change generally exhibits the following:

• Advocates for change through individual, community, or legislative efforts
• Lays out a foundation or a fact pattern that show an injustice has been done or an issue or perspective has been overlooked
• Might engage in brief storytelling or description to help frame an issue or hook the reader/audience
• Incorporates an ethos of restoration and hope
• Awareness of and critique of bias that seeps in
• Acknowledgement of opposing views
• Mindful of intent, medium, audience, and the media (if necessary)

What’s in this Chapter

• Writing Letters to the Editor
• Writing Letters to Elected Officials
• Writing for the Public: Blogging
• Discussion & Writing Prompts

Introduction to Social/Community Change Writing Copyright © 2020 by Amy Minervini is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Personal and Social Changes Creative Writing Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The paper will focus on personal and social changes in the lives of two characters, Hem and Haw, and how the changes that take place depend on morality and ethics. Very often, people are afraid of change and do everything to keep the same order of things as before.

The time, however, is moving forward, and conditions are changing. Those who cannot adapt and move on are left behind. They will only have two choices: one is to realize that change is inevitable and much needed, the other is to stay the same and be forgotten or left behind.

Once again, this was the day of contemplating for Hem and Haw. It was raining almost every day now, and the nearby river was getting dangerously filled up. Haw was more reasonable and kept saying that the environment was changing, and they must do something to make sure that they would be safe in the future. Hem was careless and did not worry.

He kept asking: “What changes do you want to see?” The world was an entity constantly moving and evolving in some form or another. Changes must be made according to the outside environment and the internal processes inside each person. Haw knew they had to move on to a different place or somehow modify their current place of stay in order to meet the conditions that weather placed before them.

Haw would reply that the highest morality states that the truth must be accepted and followed no matter what, even though there are sometimes exceptions from the rules. Wanting to change his friend, Haw would ask: “Why is change important?” As usual, Hem did not care and wanted to keep the old life.

But Haw knew that change was important because everything that happened had begun with some form of change, as it seemed to define life. Either it was a conscious effort or the environment exhibited certain conditions that led to a change. Only a philosophical view on change could help. As such, Haw started thinking about morality and how it applies to change.

His thought was that a person’s character qualities are important to himself/herself and the people who s/he is in cooperation with (Johnson, 2012). He knew that change is important because it leads to the evolution of an individual. It is also critical that the kinds of changes are noted and the person adjusts to them accordingly.

In social views, people must do what is necessary in relation to the greater good. Haw began thinking about building rafts, houses in the trees, or some form of fortifications to keep the river out, as the water was rising rapidly, and the rains did not stop for a week.

Meanwhile, Hem became so careless that he let all his supplies and other useful things be taken by the overflowing water. One morning, when the thunder and lightning were making the weather even worse, Haw asked: “What are the implications of refusing to change?” Hem just made a hand gesture for Haw to leave him alone. But Haw persisted; he explained that unless people change, they will have no future.

People will always feel inconvenient due to the environmental changes and conditions that regulate existence, but nothing is as precious as someone’s life which can be lost because of a refusal. A person not willing to change will slowly die inside, their confidence will dwindle, and no one will be able to rely on that person, as they will be left behind.

The same can be said about self respect and negative personal influences. The need for change is required, so in case someone refuses to change and adjust to the new conditions, it will be a significant fallback for the person, his/her surrounding, and eventually, the bigger society.

Even though it might seem that there is no direct connection between the society and individuals, whatever changes happen in a person, lead to a shift and change in society. The public life is significantly affected by the decisions made by individuals, especially in cases of morality and ethics (Brandt, 2013). Haw understood this and decided to learn everything about ground water, elevation, and world oceans’ movements.

First off, he built a house on a tree, far off the ground, as he hoped this would save him. But one night, a loud thunder strike woke him up, and a question appeared in his head: “Do you expect resistance to your changes?” He could not answer because he never dealt with change. All his life, everything was the same.

As an answer, the tree started leaning from side to side, as the water had loosened the earth between the roots. The answer came itself: yes, Haw knew there would be resistance. An individual character or even the surrounding environment might be resistant to change, as was the case with Haw and his tree house.

A person could believe in something so strongly that after seeing how the outside environment has changed, the internal character might not want to change. Haw did not want to believe that this was happening to him, but now he saw that he must stop the resistance within himself and focus on the resistance nature was placing in front of him.

He started studying even more, engineering, carpentry, buoyancy laws, ship building… As he was carving out a tree trunk, he thought: “What are the ethical implications of change?” The reoccurring thought was that both individuals and societies govern themselves according to the rules and laws of morality, ethics, and more specifically, virtue, which play an important role in the lives of people and nations.

A change in ethics will either make a person better or set him/her back in their morality (Rohlf, 2010). That is why Haw was trying to convince Hem that they must change themselves and think of an escape. Haw understood that people and societies were concerned with the highest moral standards, as they became very close to the person’s heart and soul.

His idea was that the higher the ethical consideration, the better the change and the outcome. To sum up his thoughts, he asked himself: “What are the lessons that you want to learn from this story?” It taught that valuable lessons in changes were needed, but the great principle that ruled everything was morality and ethics (Gort, 2002).

As Haw was floating away on his boat, he saw the dam collapsing and water engulfing everything in the forest. He learned that changes are needed to survive, not only physically, but mentally as well. Peoples’ moral health is key to evolution and development of a person.

Now, he was deciding what image of change management he would be using and why? First, the most necessary adjustments must be understood. After familiarizing with them, they must be implemented into everyday life. The ethical goals and criteria must be strong, in order for changes to be managed properly, and provide the largest benefit for the individual. It must be a life commitment.

Brandt, A. (2013). Morality and Health . New York: Routledge.

Gort, J. (2002). Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation: Multifaith Ideals and Realities, New York: Rodopi.

Johnson, O. (2012). Ethics: Selections from Classical and Contemporary Writers . Boston: Cengage Learning.

Rohlf, M. (2010). Immanuel Kant . Web.

• Ethical egoism in public and private lives
• Waterboarding in Time of War: Is It Justifiable?
• Who Moved My Cheese: A Personal Review
• "Terminally Haunted" the Article by Ferguson
• “Who Moved My Cheese?”: The Behavior of People in a Constantly Changing Reality
• Ethical Research Conduct
• The Novel Good Faith and the Movie Glengarry Glen Ross
• Engineering Practice Ethical Considerations
• Abortion as a Health Ethics Issue
• Three Kinds of Ethics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 22). Personal and Social Changes. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personal-and-social-changes-essay/

"Personal and Social Changes." IvyPanda , 22 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/personal-and-social-changes-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Personal and Social Changes'. 22 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Personal and Social Changes." April 22, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personal-and-social-changes-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Personal and Social Changes." April 22, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personal-and-social-changes-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Personal and Social Changes." April 22, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personal-and-social-changes-essay/.

• Teaching Resources
• Upcoming Events
• On-demand Events

The Individual and Society

• Civics & Citizenship
• Social Studies
• The Holocaust
• facebook sharing
• email sharing

About this Chapter

Who am I? Who are you? Who are we? How we answer these questions shapes how we think about, and how we behave toward, ourselves and others. And our answers to those questions are influenced by the society we live in.  This chapter explores the relationship between the individual and society, and how that relationship affects the choices we make.  

Essential Questions

• What is the relationship between the individual and society?
• What factors shape our identities? What parts of our identities do we choose for ourselves? What parts are determined for us by others, by society, or by chance?
• What dilemmas arise when others view us differently than we view ourselves?
• How do our identities influence our choices and the choices available to us?

What's Included

This chapter is from the  Individual & Society  section of  Holocaust and Human Behavior  and includes:

• 17 readings 
• Connection Questions

Additional Context & Background

We begin to learn our culture—the ways of our society—just after birth. That process is called socialization, and it involves far more than schooling. Our culture shapes the way we work and play, and it makes a difference in how we view ourselves and others. It affects our values—what we consider right and wrong. This is how the society we live in influences our choices. But our choices can also influence others and ultimately help shape our society.

Imagine that you encounter a stranger walking down the street. How might you describe the person? What labels would you use? We know that every person is different from any other in countless ways, yet when we encounter others we often rely on generalizations to describe them. “It's a natural tendency,” says psychologist Deborah Tannen. “We must see the world in patterns in order to make sense of it; we wouldn’t be able to deal with the daily onslaught of people and objects if we couldn’t predict a lot about them and feel that we know who and what they are." 1

Our society—through its particular culture, customs, institutions, and more—provides us with the labels we use to categorize the people we encounter. These labels are based on beliefs about race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, economic class, and more. Sometimes our beliefs about these categories are so strong that they prevent us from seeing the unique identities of others. Sometimes these beliefs also make us feel suspicion, fear, or hatred toward some members of our society. Other times, especially when we are able to get to know a person, we are able to see past labels and, perhaps, find common ground.

The stories in this chapter explore some of the dilemmas people face as they establish themselves both as individuals and as members of a group, and as they define themselves and are defined by others. As the first step in the Facing History & Ourselves journey, this chapter introduces ideas about human behavior and decision making that will serve as a foundation for examining the historical case study in the chapters that follow. Teachers are encouraged to select the readings that match their objectives and the interests and needs of their students.

• 1 Deborah Tannen, You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 16.

Save this resource for easy access later.

Inside this chapter, explore the readings, the bear that wasn't, the danger of a single story, names and identity, finding one's voice, the eye of the beholder, gender and identity, defining race, the social reality of race, the consequences of stereotyping, the blink of an eye, little things are big, words matter, religion and identity, the "in" group, finding confidence, one identity, multiple belongings.

Analysis & Reflection

Enhance your students’ understanding of our readings on individual, society, and identity with these follow-up questions and prompts.

A person has three names: one that he is called by his father and mother; one that people know him by, and one that he acquires for himself.

What is this poem suggesting about the ways we come to understand our identities? What stories from this chapter could illustrate this poem?

• The Bear That Wasn’t is a children’s book that reflects universal questions about the relationship between the individual and society. How do you see ideas from Reading 1, "The Bear That Wasn’t ,"  echoed in some of the other readings throughout this chapter?
• In the reading  The Danger of a Single Story , Chimamanda Adichie warns of “the danger of a single story.” What does she mean? What other readings in this chapter illustrate this danger? Which ones suggest ways to overcome the danger of a single story?
• Legal scholar Martha Minow writes, “When we simplify and sort, we focus on some traits rather than others, and we assign consequences to the presence and absence of the traits we make significant.” What are some of the “traits we make significant” in our society? Do you think some traits and differences matter more than others, and if so, why? Who decides which traits matter most? What readings from this chapter have had the strongest influence on your thinking about these questions?

Related Materials

• Reading The Bear That Wasn't
• Reading The Danger of a Single Story

You might also be interested in…

Analyzing and creating memorials, analyzing nazi propaganda, resources for civic education in california, resources for civic education in massachusetts, the roots and impact of antisemitism (uk), we and they, educator resources for new england holocaust memorial, the refugee crisis and 1930s america, refugees and rescuers: the courage to act, confronting genocide denial, european jewish life before world war ii, introducing the unit, unlimited access to learning. more added every month..

Facing History & Ourselves is designed for educators who want to help students explore identity, think critically, grow emotionally, act ethically, and participate in civic life. It’s hard work, so we’ve developed some go-to professional learning opportunities to help you along the way.

Exploring ELA Text Selection with Julia Torres

Working for justice, equity and civic agency in our schools: a conversation with clint smith, centering student voices to build community and agency, inspiration, insights, & ways to get involved.

Your Article Library

Essay on social change: meaning, characteristics and other details.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Here is your essay on Social Change! 

Introduction:

Change is the internal law. History and science bear ample testimony to the fact that change is the law of life. Stagnation is death. They tell us stories of man’s rise and growth from the Paleolithic age to the Neolithic age, then to the Stone Age and next to the copper age etc. On the stage of the world, scenes follow scenes, acts follow acts, and drama follows drama. Nothing stands still.

Image Courtesy : 2.bp.blogspot.com/_1-xvEOICRwA/SHQeR5CcI3I/AAAAAAAAAVs/OUtRL2GLZXg/s1600-h/PontmorlaisWest_CircusParade_1948-49_CliveArthur.jpg

The wheel of time moves on and on. The old dies and the young steps into the world. We ring out the old and ring in the new. A child changes into a boy, a boy into a youth and then into a man. The bud changes into a flower. The dawn turns into morning, morning into noon, noon into afternoon and afternoon into night.

It is said, “Today is not yesterday, we ourselves change. No change is permanent, it is subject to change. This is observed in all spares of activity. Change indeed is painful, yet needful”. Flowing water is wholesome, and stagnant water is poisonous. Only when it flows through and alters with changes, it is able to refresh and recreate.

Change is an ever-present phenomenon. It is the law of nature. Society is not at all a static phenomenon, but it is a dynamic entity. It is an ongoing process. The social structure is subject to incessant changes. Individuals may strive for stability, yet the fact remains that society is an every changing phenomenon; growing, decaying, renewing and accommodating itself to changing conditions.

The human composition of societies changes over time, technologies expand, ideologies and values take on new components; institutional functions and structures undergo reshaping. Hence, no society remains complete static. Incessant changeability is very inherent nature of human society.

A social structure is a nexus of present relationships. It exists because social beings seek to maintain it. It continues to exist because men demand its continuance. But the existing social structure is influenced by many factors and forces that inevitably cause it to change. Society is thus subject to continuous change.

The change of man and society has been the central and quite dominant concern of sociology right from the time when it emerged as branch of learning. The concern for social change is of great importance not only in studying past changes but also in investigating ‘future’ developments.

Meaning of Social Change :

Change implies all variations in human societies. When changes occur in the modes of living of individuals and social relation gets influenced, such changes are called social changes.

Social change refers to the modifications which take place in life pattern of people. It occurs because all societies are in a constant state of disequilibrium.

The word ‘change’ denotes a difference in anything observed over some period of time. Hence, social change would mean observable differences in any social phenomena over any period of time.

Social change is the change in society and society is a web of social relationships. Hence, social change is a change in social relationships. Social relationships are social processes, social patterns and social interactions. These include the mutual activities and relations of the various parts of the society. Thus, the term ‘social change’ is used to describe variations of any aspect of social processes, social patterns, social interaction or social organization.

Social change may be defined as changes in the social organization, that is, the structure and functions of the society.

Whenever one finds that a large number of persons are engaged in activities that differ from those which their immediate forefathers were engaged in some time before, one finds a social change.

Whenever human behaviour is in the process of modification, one finds that social change is occurring. Human society is constituted of human beings. Social change means human change, since men are human beings. To change society, as says Davis, is to change man.

Theorists of social change agree that in most concrete sense of the word ‘change’, every social system is changing all the time. The composition of the population changes through the life cycle and thus the occupation or roles changes; the members of society undergo physiological changes; the continuing interactions among member modify attitudes and expectations; new knowledge is constantly being gained and transmitted.

Defining Change:

The question to what social change actually means is perhaps the most difficult one within the scientific study of change. It involves the often neglected query of what ‘kind’ and degree of change in what is to be considered social change.

Most analysts of social change deal with this question implicitly somewhere in their theoretical system or in the context of the latter’s application to some empirical case. For the present purpose it should suffice to examine definitions that are frequently used to conceptualise change.

According to Jones “Social change is a term used to describe variations in, or modifications of any aspect of social processes, social patterns, social interaction or social organization”.

As Kingsley Davis says, “By Social change is meant only such alternations as occur in social organization – that is, the structure and functions of society”.

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

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

P. Fairchild defines social change as “variations or modifications in any aspects of social process, pattern or form.

B. Kuppuswamy says, “Social change may be defined as the process in which is discernible significant alternation in the structure and functioning of a particular social system”.

H.M. Johnson says, “Social change is either change in the structure or quasi- structural aspects of a system of change in the relative importance of coexisting structural pattern”.

According to Merrill and Eldredge, “Change means that large number of persons are engaging in activities that differ from those which they or their immediate forefathers engaged in some time before”.

Anderson and Parker define, “Social change involves alternations in the structure or functioning of societal forms or processes themselves”.

According to M.D. Jenson, “Social change may be defined as modification in ways of doing and thinking of people.

As H.T. Mazumdar says, “Social change may be defined as a new fashion or mode, either modifying or replacing the old, in the life of people or in the operation of a society”.

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

By analyzing all the definitions mentioned above, we reach at the conclusion that the two type of changes should be treated as two facts of the same social phenomenon. Two type of changes are e.g. (i) changes in the structure of society, (ii) changes in the values and social norms which bind the people together and help to maintain social order. These two type of changes should not, however, be treated separately because a change in one automatically induces changes in the other.

For example, a change in the attitude of the people may bring about changes in the social structure. Towards the close of the 19 century, there was a tendency in the countries of Western Europe for families to grow smaller in size. There is a general agreement that this has been brought about mainly by voluntary restriction of births”.

In this case, a change in the attitude of the people is mainly responsible for change in the social structure. On the other hand, a change in the social structure may bring about attitudinal change among the members of the society. Transformation of rural society into industrial society is not simply a change in the structure of society. For example, industrialisation has destroyed domestic system of production.

The destruction of domestic system of production has brought women from home to factory and office. The employment of women gave them a new independent outlook. The attitude of independence instead of dependence upon men has become the trait of women’s personally. Hence, these two type of changes should not be treated separately but both of them should be studied together.

The problem of social change is one of the central foci of sociological inquiry. It is so complex and so significant in the life of individual and of society that we have to explore the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of social change in all its ramifications.

Characteristics of Social Change :

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

1. Social Change is Social:

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

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

2. Social Change is Universal:

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

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

3. Social Change occurs as an Essential law:

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

4. Social Change is Continuous:

Society is an ever-changing phenomenon. It is undergoing endless changes. It is an “ongoing process”. These changes cannot be stopped. Society is subject to continuous change. Here it grows and decays, there it finds renewal, accommodates itself to various changing conditions.

Society is a system of social relationship. But these social relationships are never permanent. They are subject to change. Society cannot be preserved in a museum to save it from the ravages of time. From the dawn of history, down to this day, society has been in flux.

Social change manifests itself in different stages of human history. In ancient times when life was confined to caves (Stone Age), the social system was different from that of the computer age today. There is no fixity in human relationships. Circumstances bring about many a change in the behaviour patterns.

5. Social Change Involves No-Value Judgement:

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

6. Social Change is Bound by Time Factors:

Social change is temporal. It happens through time, because society exists only as a time-sequences. We know its meaning fully only by understanding it through time factors. For example, the caste system which was a pillar of stability in traditional Indian society, is now undergoing considerable changes in the modern India.

There was less industrialisation in India during 50s. But in 90s, India has become more industrialized. Thus, the speed of social change differs from age to age. The reason is that the factors which cause social change do not remain uniform with the changes in time.

7. Rate and Tempo of Social Change is Uneven:

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

8. Definite Prediction of Social Change is Impossible:

It is very much difficult to make out any prediction on the exact forms of social change. A thousand years ago in Asia, Europe and Latin America the face of society was vastly different from that what exists today. But what the society will be in thousand years from now, no one can tell.

But a change there will be. For example, industrialisation and urbanisation has brought about a series of interrelated changes in our family and marriage system. But we cannot predict the exact forms which social relationships will assume in future. Similarly, what shall be our ideas, attitudes and value in future, it is unpredictable.

9. Social Change Shows Chain-Reaction Sequences:

Society is a dynamic system of interrelated parts. Changes in one aspect of life may induce a series of changes in other aspects. For example, with the emancipation of women, educated young women find the traditional type of family and marriage not quite fit to their liking.

They find it difficult to live with their parents-in-law, obeying the mother-in-law at every point. They desire separate homes. The stability of marriages can no longer be taken for granted. The changing values of women force men to change their values also. Therefore, society is a system of interrelated parts. Change in its one aspect may lead to a series of changes in other aspects of the society.

10. Social Change takes place due to Multi-Number of Factors:

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

11. Social Changes are Chiefly those of Modifications or of Replacement:

Social changes may be considered as modifications or replacements. It may be modification of physical goods or social relationships. For example, the form of our breakfast food has changed. Though we eat the same basic materials such as meats, eggs corn etc. which we ate earlier, their form has been changed.

Ready-to-eat cornflakes, breads, omelets are substituted for the form in which these same materials were consumed in earlier years. Further, there may be modifications of social relationships. For example, the old authoritarian family has become the small equalitarian family. Our attitudes towards women’s status and rights, religion, co-education etc. stand modified today.

12. Social Change may be Small-scale or Large-scale:

A line of distinction is drawn between small-scale and large scale social change. Small-scale change refers to changes within groups and organizations rather than societies, culture or civilization.

According W.E. Moore, by small-scale changes we shall mean changes in the characteristics of social structures that though comprised within the general system identifiable as a society, do not have any immediate and major consequences for the generalised structure (society) as such.

13. Short-term and Long-term Change:

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

14. Social Change may be Peaceful or Violent:

At times, the attribute ‘peaceful’ has been considered as practically synonymous with ‘gradual’ and ‘violent’ with ‘rapid’. The term ‘violence’ frequently refers to the threat or use of physical force involved in attaining a given change. In certain sense, rapid change may ‘violently’ affect the emotions, values and expectations of those involved.

According to W.E. Moore, “A ‘true’ revolution, a rapid and fundamental alternation in the institutions or normative codes of society and of its power distribution, is rapid and continuous by definition and is likely to be violent, but may well be orderly as opposed to erratic”.

‘Peaceful’ has to do with the changes that take place by consent, acceptance or acquisition and that are enforced by the normative restraints of society.

15. Social Change may be Planned or Unplanned:

Social change may occur in the natural course or it is done by man deliberately. Unplanned change refers to change resulting from natural calamities, such as famines and floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruption etc. So social change is called as the unchangeable law of nature. The nature is never at rest.

Planned social change occurs when social changes are conditioned by human engineering. Plans, programmes and projects are made by man in order to determine and control the direction of social change.

Besides that by nature human beings desire change. The curiosity of a man never rests; nothing checks his desire to know. There is always a curiosity about unknown. The needs of human beings are changing day by day. So to satisfy these needs they desire change.

16. Social Change may be Endogenous or Exogenous:

Endogenous social change refers to the change caused by the factors that are generated by society or a given subsystem of society. Conflict, communication, regionalism etc. are some of the examples of endogenous social change.

On the other hand, exogenous sources of social change generally view society as a basically stable, well-integrated system that is disrupted or altered only by the impact of forces external to the system (e.g., world situation, wars, famine) or by new factors introduced into the system from other societies. For example, technological transfer and brain drain, political and cultural imperialism may lead to the diffusion of cultural traits beyond the limits of single societies.

17. Change Within and Change of the System:

The distinction between kinds of change has been developed by Talcott Parsons in his analysis of change ‘within’ and change ‘of the system, i.e., the orderly process of ongoing change within the boundaries of a system, as opposed to the process resulting in changes of the structure of the system under consideration. Conflict theorists draw our attention to the fact that the cumulative effect of change ‘within’ the system may result in a change ‘of’ the system.

To conclude, some of the attributes most frequently used in describing change are: magnitude of change (small-scale, large-scale changes), time pan, direction, rate of change, amount of violence involved. These dimensions should not be taken as either/or attributes but rather as varying along a continuum from one extreme to another (e.g., revolutionary vs evolutionary).

Other categorization that have been devised involve division of changes on the basis of such characteristics as continuous vs spasmodic, orderly vs erratic and the number of people (or roles) affected by or involved in change.

Although no hard and fast categories have yet been developed into which we can fit different types of change, the use of the foregoing distinctions, may be helpful in clarifying one’s conceptualization of any type of change or at least, they can help one to understand the complexities involved in developing a definition of the subject of social change.

Social Evolution :

In explaining the concept of social change, sociologists from time to time used words and expressions like evolution, growth, progress, development, revolution, adaptation etc. discarding one in preference to the other.

Though the concept of evolution was known to the generation preceding the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, the notion of social evolution was taken directly from the theories of biological evolution. Evolution in biological science means the developing of an organism.

It is a process by which a thing continuously adopts itself to its environment and manifests its own nature. Consequently it is a change which permeates the whole character of the object. Many social theorists from Herbert Spencer to Sumner applied this conception of ‘organic evolution’ in various ways to the explanation of social change.

The term ‘evolution’ is borrowed from biological sciences to Sociology. The term ‘organic evolution’ is replaced by ‘social evolution’ in sociology. Whereas the term ‘organic evolution’ is used to denote the evolution of organism, the expression of ‘social evolution is used to explain the evolution of human society.

It was hoped that the theory of social evolution would explain the origin and development of man. Anthropologists and Sociologists wanted to find a satisfactory and significant explanation of how our society evolved.

They were very much impressed by the idea of organic evolution which explain how one species evolves into another, and wanted to apply the same to the social world. Hence, the concept of social evolution is quite popular in sociological discussion.

Sociologists adopted the word ‘evolution’ to convey the sense of growth and change in social institutions. Social institutions are the result of evolution. They began to work to trace the origin of the ideas, institutions and of the developments.

The term ‘evolution’ is derived from the Latin word ‘evolvere’ which means to ‘develop’ or ‘to unfold’. It is equivalent to the Sanskrit word ‘Vikas’. Evolution literally means gradually ‘unfolding’ or ‘unrolling’. It indicates changes from ‘within’ and not from ‘without’. The concept of evolution applies more precisely to the internal growth of an organism.

Evolution means more than growth. The word ‘growth’ connotes a direction of change but only of quantitative character e.g., we say population grows, town grows etc. But evolution involves something more intrinsic; change not merely in size but also in structure.

According to Maclver and Page, “Evolution involves something more intrinsic, a change not merely in size but at least in structure also”.

Ogburn and Nimkoff write, “Evolution is merely a change in a given direction”.

Ginsberg says, “Evolution is defined as a process of change which results in the production of something new but revealing “an orderly continuity in transition”. That is to say, we have evolution when” the series of changes that occur during a period of time appear to be, not a mere succession of changes, but a ‘continuous process’, through which a clear ‘thread of identity runs’.

Evolution describes a series of interrelated changes in a system of some kind. It is a process in which hidden or latent characters of a thing reveal themselves. It is a principle of internal growth. It shows not merely what happens to a thing but also what happens within it. “What is latent becomes manifest in it and what is potential is made actual.”

Evolution is an order to change which unfolds the variety of aspects belonging to the nature of changing object. We cannot speak of evolution when an object or system is changed by forces acting upon it from without. The change must occur within the changing unity.

Characteristics of Social Evolution :

According to Spencer, “Evolution is the integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion during which matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity.” Society, according to his view, is also subject to a similar process of evolution; that is, changing from a state of ‘incoherent homogeneity’ to a state of ‘coherent heterogeneity.’

Evolution is, thus, a gradual growth or development from simple to complex existence. The laws of evolution which were initially fashioned after the findings of charters. Darwin, came to be known as social Darwinism during the nineteenth century.

Spencer’s point of view can best be illustrated by an example. In the beginning, the most primitive stage, every individual lived an individualistic life, trying to know and do things about himself alone.

Every man was more or less similar, in so far as his ignorance about organized social life was concerned. In this sense, the people were homogenous. At that stage, neither they were able to organize their social life, nor could they work together. There was no system; nothing definite, expect their incoherent or loose-group-formations.

Thus, they formed “an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity,” But gradually, their experiences, realizations and knowledge increased. They learnt to live and to work together. The task of social organisation was taken on, division of labour was elaborated; and each found a particular type of work which he could do best. All worked in an organized and definite way towards a definite goal. Thus, a state of “definite, coherent heterogeneity” was reached.

Herbert Spencer has prescribed four important principles of evolution. These principles are:

1. Social evolution is on cultural or human aspect of the law of change of cosmic evolution.

2. Hence, social evolution take place in the same way at all places and progress through some definite and inevitable stages.

3. Social evolution is gradual.

4. Social evolution is progressive.

In addition to this characteristics, other features of social evolution are clearly evident which are discussed below.

Evolution is a Process of Differentiation and Integration:

The concept of evolution as a process of differentiation cum-integration was first developed by the German Sociologists Von Baer and subsequently by Spencer and many others.

(i) In order to understand this statement, i.e. evolution takes place through differentiation and Integration; we have to study the history of a society over a long, period of time. Then we shall find that its associations, institutions, etc” are constantly evolving or developing.

In social evolution, new and ever newer circumstances and problems are constantly appearing. In order to cope with them, new associations and institutions are evolved. For example, a community in a town previously. When the town had been a small community, its management was the responsibility of a Panchayat or a town area committee.

Now that the town has become a big commercial centre, its management is in the hands of a dozer different committees. One of them looks after the educational facilities, another looks after the sanitation, a third is deputed to look after the octroi, while a fourth manages the markets and so on. In this way, this differentiation increases with the evolution of the town.

(ii) But without Integration, this differentiation cannot take one anywhere. Hence, synthesis along with differentiation is necessary. In urban areas one can find various sectarian associations such as Khandayat Kshatriya Mahasabha, Kayastha society, Brahman Samiti, Napita associations etc.

At the same time, one also can find institutions: ‘Arya Samaj’,” etc. which synthesize and compromise associations based on various caste and class distinctions. Today, while new nations are coming into being in the human society, equally strong efforts are being made to create a world society by compromising these nations.

(iii) By virtue of this double processes of differentiation and integration, the efficiency of the society is being constantly increased. Division of labour is the magic word of modern economic evolution. By an increase in the number of associations and institutions in society, work in various spheres is performed more successfully. And because of the process of synthesis, various spheres take advantage of each other’s efficiency also.

Maclver points it out in a very systematic manner. According to him, evolution or differentiation manifests itself in society by (a) a greater division of society by labour, so that thereby a more elaborate system of cooperation, because the energy of more individuals is concentrated on more specific tasks, a more intricate nexus of functional relationships, is sustained within the group; (b) an increase in the number and the variety of functional associations and institutions, so that each is more defined or more limited in the range or character of its service; and (c) a greater diversity and refinement in the instruments of social communication, perhaps above all in the medium of language.

Various sociologists have laid stress on one or another of these aspect of evolution. Thus, Emile Durkheim has insisted on the preeminent importance of the social division of labour as a criterion of social development. Other writers have taken the various aspects together and sought to show that society passes through a definite series of evolutionary stages.

Social Evolution does not always proceed by Differentiation:

Morris Ginsberg writes, “The notion that evolution is a movement from the simple to the complex can be and has been seriously disputed.” In every field where we find the forces of differentiation at work, there the opposite trends are also manifested. For example in the development of languages, where the process of differentiation has been stressed, we have many disconnecting facts.

The modern languages derived from Sanskrit Like Bengali, Gujarati, Telugu and Tamil cannot be compared in their structure with the richness and diversity of their origin. Here the process is not towards differentiation but towards simplification.

In the development of religion too, the transition from fusion to differentiation is difficult to see. On the whole we find that social evolution does not always proceed by differentiation.

However in spite of the various difficulties, the concept of evolution still retains its usefulness. Maclver has strongly supported the principle of social evolution. He has criticised the practice of believing social evolution to be imaginary. Social evolution is a reality. Maclver has given some arguments in favour of the reality of social evolution.

He emphasizes, if we open the pages of History, we find that in the beginning there was no differentiation of institutions within human society or the performance of diverse functions. But latter on, as culture and civilization progressed, differentiation increased and it is even now increasing. This historical fact is an evidence of the extent and element of reality in the principle of social evolution.

Social Evolution and Organic Evolution :

Though ‘social evolution’ is borrowed from the biological concept of ‘organic evolution’, still then these two terms are not one and the same. There are some basic differences between the two which are as follows:

Firstly, organic evolution implies the differentiation in the bodily structure, which is generally in the form of new organs to use for different purpose. But social evolution does not imply this. Man is the centre of social evolution.

He need not have to develop new organ to adjust himself with changed conditions of life. Because man has the capacity of inventing tools, making instruments and devising techniques to control the forces of nature and to adjust himself with the natural conditions. He can look before and after.

Secondly, in organic evolution, the transmission of qualities takes place through biological heredity, i.e. through ‘genes’. But social evolution takes place through ideas, discoveries, inventions and experiences. Here the changes are transmitted mostly through the mental ability and genius of man.

Thirdly, in case of organic evolution only the descending generation is affected by the structural modification, alterations. But in social evolution even the old as well as the new generations are affected by it. For example, invention of new techniques and devices is influencing the present as well as the future generations.

Lastly, the organic evolution is continuous. There can be no break in it. It is continuous because of the irresistible pressure within the organisation and of environment or natural forces. But such a continuity may not be observed in the case of social evolution. It is subject to disruption. It is an intermittent. It lacks continuity.

Social Change and Social Evolution :

Social change is an ever-present phenomenon everywhere. When we speak of social change, we suggest so far no law, no theory, no direction, even no continuity. Social change occurs in all societies and at all times. No society remains completely static. The term ‘social change’ itself is wholly neutral, implying nothing but differences that take place in human interactions and interrelations.

In explaining this concept of social change, modern sociologists from time to time used different words and expressions. Evolution is one of them. Many social theorists form Herbert Spencer to Sumner applied this conception of evolution in various ways to the interpretation of social change. But many modern theorists, particularly American, have abandoned the idea that social change takes place by evolutionary stages.

Evolution describes a series of interrelated changes in a system of some kind. It is a process in which hidden or latent characters of a thing reveal themselves. It shows not merely what happens to a thing but also what happens within it.

Evolution is an order of change which unfolds the variety of aspects belonging to the nature of changing object. We cannot speak of evolution when an object or system is changed by forces acting upon it from without.

The change must occur within the changing unity. Evolution is a process involving a changing adaptation of the object to its environment and a further manifestation of its own nature. Consequently, it is a change permeating the whole character of the object, a sequence in which the equilibrium of its entire structure undergoes modification.

According to Maclver, evolution is not mere change. It is an immanent process resulting in increased complexity and differentiation. He writes, “the Kernel of organic evolution is differentiation, a process in which latent or rudimentary characters take a distinct and variable form within the unity of the organism.”

Maclver further says, evolution or differentiation manifests itself in society by (a) a greater division of labour resulting in great specialization (b) an increase in the number and variety of functional associations, (c) a greater diversity and refinement in the means of social communication. “When these changes are proceeding, society is evolving”, concludes Maclver.

The concept of progress found notable expression in the writings of the French Philosophers such as Turgot, Condorcent and Fancis Bacon of the 18th century and has been a dynamic agent in the social activity of modern man. Sociologists such as Saint Simon, Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer were the earlier exponents of the idea of progress. According Comte, it was the intellectual elite who could bring about an era of progress.

Etymologically, the word progress means “moving forward.” But moving forward or backward, progress or regress are relative terms. If it be remarked that such and such country has progressed, no meaningful information can be extracted from such a statement unless the direction towards which progress has been made be known.

In this way, progress is not mere change. It is a change in particular direction. The word progress cannot be appended to change in every direction. For example, if the condition of agriculture in a particular country worsens and a famine results, it is undeniably a change, but it will not be called progress. Progress means moving forward in the direction of achievement of some aim.

Different thinkers have defined progress in different ways. The important definitions are as follows:

Maclver writes, “By progress we imply not merely direction, but direction towards some final goal, some destination determined ideally not simply by the objective consideration at work.

Lumely defines, “Progress is a change, but it is a change in a desired or approved direction, not in any direction.”

Ginsberg defines progress as “A development or evolution in a direction which satisfies rational criterion of value”.

According to Ogburn, “Progress is a movement towards an objective thought to be desirable by the general group for the visible future.

Burgess writes, “Any change or adoption to an existent environment that makes it easier for a person or group of persons or other organized from of life to live may be said to represent progress”.

Progress means an advance towards some ideally desirable end. Since progress means change for the better it definitely implies a value judgement of highly subjective character. For value, like taste, has no measuring rod.

A particular social change may seem to be progressive to one person to another it may seem retrogression, because they have different values. The concept of social progress is, therefore, subjective but it has reference to an objective condition.

Criteria of Progress :

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

Health and Longevity of Life:

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

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

Population:

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

Moral Conduct:

According to some thinkers, moral conduct is the criterion of progress.

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

Nature of Progress :

By analysing above definitions, we find that progress is a change, a change for the better. When we speak of progress, we simply not merely direction, but direction towards some final goal. The nature of the progress depends upon two factors, the nature of the end and the distance of which we are from it.

The modern writers today speak of social progress though they do not have a single satisfactory explanation of the concept. In order to have a better understanding of the meaning of progress, we have to analyse the following attributes.

1. Progress is Dependent upon Social Values:

Progress dependent upon and is determined by social values. It means that progress does not have precisely the same meaning at all times and places, because values change from time to time. There is no object which can uniformly or eternally be considered valuable irrespective of time and place.

Due to this reason, Maclver and Page have written, “The concept of progress is a chameleon that take on the colour of the environment when we feel adjusted to that environment, and some contrasting colour when we feel maladjusted.

2. There is a Change in Progress:

Change is one of its essential attributes. The concept of progress presupposes the presence of change. Without change, there can be no progress.

3. In Progress the Desired End is Achieved:

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

4. Progress is Communal:

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

5. Progress is Volitional:

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

6. Progress is Variable:

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

7. Criteria of Progress are Variable:

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

8. Progress does not have a Measuring Rod:

The term progress is very much subjective and value-loaded. It is not demonstrable with a degree of certainty. We cannot show it to others unless they first accept our evaluations. We may or may not agree that there is progress, but we cannot prove it. Progress is a reality which is immeasurable and undemonstrable. Anything that cannot be demonstrated and measured scientifically cannot be rejected socially. It is especially true in the case of progress.

To conclude, progress conveys the sense of something better and improved. The advancement in technology was opposed to contribute to progress. But, these developments did not carry the sense of progress. It was advancement only in a particular direction.

The comprehensiveness of progress was missing. The extremes of poverty and health, of ignorance and enlightenment had continued to coexist as ever before. Progress as conceived over the ages past, is now considered to be illusive. The end of progress, it has come to be accepted, cannot be determined.

The ‘progress’ in the West did not meet all its ends. It did not bring the fulfillment, that was taken to be its true aim. For this, the use of the term progress was considered inappropriate. The application of the term fell into disfavour. More so, the growing belief that sociology should be value-free also discouraged the use of this expression.

Social Change and Social Progress :

Change is the basic content of both evolution and progress. But the term change is wholly neutral, only suggesting variation in a phenomena over, a period of time. The moment the specifications like direction, desirability, and value-judgement are added to change, another terminology ‘progress’ becomes necessary to describe the process of change.

Progress is not mere change. It is a change in particular direction. It cannot be appended to change in every direction. The word progress means moving forward in the direction and achievement of some desired goal. It is certainly a change, a change for the better not for the worse. The concept of progress always involves and implies value judgement. It is not possible to speak of progress without reference to standards. Not all changes imply progress.

But social change is a generic term, an objective term describing one of the fundamental processes. There is no value-judgement attached to it. It is true that some changes are beneficial to mankind and some are harmful.

But social change is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. The study of social change involves no value-judgement, while the concept of social progress implies values judgement. Social progress means improvement, betterment, moving to a higher level from a lower level.

Social Evolution and Social Progress :

In the earlier theories of biological evolution, the concept of social evolution was intimately connected with social progress. For the social evolutionists of the nineteenth century from Auguste Comte to Herbert Spencer and Lester F. Ward, social evolution was, in effect, social progress. Modern sociologists, particularly Americans, do not hold this proposition.

They point out that evolution does not mean progress, because when a society is more evolved it does not necessarily follow that it is more progressive. If it would have been progressive, Maclver and Page remark that people in the more evolved society are better or better fitted to survive or more moral or more healthy than those we call primitive. Even if the opposite were true, it would not refute the fact that their society is more evolved.”

Social evolution should also be distinguished from social progress. Firstly L.T. Hobhouse says, evolution means a sort of growth while .social progress means the growth of social life in respect of those qualities to which human beings attach or can rationally attach value. The relation between the two is thus a ‘genus-species’ relation.

Social progress is only one among many possibilities of social evolution; any or every form of social evolution is not a form of social progress. For example, caste system in India is a product of social evolution. But it does not signify progress. Hobhouse concludes, “that it is good, the fact that society has evolved is no proof that it progressed.

Secondly, evolution is merely change in a given direction. It describes a series of interrelated changes in a system of some kind. It refers to an objective condition which is not evaluated as good or bad. On the contrary, progress means change in a direction determined ideally. In other words, it can be said, progress means change for the better not for the worse.

It implies a value-judgement. The evolutionary process may move in accordance with our notion of desirable change, but there is no logical necessity that it should. The concept of progress necessarily involves a concept of end. And the concept of end varies with the mentality and experience of the individual and the group.

The affirmation of evolution “depends on our perception of objective evidences, whereas the affirmation or denial of progress depends on our ideals.” It follows that evolution is a scientific concept and progress is an ethical concept. Evolution is a demonstrable reality; out the term progress is very much subjective and value-loaded and is not demonstrable with a degree of certainty.

While social evolution is clearly distinguished from social progress, we must not loose sight of their relationships. Ethical valuations or ideas (Progress) are socially determined and hence determine the objective phenomena (Evolution) of society. They have always been powerful in shaping and moving the world. In some manner they are active in every process of social change. “All social change has this double character.”

From the above analysis we find, though the above three concepts, social change, social evolution and social progress share many common reference points, they have different intellectual framework. They all articulate same consequential effects.

In all the three processes, one cause produces a number of effects, the effect and cause get intermixed to produce other new effects, again new connections between cause and effect are established and so on goes the process.

Factors of Social Change :

A sociological explanation of change refers not only to the structure that changes but also the factors that effect such a change. Social change has occurred in all societies and in all periods of time. We should, therefore, know what the factors are that produce change. Of course there is little consensus among the representatives of theoretical proposition on the sources.

Besides, the linear as well as the cyclical theorists paid little attention to the determinations of factors involved in social change. Morris Ginsberg has made a systematic analysis of the factors which have been invoked by different writers to explain social change.

Here, our analysis is confined to sociological implantation of the origins and causes of change. Cause will be defined here as set of related factors which, taken together, are both sufficient and necessary for the production of a certain effect.

Attempt has been made to take up each factors of social change by itself and find out the way in which it effects social change. These factors are treated independently, purely for purpose of understanding and we are not of the view that they can influence social change independent of other factors.

Technological Factor :

Technological factor constitute one important source of social change. Technology, an invention, is a great agent of social change. It either initiates or encourages social change. Technology alone holds the key to change. When the scientific knowledge is applied to the problems of life, it becomes technology. In order to satisfy his desires, to fulfill his needs and to make his life more comfortable, man builds civilisation.

The dawn of this new civilization is the single most explosive fact of our lifetimes. It is the central event, the key to the understanding of the years immediately ahead. We have already crossed the first wave (agricultural revolution). We are now the children of the next transformation i.e. the third wave.

We go forward to describe the full power and reach of this extraordinary change. Some speak of a “Looming Space Age”, “Information Age”, “Electronic Era”, or “Global ‘ Village”. Brezezinski has told us, we face a “Technetronic Age”. Sociologist Daniel Bell describes the coming of a “Post-Industrial Society”. Soviet futurists speak of the STR-‘The Scientific-Technological Revolution”. Alvin Toffler has written extensively about the arrival of a “Super Industrial Society”.

Technology is fast growing. Every technological advance makes it possible for us to attain certain results with less effort, at less cost and at less time. It also provides new opportunities and establishes new conditions of life. The social effects of technology are far-reaching.

In the words of W.F. Ogburn, “technology changes society by changing our environment to which we in turn adapt. This change is usually in the material environment and the adjustment that we make with these changes often modifies our customs and social institutions”.

Ogburn and Nimkoff have pointed that a single invention may have innumerable social effects. According to them, radio, for example, has influenced our entertainment, education, politics, sports, literature, knowledge, business, occupation and our modes of organisation. They have given a list consisting of 150 effects of radio in U.S.A.

The pace of change in the modern era is easily demonstrated by reference to rates of technological development. The technological revolution enabled human kind to shift from hunting and gathering to sedentary agriculture and later to develop civilizations.

Technological revolutions enabled societies to industrialize urbanize, specialize, bureaucratize, and take on characteristics that are considered central aspects of modern society. “Modern technology,” remarks the economic historian David Landes, “produces not only more, faster; it turns out objects that could not have been produced under any circumstances by the craft methods of yesterday.

Most important, modern technology has created things that could scarcely have been conceived in the pre-industrial era the camera, the motor car, the aeroplane, the whole array of electronic devices from the radio to the high speed computer, the nuclear power plant, and so on almost adinfinitum…. The result has been an enormous increase in the output and variety of goods and services, and this alone has changed man’s way of life more than anything since the discovery of fire…”

Every technological revolution has brought about increase in the world population. Development and advancement of agriculture resulted in the increase of population in the agricultural communities; rise of commerce gave birth to the populous towns, international trade and international contact and the industrial revolution set the human society on the new pedestal.

Technological changes have influenced attitudes, beliefs and traditions. The factory system and industrialization, urbanization and the rise of working class, fast transport and communication have demolished old prejudices, dispelled superstitions, weakened casteism, and has given rise to the class based society.

Ogborn even goes to the extent of suggesting that the starter in motor car had something to do with the emancipation of women in the America and Western Europe. Development in transport and communication has changed the outlook of the people.

Railways in India have played tremendous role in bringing about social mixing of the people. It has helped people to move out of their local environments and take up jobs in distant corners of the country. Movement of people from East to West and North to South has broken social and regional barriers.

There have come into existence new vocations and trades. People have begun to give up their traditional occupations and are taking to work in the factories and in the offices-commercial as well as Government. This has also made possible the vertical mobility.

A person can now aspire to take up an occupation with higher status than he could have ever thought of in the pre-technological days. Technology has brought about Green Revolution with abundance and variety for the rich.

The rapid changes of every modern society are inextricably interwoven or connected with and somehow dependent upon the development of new techniques, new inventions, new modes of production and new standards of living.

Technology thus is a great bliss. It has made living worthwhile for the conveniences and comfort it provides, and has created numerous vocations, trades and professions. While, giving individual his rightful place, it has made the collectivity supreme.

Technologies are changing and their social consequences are profound. Fundamental changes brought by technology in social structure are discussed as under:

1. Birth of Factory System:

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

2. Urbanisation:

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

3. Development of New Agricultural Techniques:

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

4. Development of Means of Transportation and Communication:

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

5. Evolution of New Classes:

Industrialisation and urbanisation gave birth to the emergence of new classes in modern society. Class struggle arises due to division of society into classes having opposite-interests.

6. New Conceptions and Movements:

The invention of mechanism has also culminated in the generation of new currents in the prevalent thinking. ‘Trade Union’ movements, ‘Lockouts’, ‘Strikes”, “Hartals’, ‘Processions’, ‘Pen down’ became the stocks-in-trade of those who want to promote class interest. These concepts and movements become regular features of economic activity.

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

Technology has radically changed the family organisation and relation in several ways.

Firstly, small equalitarian nuclear family system based on love, equality, liberty and freedom is replacing the old, authoritarian joint family system. Due to invention of birth, control method, the size of family reduced.

Secondly, Industrialisation destroying the domestic system of production has brought women from home to the factories and office. The employment of women meant their independence from the bondage of man. If brought a change in their attitudes and ideas. It meant a new social life for women. It consequently affected every part of the family life.

Thirdly due to technology, marriage has lost its sanctity. It is now regarded as civil contract rather than a religious sacrament. Romantic marriage, inter-caste marriage and late marriages are the effects of technology. Instances of divorce, desertion, separation and broken families are increasing.

Lastly, though technology has elevated the status of women, it has also contributed to the stresses and strains in the relations between men and women at home. It has lessened the importance of family in the process of socialisation of its members.

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

Economic life:

The most striking change due to technological advance, is the change in economic organisation. Industry has been taken away from the household and new types of economic organisation like factories, stores, banks, joint stock companies, stock-exchanges, and corporation have been setup. It has given birth to capitalism with all its attendant evils.

Division of labour, specialization of function, differentiation and integration all the products of technology. Though it has brought in higher standard of living, still then by creating much more middle classes, it has caused economic depression, unemployment, poverty, industrial disputes and infectious diseases.

Effects on State:

Technology has affected the State in several ways. The functions of the State has been widened. A large number of functions of family, such as educative, recreation, health functions have been transferred to the State.

The idea of social welfare State is an offshoot of technology. Transportation and communication are leading to a shift of functions from local Government to the Central Government. The modern Government which rule through the bureaucracy have further impersonalised the human relations.

Social life:

Technological innovations have changed the whole gamut of social and cultural life. The technological conditions of the modern factory system tend to weaken the rigidity of the caste system and strengthen industrializations. It has changed the basis of social stratification from birth to wealth. Urbanization, a consequence of technological advance, produces greater emotional tension and mental strain, instability and economic insecurity.

There is masking of one’s true feelings. Socially, the urbanites are poor in the midst of plenty. “They feel lonely in the crowd”. On all sides, one is confronted with “human machines which possess motion but not sincerity, life but not emotion, heart but not feelings”. Technology has grown the sense of individualism. It has substituted the ‘handi work’ with ‘head work’.

It is clear from the above explanation that technology has profoundly altered our modes of life and also thought. It is capable of bringing about vast changes in society. But is should not be considered as a sole factor of social change. Man is the master as well as a servant of the machine. He has the ability to alter the circumstances which have been the creation of his own inventions or technology.

Cultural Factor of Social Change :

Among all the factors, cultural factor is the most important which works as a major cause of social change. Culture is not something static. It is always in flux. Culture is not merely responsive to changing techniques, but also it itself is a force directing social change.

Culture is the internal life forces of society. It creates itself and develops by itself. It is men who plan, strive and act. The social heritage is never a script that is followed slavishly by people. A culture gives cues and direction to social behaviour.

Technology and material inventions may influence social change but direction and degree of this depends upon the cultural situation as a whole. “Culture is the realm of final valuation”. Men interpret the whole world. He is the master as well as the servant of his own inventions or technology.

To employ Maclver’s simile, technological means may be represented by a ship which can set sail to various ports. The port we sail to remains a cultural choice. Without the ship we could not sail at all. According to the character of the ship we sail fast of ‘slow, take longer or shorter voyages.

Our lives are also accommodated to the conditions on ship board and our experiences vary accordingly. But the direction in which we travel is not predestinated by the design of the ship. The port to which we sail, the direction in which we travel, remains totally of a cultural choice.

It should be noted that technology alone cannot bring vast changes in society. In order to be effective “The technology must have favourable cultural support”. When the cultural factor responds to technological change, it also reacts on it so as to influence the direction and character of social change.

It may be noted that culture not only influences our relationship and values but also influences the direction and character of technological change. For example, different countries like Great Britain, Soviet Union, U.S.A. and India may adopt the same technology, but in so far as their prevalent outlook on life differs, they will apply it in different directions and to different ends.

The atomic energy can be used for munition of war and for production purposes. The industrial plant can turn out armaments or necessaries of life. Steel and iron can be used for building purposes and for warships. Fire can be used for constructive and destructive purposes.

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

Cultural Lag:

The concept of ‘cultural lag’, has become a favourite one with sociologists, it is an expression that has a particular appeal in an age in which inventions discoveries and innovations of many kinds are constantly disturbing and threatening older ways of living. In this context, it will serve also to introduce the principle that cultural conditions are themselves important agencies in the process of social change.

The concept of ‘cultural lag’ was first explicitly formulated by W.F. Ogburn in his treaties entitled ‘Social Change’. Lag means crippled movement. Hence, ‘cultural lag’ means the phases of culture which fall behind other phases that keep on moving ahead.

Ogburn’s idea of ‘cultural lag’ is perhaps one of the most important concept influencing the fact of discussion regarding technology and social change. Ogburn distinguishes between “material” and ‘non-material’ culture.

By ‘material culture’ he means things which are ‘tangible’, visible, seen or touched like goods, tools, utensils, furniture, machine. But the ‘non-material’ culture includes things which cannot be touched or tangible such as family, religion, skill, talent. Government and education etc.

According to Ogburn, when changes occur in ‘material culture’, those in turn stimulate changes in ‘non-material’ culture, particularly in what he terms the ‘adaptive’ culture. According to Ogburn, material culture changes by a process which is different in pace from changes in non-material culture.

The larger the technological knowledge of a society, the greater the possibility of a new combinations and innovations. Thus, material culture tends to grow exponentially. Because society cannot develop methods of controlling and utilizing new technology before the technology is accepted and used. There exists a “cultural lag” in creating controls and altering social relationship related to new conditions brought about by new technology.

Cultural lag is due to man’s psychological dogmatism. He is wedded to certain ideologies regarding sex, education and religion. On account of his dogmatic beliefs and ideologies, he is not prepared to change his social institutions. The failure to adopt social institutions to the changes in the material culture leads to cultural lag.

But Maclver points out that “unfortunately it is often adopted without adequate analysis and consequently it has not been developed in a clear and effective manner. According to him, the distinction is not a workable one. Nor again should be assumed that, it is always the ‘material’ or that the main problem is one of adapting the ‘non-material’ to the ‘material’ culture.

Maclver also observes that the term ‘lag’ is not properly applicable to relations between technological factors and the cultural patterns or between the various components of the cultural pattern itself. He has used different words like, ‘technological lag’, ‘technological restraint’, for the resulting imbalance in the different parts of culture.

Kingsley Davis, in his ‘Human Society’ holds that the aspect of culture cannot be divided into material and non-material and that this distinction in no way helps us to understand the nature of technology. Other sociologists, Sutherland, Wood Ward and Maxwell, in their book ‘Introductory Sociology’ point out that Ogburn is guilty of over simplifying the processes of social change.

Social change is a complex phenomenon. The rate, speed and direction of social change is not the same everywhere. So it cannot be explained by simply saying that change first takes place in material culture and thereafter in non-material culture. Ogburn has taken an over simple materialistic view of society.

In spite of various shortcomings, Ogburn’s theory of cultural lag has been proved to be beneficial for the understanding of the cultural factor in bringing about social change. It has been acknowledged by all that there is an intimate connections between the technological advance and our cultural values.

Hence, we may note here that our culture, our thoughts, values, habits are the consequences of technological changes; the latter also is the consequences of changes of the former. Both technology and cultural factors are the two important sources of social change. The two are not only interdependent but also interactive. Man does not simply want a thing but he wants a thing which may also be beautiful and appealing to his senses.

Dowson and Gettys, in introduction to Sociology’, rightly remark, “Culture tends to give direction and momentum to social change to set limits beyond which social change cannot occur.

It is the culture which has kept the social relationship intact. It makes people think not of their own but also of the others. Any change in cultural valuation will have wider repercussion on the personality of the individual and the structure of the group. Every technological invention, innovation, new industrial civilization or new factor disturbs an old adjustment.

The disturbance created by mechanism was so great that it seemed to be the enemy of culture, as indeed all revolutions seem. The wealth-bringing machine brought also, ugliness, shoddiness, haste, standardization. It brought new hazards, new diseases, and industrial fatigue.

That was not the fault of the machines and power plants. It was due to the ruthlessness and greed of those who controlled these great inventions. But human values or cultural values reasserted themselves against economic exploitation. Culture began, at first very slowly, to redirect the new civilization. It made the new means of living at length more tractable to the uses of personality and new arts blossomed on the ruins of the old.

To conclude, social systems are directly or indirectly the creation of cultural values. So eminent sociologist Robert Bierstedt has rightly remarked, “What people think, in short, determines in every measure… what they do and what they want”. Thus, there a definite relation is a definite relation between changing beliefs and attitudes and changing social institutions. So Hobhouse says, there is “a broad correlation between the system of institutions and mentally behind them”.

Demographic Factor of Social Change:

The demographic factor plays the most decisive role in causing social change. The quantitative view of demography takes into account the factors that determine the population: its size, numbers, composition, density and the local distribution etc.

The population of every community is always changing both in numbers and in composition. The changes in population have a far-reaching effect on society. During the 19th century, the population of most countries of Western Europe fell down. During the same time also, the death rate of these countries declined. This double phenomenon is unprecedented in the history of man.

Population changes have occurred all through human history. It is due to various reasons such as migration, invasion, and war, pestilence, changing food supply and changing mores. There was depopulation and overpopulation in times past. The swift and steady decline of both the birth rate and death in the past 70 years or so witnesses to a great social transformation.

In a society where the size or number of female children is greater than the number of male children, we will find a different system of courtship, marriage and family disorganisation from that where the case is reverse. Women command less respect in that community where their numbers are more.

It has always been recognised that there exists a reciprocal relation between population and social structure. The social structure influences population changes and is affected by them. It is beyond doubt that economic conditions and population rates are interdependent. Increasing 254 Social Change interaction results from an increase in the size and density of population. Increase in population also leads to an increase of social differentiation and a division of labour.

With the changes in size, number and density of population, changes take place in composition. The most important reasons for the contemporary population explosion are the tremendous technological changes on the one hand and a most spectacular advance in controlling the diseases by science and preventive medicines on the other hand.

Advancement in science and technology is indirectly boosting the world population by delaying the death rate. For example, take the case of ‘Malaria’. This disease was responsible for the death of million of people in India and other countries.

But it has now been completely eliminated by destroying the malaria carrying mosquitoes with the use of pesticides. Surgery too has advanced so much today. The vital organs of human body such as kidney and heart can be transplanted or replaced when worn out.

The growth of population has given birth to a great variety of social problems such as unemployment, child labour, wars, competition and production of synthetic goods. It has led to urbanization with all its attendant evils.

Countries with growing population and relatively limited resources have an incentive to imperialism and to militarism. These attitudes in turn, encourage a further increase of population. Increase in population threatens the standards of living and thus inspires a change of attitude.

Due to unprecedented growth of population in the 19th century, the practice of birth control took a new development. This practice (use of contraceptive), in turn, had many repercussions on family relationships and even on attitudes towards marriage.

With a change in population, there is also a change in a pattern of ‘consumption’. Societies having large number of children are required to spend relatively large amounts of money on food and education. On the other hand, societies with large proportions of elderly people have to spend relatively more amount on medical care.

In some cases, population changes may initiate pressures to change political institutions. For example, changes in the age, sex or ethnic composition of a people of then complicates the political process of country.

Besides, there is a close relationship between the growth of population and the level of physical health and vitality of the people. Because there are many mouths to feed, none gets enough nutritious food to eat, as a result chronic malnutrition and associated diseases become prevalent.

These, induce physical incompetence, apathy and lack of enterprise. Due to these people’s low level of physical well-being, they are socially backward and unprogressive. They show their indifference to improve their material welfare. An underfed, disease-ridden people are lethargic people.

Moreover, if the growth of population is checked, it would mean a higher standard of living, the emancipation of women from child-bearing drudgery, better care for the young and consequently a better society.

Demographers have shown that variation in the density of population also affects nature of our social relationship. In a low population density area, the people are said to exhibit a greater degree of primary relationship whereas in the area of high density of population, the relationship between people is said to superficial and secondary. In the opinion of Worth, high density areas witness the growth of mental stress and loneliness of life.

The importance of demography as a factor of social change has been realised by various sociologists and economists. An eminent French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, went on to the extent of developing a new branch of sociology dealing with population which he called “Social Morphology” which not only analyses the size and quality of population but also examine how population affects the quality of social relationships and social groups.

Durkheim has pointed out that our modern societies are not only characterised by increasing division of labour but also specialisation of function. The increasing division of labour and specialization of function have a direct correlation with the increasing density of population. He stresses on the fact that in a simple society with comparatively lesser number of people, the necessity of complex division of labour is less felt.

This society, according to Durkheim, is based on “mechanical solidarity”. But as the groups grow in size and complexity with the increase in population, the “services of the experts” are more required. The society, according to him, moves towards “organic solidarity”. There is, so to say, a drift from mechanical to organic solidarity.

M. David Heer, in his book “Society and Population”, has developed a “theory of demographic transition”. The theory was popularised just after the end of World War-II. It has provided a comprehensive explanation of the effects of economic development both on fertility and mortality decline.

Schneidar and Dornbusch, in their book “Popular Religion”, have pointed that decline in mortality rate evokes several changes in social structure. They have stressed on the point that due to decline in mortality rate in USA since 1875, negative attitude towards religious beliefs have been cultivated by the people.

They also point out that in a society wherein children die before reaching the age of five, parents may not develop a strong emotional attachment to their children and also in a high mortality society, arranged marriages are common, but in a low mortality society love marriages become the dominant feature. Again when mortality rate is high, individual tends to have a weaker orientation towards the future and stronger orientation towards the present.

Thomas Robert Malthus, an English cleargyman, mathematician and economist, was one of the earliest demographers. In his work, “An Essay on the Principles of Population”, published in 1978, he mentioned that under normal conditions, population would grow by geometrical progression, whereas the means of subsistence would grow by arithmetical progression. The imbalance or lag or gap between the two would create a lot of problems for society.

That is why, Malthus has pleaded for two types of checks which can keep the population down. He spoke of hunger and disease as positive check, and late marriage and enforced celibacy as the preventive check.

From the above analysis, we find that demographic factor has been contributing to the great transformations in society’s socioeconomic and political structure throughout human history. For example, most countries in Asia where more than half world population is now living, is characterised by high birth rate. These countries in general and Indian society in particular, are passing through a critical period of great poverty, unemployment and moral degeneration.

The gap between the living standards of general masses of these countries and that of the developed countries is widening. The gap is cruelly frustrating the third world country’s hopes for development.

With the current rate of population increase, it is expected that the total requirements for future health, education, housing and many other welfare needs are bound to increase. This will certainly bring the drastic changes not only in the microstructures, but also in macrostructures of Indian society.

Related Articles:

• Difference between Social and Cultural Change
• Cultural Change: Main Factors and Causes of Cultural Change

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

EssayEmpire

Social change essay.

Social change can occur throughout an entire society or within parts of a society like groups, communities, or regions. It can have a variety of causes, including the efforts of individuals and groups to address social problems.

For analytic purposes, social change may be considered as any fundamental alteration in (a) the structure of existing relationships of a society or parts of a society, (b) the processes or common practices used in everyday life, (c) population composition (for instance, the size of a society or ethnic groups within a community), and (d) the basic values, ideas, and ways of thinking that prevail in a society or its parts. In actuality, when significant alteration takes place in one of these aspects, it is accompanied by change in one or more other aspects. For example, structural changes in U.S. race relationships during the 20th century were accompanied by alterations in discriminatory practices and in the idea of race itself. In Japan during the late 19th century, as new ideas and policies affecting national unification and relationships with world powers emerged, alterations in occupations and urbanization of the Japanese population also took place.

Types of Social Change

Social change may be categorized into three types: radical, reformist, and transient change. Radical (or foundational) change is made up of extensive transformations in the basic character or nature of a society, community, or group. Successful revolutions, for instance, sometimes bring widespread and profound transformations of many social institutions. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Chinese Revolution of 1949 brought such transformations in government, religion, education, and economic life. Later in the 20th century, in many societies the affordability of personal computers and sophisticated software contributed to profound alterations in modes of communication, entertainment, storage of information, research procedures, types of occupations available, and the curriculums of schools and universities. Sometimes, radical or foundational change occurs when people seek resolutions of what they consider important social problems. The elimination of the apartheid system in South Africa during the early 1990s encompassed foundational change resulting from initiatives to eliminate existing problems. In other cases, radical changes may follow as unanticipated consequences of natural events or new governmental programs.

Reformist social changes are modifications to a society, community, or group that are less extensive and less transformative. Reformist social change typically results from focused efforts to address specific social issues or problems. For example, individuals and groups in the women’s movement that gained momentum in the United States during the 1960s found the situation of women unsatisfactory and through efforts achieved some reforms in gender relationships, the types of education and occupations available to women, and beliefs about women’s abilities and rights. Persons seeking social justice goals frequently pursue social reforms. The efforts on behalf of better housing and health care for poor people in U.S. cities early in the 20th century by individuals like Jane Addams, Mary Kingsbury Simkovitch, and Lillian Wald were concerned with bringing about reforms, and these produced lasting changes.

Currently, individuals may become “change agents” who are trained and sponsored by private or governmental organizations to create reforms in groups or communities. In the United States, for example, agencies like the Peace Corps and the Agency for International Development have provided field representatives with training for introducing changes in education and farming practices in developing societies. In other cases, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) may place trained “community organizers” in localities to build or strengthen public support for social reforms. When many people become concerned with addressing complex social problems, individuals and groups committed to radical foundational changes and those seeking reforms may share some goals and cooperate in some actions. However, because the types and extent of changes sought by each are different, cooperation is necessarily limited.

Unlike radical and reformist change, transient social change is change that may be expected to occur periodically and refers to variations that have a minor or temporary effect on the character of a society or its components. For instance, in societies where new production procedures are welcomed, the nature of work may be understood as changeable and people may expect retraining cycles during their careers. Societies can also experience variations as fashion changes and fads, which are passing enthusiasms that have little lasting effect on social arrangements and actions.

Sources and Causes of Change

The emergence of significant changes within a society is a complex process. In identifying sources behind a past change, or that might produce a future reform, it helps to be aware that multiple causes are usually involved. For example, social movements (collections of groups and individuals combining to produce change) have been behind many reforms. But understanding causes involved in these reform changes may require examination of specific variables within social movements—for instance, how movements coalesced, produced leaders, identified specific objectives, organized resources, and responded to resistance. Understanding may also require examination of conditions inside or outside a society that allow change to occur. Analysis of change often calls for identification of primary and secondary causes; it may also call for determining that factor or variable that operates as the immediate precipitant of change.

There are many possible sources of social change. As suggested earlier, new technologies (tools and procedures) may contribute to change. Historians and social scientists have written about the social effects of technologies including (to name a few) the printing press, steam engines, trains, assembly lines, light bulbs, movies, forestry techniques, automobiles, televisions, and programmable chips. Change can also result from new policies introduced by national governments (for instance, the immigration policy changes developed in the United States during the 1960s) or by actions of foreign governments or groups that threaten or actually invade a society. Environmental variables have also been important in bringing about social change; prolonged droughts, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions have contributed to social transformations in societies around the world. By the last decades of the 20th century, globalization (the establishment of elaborate transnational networks for finance, production, and marketing) became a powerful source of change in many societies.

Understanding Social Change

Social change has long received attention in a diversity of fields. Aristotle, writing in the fourth century BCE, inquired into the best form of social organization in which humans might live (the city-state, he concluded) and how this best form develops from changes in simpler forms of association. During the 19th and 20th centuries, social conditions in many societies inspired novelists, dramatists, and other writers to bring questions of change before the public. In various societies, such individuals (Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Mark Twain, George Bernard Shaw, Jacob Riis, Marcel Proust, Franz Kafka, Upton Sinclair, Alan Paton, Yukio Mishima, Michael Harrington, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Chinua Achebe, and Edna O’Brien) made issues of social change explicit or implicit parts of their work.

However, it was early 19th-century philosophers and social scientists like Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte who, influenced by major upheavals during their lifetimes and ideas of their Enlightenment predecessors, are credited with beginning modern efforts to understand social change. They saw change as progress and assumed that developmental dynamics governed change in all societies. Later in the 1800s, many social scientists and philosophers such as Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, William Graham Sumner, and Lester Frank Ward made the phenomenon of social change a focus of attention and followed the same developmental assumption. By the opening of the 20th century, Spencer and his American followers had pushed Social Darwinism (including the ideas of societal evolution and the superiority of “more civilized” societies) into prominence, while anthropologist Franz Boaz and others were beginning to produce studies and articles countering evolutionary notions. Around the same time, the ideas of Marx about class conflict as the key source of change gained in influence; a few years later, the analysis of sociologist Max Weber concerning the causal importance of beliefs and values began gaining scholarly recognition. Around midcentury many social scientists were influenced by sociologists Talcott Parsons, Lewis Coser, and other “structural functionalists” who explained social change as resulting from strains or inconsistencies within social systems. Soon after, other sociologists like Ralf Dahrendorf, William Domhoff, and Pierre Bourdieu brought attention back to the importance of conflict and power differences as sources of change. By the later years of the century, the assumption that social change was governed by developmental dynamics had been largely discarded, and the focus was on describing and understanding change in specific societies and situations.

Bibliography:

• Diamond, Jared. 2004. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking.
• Greenwood, Davydd J. and Morten Levin. 2006. Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Harper, Charles L. and Kevin T. Leicht. 2006. Exploring Social Change: America and the World. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• McMichael, Philip. 2007. Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

This example Social Change Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

• How to Write an Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay Topics
• Custom Essay Writing Service

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Special offer!

GET 10% OFF WITH  24START  DISCOUNT CODE

Related posts.

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable.

United States Supreme Court justices pose for their official portrait on October 7, 2022, in Washington, DC.

Welp, Donald Trump won. The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.”

The ruling from the Supreme Court was 6-3, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, on a straight party-line vote, with all the Republican-appointed justices joining to give the president the power of a king. While some parts of the federal indictment against Trump will be remanded back down to the district-court trial judge to determine whether any of Trump’s actions were “unofficial” (“unofficial” acts, the court says, are not entitled to immunity), Trump’s victory in front of the Supreme Court is total. Essentially, all he has to do is claim that everything he did to plot a coup was part of his “official” duties, and the Supreme Court provided no clear method or evidentiary standard that can be used to challenge that presumption.

Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here:

• The immunity is absolute
• There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given

On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified,” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts.

Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear.

Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder , even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.

And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office.

The Nation Weekly

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree, steal all the money and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires. 

There will be Republicans and legal academics and whatever the hell job Jonathan Turley has who will go into overdrive arguing that the decision isn’t as bad as all that. These bad-faith actors will be quoted or even published in The Washington Post and The New York Times . They will argue that presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts,” and so they will say that everything is fine.

But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says “unofficial” acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially”?

Take the now-classic example of a president ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival. According to the logic of the Republicans on the Supreme Court, that would likely be an official act. According to their logic, there is also no way to prove it’s “unofficial,” because any conversation the president has with their military advisers (where, for instance, the president tells them why they want a particular person assassinated) is official and cannot be used against them.

There will doubtless be people still wondering if Trump can somehow be prosecuted: The answer is “no.” Special counsel Jack Smith will surely argue that presenting fake electors in connection with his cadre of campaign sycophants was not an “official act.” Lower-court judges may well agree. But when that appeal gets back to the Supreme Court next year, the same justices who just ruled that Trump is entitled to absolute immunity will surely rule that submitting fake electors was also part of Trump’s “official” responsibilities.

Donald Trump’s New Strategy: Act Normal Donald Trump’s New Strategy: Act Normal

Chris Lehmann

The Rise and Fall of the Marvel Cinematic Universe The Rise and Fall of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Kyle Paoletta

Don’t Believe Trump When He Claims He’s Not Racist Don’t Believe Trump When He Claims He’s Not Racist

Clarence Lusane

Why Did “Furiosa” Flop? Why Did “Furiosa” Flop?

Books & the Arts / Vikram Murthi

There is no way to change that outcome in the short term. In the long term, the only way to undo the authoritarianism the court has just ushered in is to expand the Supreme Court . Democrats would have to win the upcoming presidential election and the House and the Senate. Then Congress would have to pass a law expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court; then the Senate would have to pass that law as well, which, at a minimum, would likely have to include getting rid of the filibuster. Then the president would have to sign such a bill, and appoint additional Supreme Court justices who do not think that presidents should be kings—and then those justices would have to be confirmed. And all of that would have to happen before the current Supreme Court hears whatever Trump appeal from his January 6 charges comes up next, because if court expansion happens after the current Supreme Court dismisses the charges against him, double jeopardy will attach and Trump can never be prosecuted again under a less-fascist court.

So, since that’s not going to happen, Trump won. He won completely. He tried to overthrow the government, and he got away with it. I cannot even imagine what he’ll try if he is actually given power again, knowing full well that he will never be held accountable for literal crimes.

If you ever wondered what you’d have done in ancient Rome, when the Roman Republic was shuttered and Augustus Caesar declared himself the “first” citizen of Rome, the answer is: whatever you’re doing right now. It’s what you would have done during the Restoration of King Charles II in England, and what you would have done when Napoleon declared himself emperor of France. This, right here, is how republics die.

And the answer that cries out from the abyss of history is that most people, in real time, don’t care. Republics fall because most citizens are willing to give it away. Most people think that it won’t be that bad to lose the rule of law, and the people who stand to benefit from the ending of republican self-government tell everybody that it will be OK. When the Imperium came to be, the Romans didn’t realize that they were seeing the last form of European self-government for 2,000 years, and the ones who did were largely happy about it.

For my part, I assume that like Mark Antony’s wife, Fulvia, defiling the decapitated head of Cicero, Martha-Ann Alito will be jabbing her golden hairpin into my tongue for criticizing the powerful soon enough. But I’m just a writer. I wonder what the rest of you will do as the last vestiges of democracy are taken away by the Imperial Supreme Court and the untouchable executive officer they’ve just created.

• Submit a correction
• Send a letter to the editor
• Reprints & permissions

Thank you for reading The Nation

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Elie Mystal

Elie Mystal is  The Nation ’s justice correspondent and the host of its legal podcast, Contempt of Court . He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. His first book is the New York Times bestseller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, published by The New Press. Elie can be followed @ElieNYC .

More from The Nation

Despite Bargaining Slowdowns, RA Unions Are Still Booming Despite Bargaining Slowdowns, RA Unions Are Still Booming

As college costs continue to increase, undergraduate Residential Assistants are organizing for better pay and working conditions.

StudentNation / Lucy Tobier

A New Study Confirms That the Texas Abortion Ban “Is Responsible” for a Rise in Infant Deaths A New Study Confirms That the Texas Abortion Ban “Is Responsible” for a Rise in Infant Deaths

Texas leaders promised that the ban, enacted 10 months before Roe was overturned, would “save” newborn lives.

Women Scientists Women Scientists

Lise Meitner (1878–1968), Austrian physicist. Nettie Stevens (1861–1912), American geneticist. Ángela Ruiz Robles (1895–1975), Spanish teacher, writer, pioneer and inventor. Mary A...

OppArt / Adriana Mosquera Soto

It’s Impossible to Overstate the Damage Done by the Supreme Court in This Term It’s Impossible to Overstate the Damage Done by the Supreme Court in This Term

The effects of the high court’s rulings will be enduring and almost impossible to overturn without a serious reckoning by Democratic lawmakers.

There Is No Universal Free Speech There Is No Universal Free Speech

PEN America hides behind the false universalism of free speech, but institutions always choose whom to protect.

Comment / P.E. Moskowitz

“What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” by Frederick Douglass “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” by Frederick Douglass

This is the perfect time to read the entirety of Frederick Douglass’s famous speech, and not merely because of the date on the calendar.

Latest from the nation

Election 2024, don’t believe trump when he claims he’s not racist, say their names: journalists killed in gaza, the democrats are slow-walking into fascism, assange’s case shows why reforming the espionage act is imperative for press freedom, civic resistance in ukraine, editor's picks.

VIDEO: People in Denmark Are a Lot Happier Than People in the United States. Here’s Why.

Historical Amnesia About Slavery Is a Tool of White Supremacy

He is dangerous in word, deed and action

He puts self over country, he loathes the laws we live by, donald trump is unfit to lead.

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values . It is separate from the newsroom.

Next week, for the third time in eight years, Donald Trump will be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States. A once great political party now serves the interests of one man, a man as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the Republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great.

It is a chilling choice against this national moment. For more than two decades, large majorities of Americans have said they are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and the post-Covid era of stubborn inflation, high interest rates, social division and political stagnation has left many voters even more frustrated and despondent.

The Republican Party once pursued electoral power in service to solutions for such problems, to building “the shining city on a hill,” as Ronald Reagan liked to say. Its vision of the United States — embodied in principled public servants like George H.W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney — was rooted in the values of freedom, sacrifice, individual responsibility and the common good. The party’s conception of those values was reflected in its longstanding conservative policy agenda, and today many Republicans set aside their concerns about Mr. Trump because of his positions on immigration, trade and taxes. But the stakes of this election are not fundamentally about policy disagreements. The stakes are more foundational: what qualities matter most in America’s president and commander in chief.

Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.

He is, quite simply, unfit to lead.

The Democrats are rightly engaged in their own debate about whether President Biden is the right person to carry the party’s nomination into the election, given widespread concerns among voters about his age-related fitness. This debate is so intense because of legitimate concerns that Mr. Trump may present a danger to the country, its strength, security and national character — and that a compelling Democratic alternative is the only thing that would prevent his return to power. It is a national tragedy that the Republicans have failed to have a similar debate about the manifest moral and temperamental unfitness of their standard-bearer, instead setting aside their longstanding values, closing ranks and choosing to overlook what those who worked most closely with the former president have described as his systematic dishonesty, corruption, cruelty and incompetence.

That task now falls to the American people. We urge voters to see the dangers of a second Trump term clearly and to reject it. The stakes and significance of the presidency demand a person who has essential qualities and values to earn our trust, and on each one, Donald Trump fails.

Moral Fitness Matters

Presidents are confronted daily with challenges that require not just strength and conviction but also honesty, humility, selflessness, fortitude and the perspective that comes from sound moral judgment.

If Mr. Trump has these qualities, Americans have never seen them in action on behalf of the nation’s interests. His words and actions demonstrate a disregard for basic right and wrong and a clear lack of moral fitness for the responsibilities of the presidency.

He lies blatantly and maliciously, embraces racists , abuses women and has a schoolyard bully’s instinct to target society’s most vulnerable. He has delighted in coarsening and polarizing the town square with ever more divisive and incendiary language. Mr. Trump is a man who craves validation and vindication, so much that he would prefer a hostile leader’s lies to his own intelligence agencies’ truths and would shake down a vulnerable ally for short-term political advantage . His handling of everything from routine affairs to major crises was undermined by his blundering combination of impulsiveness, insecurity and unstudied certainty.

This record shows what can happen to a country led by such a person: America’s image, credibility and cohesion were relentlessly undermined by Mr. Trump during his term.

None of his wrongful actions are so obviously discrediting as his determined and systematic attempts to undermine the integrity of elections — the most basic element of any democracy — an effort that culminated in an insurrection at the Capitol to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Trump incited a mob to violence with hateful lies, then stood by for hours as hundreds of his supporters took his word and stormed the Capitol with the aim of terrorizing members of Congress into keeping him in office. He praised these insurrectionists and called them patriots; today he gives them a starring role at campaign rallies, playing a rendition of the national anthem sung by inmates involved with Jan. 6., and he has promised to consider pardoning the rioters if re-elected. He continues to wrong the country and its voters by lying about the 2020 election, branding it stolen, despite the courts, the Justice Department and Republican state officials disputing him. No man fit for the presidency would flog such pernicious and destructive lies about democratic norms and values, but the Trumpian hunger for vindication and retribution has no moral center.

To vest such a person with the vast powers of the presidency is to endanger American interests and security at home as well as abroad. The nation’s commander in chief must uphold the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” It is the closest thing that this secular nation has to a sacred trust. The president has several duties and powers that are his alone: He has the sole authority to launch a nuclear weapon. He has the authority to send American troops into harm’s way and to authorize the use of lethal force against individuals and other nations. Americans who serve in the military also take an oath to defend the Constitution, and they rely on their commander in chief to take that oath as seriously as they do.

Mr. Trump has shown, repeatedly, that he does not. On numerous occasions, he asked his defense secretary and commanders in the American armed forces to violate that oath. On other occasions, he demanded that members of the military violate norms that preserve the dignity of the armed services and protect the military from being used for political purposes. They largely refused these illegal and immoral orders, as the oath requires.

The lack of moral grounding undermines Mr. Trump even in areas where voters view him as stronger and trust him more than Mr. Biden, like immigration and crime. Veering into a kind of brutal excess that is, at best, immoral and, at worst, unconstitutional, he has said that undocumented immigrants were “ poisoning the blood of our country ,” and his advisers say he would aim to round them up in mass detention camps and end birthright citizenship . He has indicated that, if faced with episodes of rioting or crime surges, he would unilaterally send troops into American cities. He has asked aides if the United States could shoot migrants below the waist to slow them down, and he has said that he would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military against protesters.

During his time in office, none of those things happened because there were enough people in military leadership with the moral fitness to say “no” to such illegal orders. But there are good reasons to worry about whether that would happen again, as Mr. Trump works harder to surround himself with people who enable rather than check his most insidious impulses.

The Supreme Court, with its ruling on July 1 granting presidents “absolute immunity” for official acts, has removed an obstacle to Mr. Trump’s worst impulses: the threat of legal consequences. What remains is his own sense of right and wrong. Our country’s future is too precious to rely on such a broken moral compass.

Principled Leadership Matters

Republican presidents and presidential candidates have used their leadership at critical moments to set a tone for society to live up to. Mr. Reagan faced down totalitarianism in the 1980s, appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court and worked with Democrats on bipartisan tax and immigration reforms. George H.W. Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act and decisively defended an ally, Kuwait, against Iraqi aggression. George W. Bush, for all his failures after Sept. 11, did not stoke hate against or demonize Muslims or Islam.

As a candidate during the 2008 race, Mr. McCain spoke out when his fellow conservatives spread lies about his opponent, Barack Obama. Mr. Romney was willing to sacrifice his standing and influence in the party he once represented as a presidential nominee, by boldly calling out Mr. Trump’s failings and voting for his removal from office.

These acts of leadership are what it means to put country first, to think beyond oneself.

Mr. Trump has demonstrated contempt for these American ideals. He admires autocrats, from Viktor Orban to Vladimir Putin to Kim Jong-un. He believes in the strongman model of power — a leader who makes things happen by demanding it, compelling agreement through force of will or personality. In reality, a strongman rules through fear and the unprincipled use of political might for self-serving ends, imposing poorly conceived policies that smother innovation, entrepreneurship, ideas and hope.

During his four years in office, Mr. Trump tried to govern the United States as a strongman would, issuing orders or making decrees on Twitter. He announced sudden changes in policy — on who can serve in the military , on trade policy, on how the United States deals with North Korea or Russia — without consulting experts on his staff about how these changes would affect America. Indeed, nowhere did he put his political or personal interests above the national interest more tragically than during the pandemic , when he faked his way through a crisis by touting conspiracy theories and pseudoscience while ignoring the advice of his own experts and resisting basic safety measures that would have saved lives.

He took a similar approach to America’s strategic relationships abroad. Mr. Trump lost the trust of America’s longstanding allies, especially in NATO, leaving Europe less secure and emboldening the far right and authoritarian leaders in Europe, Latin America and Asia. He pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, leaving that country, already a threat to the world, more dangerous, thanks to a revived program that has achieved near-weapons-grade uranium.

In a second term, his willingness to appease Mr. Putin would leave Ukraine’s future as a democratic and independent country in doubt. Mr. Trump implies that he could single-handedly end the catastrophic war in Gaza but has no real plan. He has suggested that in a second term he’d increase tariffs on Chinese goods to 60 percent or higher and that he would put a 10 percent tariff on all imported goods, moves that would raise prices for American consumers and reduce innovation by allowing U.S. industries to rely on protectionism instead.

The worst of the Trump administration’s policies were often blocked by Congress, by court challenges and by the objections of honorable public servants who stepped in to thwart his demands when they were irresponsible or did not follow the law. When Mr. Trump wanted an end to Obamacare, a single Republican senator, Mr. McCain, saved it, preserving health care for millions of Americans. Mr. Trump demanded that James Comey, his F.B.I. director, pledge loyalty to him and end an investigation into a political ally; Mr. Comey refused. Scientists and public health officials called out and corrected his misinformation about climate science and Covid. The Supreme Court sided against the Trump administration more times than any other president since at least Franklin D. Roosevelt.

A second Trump administration would be different. He intends to fill his administration with sycophants, those who have shown themselves willing to obey Mr. Trump’s demands or those who lack the strength to stand up to him. He wants to remove those who would be obstacles to his agenda, by enacting an order to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with those more loyal to him.

This means not only that Americans would lose the benefit of their expertise but also that America would be governed in a climate of fear, in which government employees must serve the interests of the president rather than the public. All cabinet secretaries follow a president’s lead, but Mr. Trump envisions a nation in which public service as Americans understand it would cease to exist — where individual civil servants and departments could no longer make independent decisions and where research by scientists and public health experts and investigations by the Justice Department and others in federal law enforcement would be more malleable to the demands of the White House.

Another term under Mr. Trump’s leadership would risk doing permanent damage to our government. As Mr. Comey, a longtime Republican, wrote in a 2019 guest essay for Times Opinion, “Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from.” Very few who serve under him can avoid this fate “because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites,” Mr. Comey wrote. “Of course, to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values. And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.” America will get nowhere with a strongman. It needs a strong leader.

Character Matters

Character is the quality that gives a leader credibility, authority and influence. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump’s petty attacks on his opponents and their families led many Republicans to conclude that he lacked such character. Other Republicans, including those who supported the former president’s policies in office, say they can no longer in good conscience back him for the presidency. “It’s a job that requires the kind of character he just doesn’t have,” Paul Ryan, a former Republican House speaker, said of Mr. Trump in May .

Those who know Mr. Trump’s character best — the people he appointed to serve in the most important positions of his White House — have expressed grave doubts about his fitness for office.

His former chief of staff John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, described Mr. Trump as “a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” Bill Barr, whom Mr. Trump appointed as attorney general, said of him , “He will always put his own interest and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest.” James Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general who served as defense secretary, said , “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try.”

Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s vice president, has disavowed him. No other vice president in modern American history has done this. “I believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Mr. Pence has said . “And anyone who asked someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again.”

These are hardly exceptions. In any other American administration, a single cabinet-level defection is rare. But an unprecedented number of Mr. Trump’s appointees have publicly criticized his leadership, opposed his 2024 presidential candidacy or ducked questions about his fitness for a second term. More than a dozen of his most senior appointees — those he chose to work alongside him and who saw his performance most closely — have spoken out against him, serving as witnesses about the kind of leader he is.

There are many ways to judge leaders’ character; one is to see whether they accept responsibility for their actions. As a general rule, Mr. Trump abhors accountability. If he loses, the election is rigged. If he is convicted, it’s because the judges are out to get him. If he doesn’t get his way in a deal, as happened multiple times with Congress in his term, he shuts down the government or threatens to.

Americans do not expect their presidents to be perfect; many of them have exhibited hubris, self-regard, arrogance and other character flaws. But the American system of government is more than just the president: It is a system of checks and balances, and it relies on everyone in government to intervene when a president’s personal failings might threaten the common good.

Mr. Trump tested those limits as president, and little has changed about him in the four years since he lost re-election. He tries to intimidate anyone with the temerity to testify as a witness against him. He attacks the integrity of judges who are doing their duty to hold him accountable to the law. He mocks those he dislikes and lies about those who oppose him and targets Republicans for defeat if they fail to bend the knee.

It may be tempting for Americans to believe that a second Trump presidency would be much like the first, with the rest of government steeled to protect the country and resist his worst impulses. But the strongman needs others to be weak, and Mr. Trump is surrounding himself with yes men.

The American public has a right to demand more from their president and those who would serve under him.

A President’s Words Matter

When America saw white nationalists and neo-Nazis march through the streets of Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 and activists were rallying against racism, Mr. Trump spoke of “very fine people on both sides.” When he was pressed about the white supremacist Proud Boys during a 2020 debate, Mr. Trump told them to “stand back and stand by,” a request that, records show, they took literally in deciding to storm Congress. This winter, the former president urged Iowans to vote for him and score a victory over their fellow Americans — “all of the liars, cheaters, thugs, perverts, frauds, crooks, freaks, creeps.” And in a Veterans Day speech in New Hampshire, he used the word “vermin,” a term he has deployed to describe both immigrants and political opponents.

What a president says reflects on the United States and the kind of society we aspire to be.

In 2022 this board raised an urgent alarm about the rising threat of political violence in the United States and what Americans could do to stop it. At the time, Mr. Trump was preparing to declare his intention to run for president again, and the Republican Party was in the middle of a fight for control, between Trumpists and those who were ready to move on from his destructive leadership. This struggle within the party has consequences for all Americans. “A healthy democracy requires both political parties to be fully committed to the rule of law and not to entertain or even tacitly encourage violence or violent speech,” we wrote.

A large faction of one party in our country fails that test, and that faction, Mr. Trump’s MAGA extremists, now control the party and its levers of power. There are many reasons his conquest of the Republican Party is bad for American democracy, but one of the most significant is that those extremists have often embraced violent speech or the belief in using violence to achieve their political goals. This belief led to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and it has resulted in a rising number of threats against judges, elected officials and prosecutors.

This threat cannot be separated from Mr. Trump’s use of language to encourage violence, to dehumanize groups of people and to spread lies. A study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, released in October 2022, came to the conclusion that MAGA Republicans (as opposed to those who identified themselves as traditional Republicans) “are more likely to hold extreme and racist beliefs, to endorse political violence, to see such violence as likely to occur and to predict that they will be armed under circumstances in which they consider political violence to be justified.”

The Republican Party had an opportunity to renounce Trumpism; it has submitted to it. Republican leaders have had many opportunities to repudiate his violent discourse and make clear that it should have no place in political life; they failed to. Sizable numbers of voters in Republican primaries abandoned Mr. Trump for other candidates, and independent and undecided voters have said that Mr. Trump’s language has alienated them from his candidacy.

But with his nomination by his party all but assured, Mr. Trump has become even more reckless in employing extreme and violent speech, such as his references to executing generals who raise questions about his actions. He has argued, before the Supreme Court, that he should have the right to assassinate a political rival and face no consequences.

The Rule of Law Matters

The danger from these foundational failings — of morals and character, of principled leadership and rhetorical excess — is never clearer than in Mr. Trump’s disregard for rule of law, his willingness to do long-term damage to the integrity of America’s systems for short-term personal gain.

As we’ve noted, Mr. Trump’s disregard for democracy was most evident in his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to encourage violence to stop the peaceful transfer of power. What stood in his way were the many patriotic Americans, at every level of government, who rejected his efforts to bully them into complying with his demands to change election results. Instead, they followed the rules and followed the law. This respect for the rule of law, not the rule of men, is what has allowed American democracy to survive for more than 200 years.

In the four years since losing the election, Mr. Trump has become only more determined to subvert the rule of law, because his whole theory of Trumpism boils down to doing whatever he wants without consequence. Americans are seeing this unfold as Mr. Trump attempts to fight off numerous criminal charges. Not content to work within the law to defend himself, he is instead turning to sympathetic judges — including two Supreme Court justices with apparent conflicts over the 2020 election and Jan. 6-related litigation. The playbook: delay federal prosecution until he can win election and end those legal cases. His vision of government is one that does what he wants, rather than a government that operates according to the rule of law as prescribed by the Constitution, the courts and Congress.

As divided as America is, people across the political spectrum generally recoil from rigged rules, favoritism, self-dealing and abuse of power. Our country has been so stable for so long in part because most Americans and most American leaders follow the rules or face the consequences.

So much in the past two decades has tested these norms in our society — the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, the failures that led to the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that followed, the pandemic and all the fractures and inequities that it revealed. We need a recommitment to the rule of law and the values of fair play. This election is a moment for Americans to decide whether we will keep striving for those ideals.

Mr. Trump rejects them. If he is re-elected, America will face a new and precarious future, one that it may not be prepared for. It is a future in which intelligence agencies would be judged not according to whether they preserved national security but by whether they served Mr. Trump’s political agenda. It means that prosecutors and law enforcement officials would be judged not according to whether they follow the law to keep Americans safe but by whether they obey his demands to “go after” political enemies. It means that public servants would be judged not according to their dedication or skill but by whether they show sufficient loyalty to him and his MAGA agenda.

Even if Mr. Trump’s vague policy agenda would not be fulfilled, he could rule by fear. The lesson of other countries shows that when a bureaucracy is politicized or pressured, the best public servants will run for the exits.

This is what has already happened in Mr. Trump’s Republican Party, with principled leaders and officials retiring, quitting or facing ouster. In a second term, he intends to do that to the whole of government.

Election Day is less than four months away. The case against Mr. Trump is extensive, and this board urges Americans to perform a simple act of civic duty in an election year: Listen to what Mr. Trump is saying, pay attention to what he did as president and allow yourself to truly inhabit what he has promised to do if returned to office.

Voters frustrated by inflation and immigration or attracted by the force of Mr. Trump’s personality should pause and take note of his words and promises. They have little to do with unity and healing and a lot to do with making the divisions and anger in our society wider and more intense than they already are.

The Republican Party is making its choice next week; soon all Americans will be able to make their own choice. What would Mr. Trump do in a second term? He has told Americans who he is and shown them what kind of leader he would be.

When someone fails so many foundational tests, you don’t give him the most important job in the world.

From top, photographs and video by Damon Winter/The New York Times (2) and Jay Turner Frey Seawell (5).

• Share full article

Advertisement

News from the Columbia Climate School

New Courses Will Lead the Way on Climate Resilience and Equitable Disaster Response

Columbia Climate School

The National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP) at the Columbia Climate School, under a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is launching a new series of trainings on climate change, equity and emergency management. These courses are now certified by FEMA for delivery throughout the United States. These trainings are designed to equip emergency managers , community groups, environmental associations and the public with equity as a foundation and to lead the whole community in climate resilience.

“With the increasing impacts of climate change, we can expect to see more extreme events and growing vulnerability to the disasters that occur. Historically underserved communities are disproportionately at risk,” said Jeff Schlegelmilch , director of NCDP.  

“We must recognize that we are facing a climate crisis and educate ourselves and the nation about the impacts our changing climate poses to the field of emergency management,” said FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell.

The courses have been developed through a rigorous instructional design process, bringing in world-class experts on climate change and equity from the Columbia Climate School, and partner organizations such as the Institute for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Management (I-DIEM).

“Our needs analysis showed that emergency managers are managing the ramifications of increasingly unpredictable and severe weather events and the culminating new challenges being imposed on the populations they serve,” said Thomas Chandler , deputy director of NCDP. “In addition, we have identified the need for increased awareness that disasters disproportionately impact vulnerable populations.”

The new curriculum covers a wide array of topics, including:

Climate Literacy for Emergency Managers : This asynchronous web-based training will provide participants with an overview of climate change and how it relates to emergency management.

Understanding Climate Change and Social Vulnerability for Disaster Management : This live virtual training will provide participants with an overview of climate change and its impact on disaster management and vulnerable populations.

Understanding Climate Risk: Hazard, Vulnerability, and Community Resilience : This instructor-led training will provide participants with an overview of climate change and community resilience.

Climate Change Risks for Underserved Populations : This four-hour seminar will provide emergency managers with important information regarding climate change and the effect it could have on underserved populations after major disasters.

The trainings support communities’ efforts to address their climate risks, hazards and vulnerabilities; incorporate strategies into their emergency management programs; strategize more effectively with their community leaders; and lead the way in creating more resilient and equitable community responses.

NCDP works to understand and improve the nation’s capacity to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. NCDP focuses on the readiness of governmental and non-governmental systems; the complexities of population recovery; the power of community engagement; and the risks of human vulnerability, with a particular focus on children.

For media inquiries, contact Thomas Chandler, deputy director and director of FEMA training programs at NCDP, at [email protected] . Or click here to inquire about becoming a training host.

The training grant is supported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Cooperative Agreement  EMW-2022-CA-00037  and administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Related Posts

Beryl Sets off Alarm Bells Among Hurricane Experts

Only 270 Million Square Kilometers to Go: The R/V Marcus G. Langseth Helps Map the World’s Oceans

Reimagining the Future: The Climate Imaginarium Opens on Governors Island

Recent record-breaking heat waves have affected communities across the world. The Extreme Heat Workshop will bring together researchers and practitioners to advance the state of knowledge, identify community needs, and develop a framework for evaluating risks with a focus on climate justice. Register by June 15

Get the Columbia Climate School Newsletter

Watch CBS News

What is Project 2025? What to know about the conservative blueprint for a second Trump administration

By Melissa Quinn , Jacob Rosen

Updated on: July 11, 2024 / 9:40 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Voters in recent weeks have begun to hear the name "Project 2025" invoked more and more by President Biden and Democrats, as they seek to sound the alarm about what could be in store if former President Donald Trump wins a second term in the White House.

Overseen by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the multi-pronged initiative includes a detailed blueprint for the next Republican president to usher in a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch.

Trump and his campaign have worked to distance themselves from Project 2025, with the former president going so far as to call some of the proposals "abysmal." But Democrats have continued to tie the transition project to Trump, especially as they find themselves mired in their own controversy over whether Mr. Biden should withdraw from the 2024 presidential contest following his startling debate performance last month.

Here is what to know about Project 2025:

What is Project 2025?

Project 2025 is a proposed presidential transition project that is composed of four pillars: a policy guide for the next presidential administration; a LinkedIn-style database of personnel who could serve in the next administration; training for that pool of candidates dubbed the "Presidential Administration Academy;" and a playbook of actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office.

It is led by two former Trump administration officials: Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management and serves as director of the project, and Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to Trump and now the project's associate director.

Project 2025 is spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, but includes an advisory board consisting of more than 100 conservative groups.

Much of the focus on — and criticism of — Project 2025 involves its first pillar, the nearly 900-page policy book that lays out an overhaul of the federal government. Called "Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise," the book builds on a "Mandate for Leadership" first published in January 1981, which sought to serve as a roadmap for Ronald Reagan's incoming administration.

The recommendations outlined in the sprawling plan reach every corner of the executive branch, from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of Homeland Security to the little-known Export-Import Bank. 

The Heritage Foundation also created a "Mandate for Leadership" in 2015 ahead of Trump's first term. Two years into his presidency, it touted that Trump had instituted 64% of its policy recommendations, ranging from leaving the Paris Climate Accords, increasing military spending, and increasing off-shore drilling and developing federal lands. In July 2020, the Heritage Foundation gave its updated version of the book to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. 

The authors of many chapters are familiar names from the Trump administration, such as Russ Vought, who led the Office of Management and Budget; former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller; and Roger Severino, who was director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Vought is the policy director for the 2024 Republican National Committee's platform committee, which released its proposed platform on Monday. 

John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office under Trump, is a senior advisor to the Heritage Foundation, and said that the group will "integrate a lot of our work" with the Trump campaign when the official transition efforts are announced in the next few months.

Candidates interested in applying for the Heritage Foundation's "Presidential Personnel Database" are vetted on a number of political stances, such as whether they agree or disagree with statements like "life has a right to legal protection from conception to natural death," and "the President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hindrance from unelected federal officials."

The contributions from ex-Trump administration officials have led its critics to tie Project 2025 to his reelection campaign, though the former president has attempted to distance himself from the initiative.

What are the Project 2025 plans?

Some of the policies in the Project 2025 agenda have been discussed by Republicans for years or pushed by Trump himself: less federal intervention in education and more support for school choice; work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults on food stamps; and a secure border with increased enforcement of immigration laws, mass deportations and construction of a border wall. 

But others have come under scrutiny in part because of the current political landscape. 

Abortion and social issues

In recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services, the agenda calls for the Food and Drug Administration to reverse its 24-year-old approval of the widely used abortion pill mifepristone. Other proposed actions targeting medication abortion include reinstating more stringent rules for mifepristone's use, which would permit it to be taken up to seven weeks into a pregnancy, instead of the current 10 weeks, and requiring it to be dispensed in-person instead of through the mail.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that is on the Project 2025 advisory board, was involved in a legal challenge to mifepristone's 2000 approval and more recent actions from the FDA that made it easier to obtain. But the Supreme Court rejected the case brought by a group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations on procedural grounds.

The policy book also recommends the Justice Department enforce the Comstock Act against providers and distributors of abortion pills. That 1873 law prohibits drugs, medicines or instruments used in abortions from being sent through the mail.

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade , the volume states that the Justice Department "in the next conservative administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills."

The guide recommends the next secretary of Health and Human Services get rid of the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force established by the Biden administration before Roe's reversal and create a "pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department's divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children."

In a section titled "The Family Agenda," the proposal recommends the Health and Human Services chief "proudly state that men and women are biological realities," and that "married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them."

Further, a program within the Health and Human Services Department should "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family."

During his first four years in office, Trump banned transgender people from serving in the military. Mr. Biden reversed that policy , but the Project 2025 policy book calls for the ban to be reinstated.

Targeting federal agencies, employees and policies

The agenda takes aim at longstanding federal agencies, like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. The agency is a component of the Commerce Department and the policy guide calls for it to be downsized. 

NOAA's six offices, including the National Weather Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, "form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity," the guide states. 

The Department of Homeland Security, established in 2002, should be dismantled and its agencies either combined with others, or moved under the purview of other departments altogether, the policy book states. For example, immigration-related entities from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Health and Human Services should form a standalone, Cabinet-level border and immigration agency staffed by more than 100,000 employees, according to the agenda.

If the policy recommendations are implemented, another federal agency that could come under the knife by the next administration, with action from Congress, is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The agenda seeks to bring a push by conservatives to target diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in higher education to the executive branch by wiping away a slew of DEI-related positions, policies and programs and calling for the elimination of funding for partners that promote DEI practices.

It states that U.S. Agency for International Development staff and grantees that "engage in ideological agitation on behalf of the DEI agenda" should be terminated. At the Treasury Department, the guide says the next administration should "treat the participation in any critical race theory or DEI initiative without objecting on constitutional or moral grounds, as per se grounds for termination of employment."

The Project 2025 policy book also takes aim at more innocuous functions of government. It calls for the next presidential administration to eliminate or reform the dietary guidelines that have been published by the Department of Agriculture for more than 40 years, which the authors claim have been "infiltrated" by issues like climate change and sustainability.

Immigration

Trump made immigration a cornerstone of his last two presidential runs and has continued to hammer the issue during his 2024 campaign. Project 2025's agenda not only recommends finishing the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but urges the next administration to "take a creative and aggressive approach" to responding to drug cartels at the border. This approach includes using active-duty military personnel and the National Guard to help with arrest operations along the southern border.

A memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that prohibits enforcement actions from taking place at "sensitive" places like schools, playgrounds and churches should be rolled back, the policy guide states. 

When the Homeland Security secretary determines there is an "actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens" that presents "urgent circumstances" warranting a federal response, the agenda says the secretary can make rules and regulations, including through their expulsion, for as long as necessary. These rules, the guide states, aren't subject to the Administration Procedure Act, which governs the agency rule-making process.

What do Trump and his advisers say about Project 2025?

In a post to his social media platform on July 5, Trump wrote , "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."

Trump's pushback to the initiative came after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a podcast interview that the nation is "in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."

The former president continued to disavow the initiative this week, writing in another social media post  that he knows nothing about Project 2025.

"I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it, and, unlike our very well received Republican Platform, had nothing to do with it," Trump wrote. "The Radical Left Democrats are having a field day, however, trying to hook me into whatever policies are stated or said. It is pure disinformation on their part. By now, after all of these years, everyone knows where I stand on EVERYTHING!"

While the former president said he doesn't know who is in charge of the initiative, the project's director, Dans, and associate director, Chretien, were high-ranking officials in his administration. Additionally, Ben Carson, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Trump; John Ratcliffe, former director of National Intelligence in the Trump administration; and Peter Navarro, who served as a top trade adviser to Trump in the White House, are listed as either authors or contributors to the policy agenda.

Still, even before Roberts' comments during "The War Room" podcast — typically hosted by conservative commentator Steve Bannon, who reported to federal prison to begin serving a four-month sentence last week — Trump's top campaign advisers have stressed that Project 2025 has no official ties to his reelection bid.

Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, senior advisers to the Trump campaign, said in a November statement that 2024 policy announcements will be made by Trump or his campaign team.

"Any personnel lists, policy agendas, or government plans published anywhere are merely suggestions," they said.

While the efforts by outside organizations are "appreciated," Wiles and LaCivita said, "none of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign."

In response to Trump's post last week, Project 2025 reiterated that it was separate from the Trump campaign.

"As we've been saying for more than two years now, Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy & personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. But it is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to implement," a statement on the project's X account said.

The initiative has also pushed back on Democrats' claims about its policy proposals and accused them of lying about what the agenda contains.

What do Democrats say?

Despite their attempts to keep some distance from Project 2025, Democrats continue to connect Trump with the transition effort. The Biden-Harris campaign frequently posts about the project on X, tying it to a second Trump term.

Mr. Biden himself accused his Republican opponent of lying about his connections to the Project 2025 agenda, saying in a statement that the agenda was written for Trump and "should scare every single American." He claimed on his campaign social media account  Wednesday that Project 2025 "will destroy America."

Congressional Democrats have also begun pivoting to Project 2025 when asked in interviews about Mr. Biden's fitness for a second term following his lackluster showing at the June 27 debate, the first in which he went head-to-head with Trump.

"Trump is all about Project 2025," Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman told CNN on Monday. "I mean, that's what we really should be voting on right now. It's like, do we want the kind of president that is all about Project '25?"

Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, one of Mr. Biden's closest allies on Capitol Hill, told reporters Monday that the agenda for the next Republican president was the sole topic he would talk about.

"Project 2025, that's my only concern," he said. "I don't want you or my granddaughter to live under that government."

In a statement reiterating her support for Mr. Biden, Rep. Frederica Wilson of Florida called Project 2025 "MAGA Republicans' draconian 920-page plan to end U.S. democracy, give handouts to the wealthy and strip Americans of their freedoms."

What are Republicans saying about Project 2025?

Two GOP senators under consideration to serve as Trump's running mate sought to put space between the White House hopeful and Project 2025, casting it as merely the product of a think tank that puts forth ideas.

"It's the work of a think tank, of a center-right think tank, and that's what think tanks do," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.

He said Trump's message to voters focuses on "restoring common sense, working-class values, and making our decisions on the basis of that."

Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance raised a similar sentiment in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," saying organizations will have good ideas and bad ideas.

"It's a 900-page document," he said Sunday. "I guarantee there are things that Trump likes and dislikes about that 900-page document. But he is the person who will determine the agenda of the next administration."

Jaala Brown contributed to this report.

Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.

More from CBS News

Biden meets with Democratic mayors as he tries to shore up support

GOP effort to hold Garland in inherent contempt of Congress fails

First Senate Democrat calls on Biden to withdraw from race

Top Biden aides meet with Senate Democrats amid concerns about debate

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Change — The Importance Of Change For Success Of An Individual And Society

The Importance of Change for Success of an Individual and Society

• Categories: Change Success

About this sample

Words: 932 |

Published: Dec 3, 2020

Words: 932 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 611 words

2 pages / 1116 words

2 pages / 958 words

1 pages / 1659 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Change

The fear of change is a deeply ingrained human emotion that often stems from uncertainties and the unfamiliar. While change is an inevitable part of life, many individuals find themselves resistant to it, clinging to familiar [...]

Chance the Rapper’s song “Same Drugs” is not just a catchy tune, but a thought-provoking exploration of nostalgia, change, and the passage of time. The song’s lyrics and music video offer a poignant commentary on the way [...]

The moment that changed everything - this essay is about such a moment in my life. At the age of 16, it was April and the spring’s breeze was floating through the air. I can feel the breeze push through my hair, keeping my [...]

Storm Warnings by Adrienne Rich is a powerful and evocative poem that explores the themes of change, uncertainty, and the passage of time. Through the use of vivid imagery and metaphor, Rich creates a sense of impending danger [...]

The great Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, once said, “There is nothing permanent expect change”. Change is an inevitable force. Whether said change occurs in one’s personal or professional life, it happens and there is no way [...]

In conclusion, dreams are powerful catalysts for change and growth. They provide us with a sense of purpose and direction, propelling us towards success and fulfillment. My biggest dream is to become an agent of change, working [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit for those who enjoy learning about flags, their place in society past and present, and their design characteristics

The flag of Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast, Russia which I bought there during my last visit

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Elektrostal

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Elektrostal , city, Moscow oblast (province), western Russia . It lies 36 miles (58 km) east of Moscow city. The name, meaning “electric steel,” derives from the high-quality-steel industry established there soon after the October Revolution in 1917. During World War II , parts of the heavy-machine-building industry were relocated there from Ukraine, and Elektrostal is now a centre for the production of metallurgical equipment. Pop. (2006 est.) 146,189.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music
• Amazon Alexa

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

These monkeys were 'notoriously competitive' until Hurricane Maria wrecked their home

Hurricane Maria and macaques

A macaque sits on a rock at Cayo Santiago as a rainbow stretches across the sky in February 2022. Lauren Brent hide caption

Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico in September 2017. But it also tore through a tiny island less than a mile offshore called Cayo Santiago. Although no people were living there, it was inhabited by hundreds of rhesus macaques.

These monkeys had roamed the island since 1938, when an American primatologist brought their ancestors from India to create an experimental field site for studying these primates in the wild.

"It's a fantastic location to go and study their behavior, their genetics, their cognition," says Lauren Brent , a behavioral ecologist at the University of Exeter. "It's the source of most of what we know about this species."

On Cayo Santiago, an island so small it takes only about half an hour to walk its length, the rhesus macaques have a reputation for being intolerant, hierarchical and aggressive — "despotic and nepotistic" is how researchers describe them.

"They're notoriously competitive," says Brent. Imagining herself as one of the monkeys for a moment, she adds, "I form alliances with a small number of members of my group, and we go after what we want against our other group members or against another group."

Research News

Largest-ever marine reptile found with help from an 11-year-old girl.

The macaques' island life didn't really change much over the years. But in September 2017, Hurricane Maria laid waste to their home. Now, in research published in the journal Science , Brent and her colleagues report that the devastation seems to have fundamentally altered the monkeys' society.

A ravaged home

A few days after Hurricane Maria ripped through the Caribbean, one of Brent's colleagues recorded a video of the island from a helicopter. "This was the first time really anyone had seen the destruction that had occurred on Cayo Santiago," she says.

Most of the 1,800 monkeys had survived — somehow. "We don't know where they went," says Brent, "or how they managed that."

Recovering Fukushima

In rural fukushima, 'the border between monkeys and humans has blurred'.

The island itself, however, was devastated. Almost two-thirds of the vegetation was destroyed. And this meant that the monkeys had way less shade in which to find relief from the sweltering 100-plus-degree heat. "You're just exposed to the full onslaught of the sun," says Brent. All that remained were "little puddles of shade."

Camille Testard , a neuroscientist and behavioral ecologist who was in graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania at the time, remembers just how desperate the macaques were.

"You'd have scenes of one dead tree and you'd have the shade behind it," says Testard. "It's just this one line — and the monkeys would all line up in that one line. You'd even have some animals following us in our shade."

Macaques line up in the shade of a dead tree in March 2022. Lauren Brent hide caption

But Testard and her colleagues in Puerto Rico noticed something else. Despite the limited shade, the macaques weren't squabbling over it. They seemed to be more tolerant of one another.

Testing tolerance

That led Testard to compare the monkeys' social interactions in the five years pre-hurricane with those in the five years post-hurricane. And she found that the macaques had become more likely to sit closer to one another in the puddles of shade and to do so in larger groups.

"So it's not just that I sit next to my favorite monkey more," she explains. "It's that I sit next to a lot of new monkeys that I didn't use to sit next to before."

Testard observed that the animals hung out closer to one another at other times of day as well and not just when sharing shade.

California sea otters nearly went extinct. Now they're rescuing their coastal habitat

The big surprise was that overall aggression levels of the macaques dropped. "It's completely the opposite of what we thought this primate would do," says Brent.

Testard's theory is that being aggressive makes a monkey hotter.

"What you're trying to do is lower your body temperature as efficiently as possible," she says. "Being aggressive — that really increases your body heat." So playing it cool is a way of actually keeping cool.

Brent was struck that in the face of an altered habitat, the monkeys altered their social structure. "Yes, animals are using their social lives to cope with challenges," she says. "But two, they're flexible in how they go about that. They can change what their social networks look like."

In addition, the macaques that had more social partners on average — which meant more shade access — were 42% less likely to die. The mortality rates haven't changed. Rather, "it's what predicts their survival that has changed," says Testard. "These partnerships, which help you access shade to lower your body temperature, [are] really key for these animals."

Jorg Massen, an animal behaviorist at Utrecht University, who wasn't involved in the study, says the research aligns with an emerging understanding of some primates' social plasticity — up to a point.

Shots - Health News

Stone flakes made by modern monkeys trigger big questions about early humans.

"It's not endless, such flexibility, of course," he argues. "There is some flexibility, but we shouldn't overestimate it."

Massen is curious to know about the mechanism that drove this change. "How is it that these normally quite intolerant macaques suddenly become so tolerant?" he wonders. "What's the hormonal, maybe even genetic or epigenetic, underpinnings of that behavior?"

Climate change is transforming habitats the world over, challenging animal populations all over the globe.

"This need for rapid change is increasingly common with the increasing of natural disasters and other types of ecological changes," Testard explains.

And she says the macaques — through their social flexibility — show us one way that some species might try to adapt.

• hurricane Maria
• climate change
• animal behavior

• Moscow Oblast
•  » 
• Elektrostal

State Housing Inspectorate of the Moscow Region

Phone 8 (496) 575-02-20 8 (496) 575-02-20

Phone 8 (496) 511-20-80 8 (496) 511-20-80

Public administration near State Housing Inspectorate of the Moscow Region