Theoretical Approaches to Sociology of Education

Spread the love

IMG 20221203 214844



Theoretical Approaches to Sociology of Education

Theory means different things to different people. It can be defined as a conceptual scheme designed to explain observed regularities or relationships between two or more variables. Theoretical approaches are used to provide a logical explanation of why things are the way they are. There are always different interpretations of events in our everyday life. Similarly, there are many sociological perspectives on why things are the way they are in society. These theories have different results

interpretations of the same information because they focus on different aspects.

No theory is completely true in behavioral science. No theory is the final formulation as new knowledge tends to modify or even refute existing theories. A theory is not considered productive only in terms of the answers it provides; But equally it raises as many questions.

We are going to take a look at the major aspects of the following theories which have made major contributions to the field of sociology of education:


Linear or Evolutionary Theory:

In simple words, evolution means the gradual change of a simple and simple object into a more complex state, passing through clearly defined stages. When a simple or simple thing changes into a complex thing, it is called evolution. In the words of Mr. MacIver and Page, “Evolution is a direction of change in which the various states of the changing substance appear and which reveal the reality of that substance.”
While defining evolution, Ogvern and Nimkoff wrote, “Evolution is just a change in a certain direction.”

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:

Since the theory of social evolution is based on Mr. Darwin’s zoological evolution, it will be very important to understand Mr. Darwin’s theory. The main points of this theory are as follows
1. In the beginning every living being is simple and its various parts are mixed together in such a way that they cannot be separated nor does it have any definite form. This is a condition of indefinite integral equality. But gradually the different parts of that object become clear and distinct, and at the same time its form also becomes definite. This is a position of definite difference. For example, in the beginning a seed is simple and its different parts (such as root, fruit, flower etc.) are not distinct, but gradually these parts become clear and differentiation arises in them. In this way, development of integral totality into different totality is the first law of evolution. ,
2 . As the different parts of a living thing become distinct and separate, each part starts performing a specific type of work. Take for example the human body. While living in the mother’s womb, gradually the various parts of the child’s body like hands, legs, eyes, mouth, nose etc. become clear and along with that each part has a special function, such as walking. If the work is done then the eyes to see, the mouth to eat etc. It cannot be that the hand acts as the ear, the ear acts as the stomach and the stomach acts as the leg.
3. It is true that when the different organs are developed and clarified, the functions of each organ are divided separately. But this difference does not mean that any part is completely separate from other parts or beyond them. In fact, there is always inter-relationship and inter-dependence among the various organs. When the stomach is upset, other organs also become useless. An injury to the hand can affect the whole body.
4. The process of evolution is a continuous process. What changes took place in the body of a living being, it cannot be said with certainty because every moment in it
development is taking place. Your own little sister is growing up in front of your eyes and you can’t tell for sure how big she is getting.
5. The process of evolution takes place through certain stages, during which gradually complex forms take place. For example, take a seed, how simple it is, when it grows into a tree, how complex it is; begins, then youth, then old age and finally death.

Theory of Social Evolution:

Mr. Herbert Spencer says that the above laws of evolution are also applicable in society and relationship as it is clear from the following discussion
1. In the beginning or in the ancient primitive age, the society was very simple and simple. For this the organs were mixed in such a way that they could not be separated. A family used to perform all kinds of social, economic and political functions. Not only this, the person used to know and do only about his family. All kinds of actions and thoughts were almost the same. From this point of view all people were almost equal. At the same time, at this stage, nothing was certain, neither life, nor social organization, nor rituals, thus their condition was of an uncertain and disjointed equality. But gradually there was progress in experience, thought and knowledge,

hey learned to work together and together various aspects of social and cultural life became clear. For example, Paris, state, factory, religious institution, labor union, village, city etc. developed clearly.

2 . In the course of development, as the different parts of the society become apparent, each part begins to perform a particular type of work, that is, division of labor and specialization takes place among the different parts of the society. The family does a special kind of work. So one state, another’s school and college, third type of work, mills and factories other type of work and labor unions start doing separate works. It cannot happen that the family does the work of the state, the state trade union or the trade union of religious institutions.

3. With the development of different parts of the society, there is division of labor and specialization in them, but they are not separate or completely beyond each other. There remains a certain interrelationship and interdependence among them. The family is related to and dependent on the state and the state is related to and dependent on the family, similarly teacher, farmer, washerman, scavenger, weaver all have an interrelationship and interdependence.

4. This process of evolution goes on continuously and a complete society is formed gradually over many years.

5. The process of social evolution passes through certain stages. During which the simple form of society gradually takes a complex form. For example, in the beginning of economic life, work was started with barter, but now that simple and simple system has taken the form of international trade. Earlier people used to simply walk on foot, now what to say about the speed of airplanes. The life of the first individual has become more and more an international life. This development was limited to the family, but now the same life has gradually passed through certain stages in the international life. As it has not happened in a day, but gradually in certain levels, the major levels of development in the economic sector are –

1. hunting level,
2 . pasture level,
3. level of agriculture, and
4. industrial level.

In this way, we can say that earlier the society was simple and its various parts were closely related to each other. But gradually the different parts of social life became clearly separated and there was division of labor and specialization in them, but this difference remained in spite of the co-ordination in different parts, that is, different parts are related to each other and dependent on each other. Therefore, we can say that both diversity and coordination are found in the society. At the same time, the existence of society is possible only as a result of the functioning of these two elements. That is why it has been said that society is a dynamic balance of harmony and diversity.
Herbert Spencer, Louis Henry Morgan, August Comte, Emile Durkheim etc. are among the scientists who believe in this principle.

Auguste Comte ( 1798 – 1857 ) :

French thinker Auguste Coste, who is the father of sociology, in his book Positive Philosophy, has shown the change in society on the basis of social evolution. They believe that as the brain of a person develops, so does the development of the society. He has discussed social evolution by dividing the process of development of society into three levels. or abstract and the scientific or positive.”
It is clear from the above statement that development in human knowledge takes place through three levels and these three levels are as follows respectively.

1. Theological
2 . Metaphysical
3. Positivist (Scientific)

According to them, in the beginning the human brain was not very developed. Therefore, the knowledge of that stage was of a religious nature. The meaning is that in the initial stage man used to explain all the events on the basis of supernatural power. Since the human mind was not developed, only elements of faith and belief were present in human knowledge, there was lack of logic and discretion. As a result, man does not know the work-time relation behind any event. Rather believed the hand of supernatural power behind every incident. For example, why did a green tree dry up, why did a person fall ill, behind all this he used to believe in the divine power. It is not that there was no scientific knowledge in this period. Seeing the friction of two branches of a tree, man himself invented fire through this process, which is a proof of his knowledge. But such scientific knowledge was very limited and religious knowledge was available in abundance.
According to Cost, the religious level itself passes through the following three sub-levels.

1. Fetishism
2. Polytheism and

Natural things are personified in the level of animism. Trees, rivers, mountains etc. are worshiped because people have a belief that these natural things are the abode of gods and goddesses.

There are places. But as the brain developed. By the way, there is a change in human knowledge. The form of demonicism goes on disappearing and the feeling of polytheism comes in the people. In this process the household deities are established. At the same time, not only do people start believing in many gods at the same time, but the hierarchy of the gods is determined on the basis of their status. Again, as the human mind increases along with human knowledge, the place of polytheism ends. In this state man begins to feel that even though the names of the deities are many, the deity is one. According to Kost, monotheism is the highest level of religious thinking.
The second stage of development of knowledge is the metaphysical stage. This second level of human knowledge acts as a link between the religious and the positivist level. According to August Cost, where the religious level was a period of several thousand years, the elemental level is a period of a few years. Actually Comte has called it the transition phase. The knowledge of this level is neither completely religious level nor completely positivist level. To put it plainly, in this level of knowledge, various incidents are explained neither on the basis of supernatural power nor on the basis of logic and discretion. Actually events are explained on the basis of invisible power. August Conte says that in this level of knowledge man does not believe in the hand of supernatural power behind the events but wants to know the cause of the event. But due to lack of logic and discretion in knowledge, he is not able to know and in such a situation he believes that there is no supernatural power but invisible power is definitely working behind it.
Kost says that as a result of development in the human mind, the third and final level of development of knowledge is the Scientific Stage. This level of knowledge is based on observation and analysis of facts. Man interprets all the events on the basis of logic and discretion and accepts only that which stands on the basis of observation and test as truth.
Discussing the three-level rules, Kant says that the above mentioned three types of thinking can exist in the same brain or in the same society. But the three types of thinking are not always successful in maintaining their existence. It clearly shows that there was positivist knowledge in the religious level too but the quantity was less. And even in today’s positivist era, superstitions, imagination etc. are present but gradually their quantity is decreasing.
These ideas of August Coste Katak These ideas can also be understood by the following table
level of knowledge dominance in society social organization
1. Religious Level Priest and Military Family
2 . Elemental Level Pastor and Lawyer. State
3. Positivist Level Capitalist and Industrial Adventurous Democratic State
Therefore, it is clear that August Komte has explained the evolutionary change in social organization on the basis of the development of human knowledge, but the criticisms of this theory of August Komte are also not less.

Criticisms :

1. Critics say that this theory of Cost is not the result of his original thinking, rather he has taken it from scholars like St. Simon. Therefore Cost can only be called an efficient coordinator, not an original thinker.

2 . P. A. Sorokin says that these ideas of August Coste, in which scientificity is less and philosophy is more. Actually Kost has not done any field study, but has propounded this theory on the basis of data obtained from people’s memoirs, travelogues and other secondary sources. In Sorokin’s own words, “All such theories have been nothing but king of metaphysics.” Ogburn and Nimcoff have also criticized on the same grounds.

3. Pareto has called Cost’s ideas completely unscientific and not workable. Pareto has criticized all the evolutionists, including Cost, saying that these scholars have tried to study human civilization from the past to the present, which is unscientific. According to Pareto, scientists should study anything from the known to the unknown. Means the past should be explained on the basis of the present. While evolutionary theorists have tried to move from unknown to known which is against the scientific spirit.

4. Not only this, Pareto termed it as Cinematography, terming the evolutionary theory as wrong. They say that the way one scene in the cinema is followed by another scene and then the first scene disappears from the eyes. In the same way, the evolutionaryists have discussed different levels in their theory, which is critical. Supporting this, Sorokin also says that evolutionary theory is like finding a black cat in a dark room. The meaning is that by following the evolutionary principle sometimes truth can be attained and sometimes not.
On the basis of all the above discussions, it can be concluded that although Cost’s theory has been criticized a lot, but in spite of all these criticisms, August Comte’s contribution in the field of sociology cannot be denied.


L. H. Morgan ( 1818 – 1881 ) :

Morgan also explained social change in his own way.

The book is done on evolutionary basis in Ancient Society. According to them, technological factors change society
(Technological Factor) is dependent on. As technology develops in society, so does society enter from one stage to another.
Morgan was such a scholar who discussed evolution not only on the whole society but also on different parts of the society. According to them, due to the development in technology, labor enters from one level to another. These stages are as follows
1. societies
2 . civitas
Similarly, according to Margan, evolution in culture and family takes place in different stages.
L. H. Morgan has described the change in culture as follows.

1. Savagery Stage
2 . Barbarian Stage and
3. Civilized Stage

1. Savage Stage –

This was the earliest stage of human society when man was absolutely wild in every sense. The history of this level has been the longest. The three sub-levels of this level that Mr. Morgan has mentioned are as follows –
(a) Earliest stage of the barbarian state – The history of this sub-stage is very obscure, yet this much is certain that it was the peak of the barbarian state. In this sub-stage man wandered about in the woods and had hardly any kind of social organization or culture. Eating raw meat, subsisting on fruits, roots, tubers, having sex without restraint and without recognizing the restrictions of kinship, living in caves, living temporarily on trees or in caves and in any case Showing animal-like tendencies are the main characteristics of this sub-level.
(b) Intermediate level of wild state – This level started when the art of catching fish and burning fire came in humans. Therefore, instead of eating raw meat, the prey was roasted in the fire and eaten. Evolutionary scholars are of the view that collective life originated from this substratum and people started living in small herds. Mr. Morgan has considered some Australian and Polynesian tribes as representatives of this stage.
(c) Higher level of barbaric state – This last level of barbarian state was started with the invention of bow and arrow by man. It is said that family life also started in this sub-stage, but there was no definite rule regarding establishing sexual relations. In group life, some stability is seen as compared to earlier in the sense that the person used to take revenge from the member of the group instead of being just an individual. Started believing too. Therefore, not on an individual basis but on a collective basis, one group

2 . Barbarian Stage –

When man crossed the barbaric stage and stepped into a relatively advanced level, this second stage of evolution of social life began. This level also has three sub-levels which can be presented as follows-
(a) The oldest level of uncivilized state – When man invented utensils and started mixing them, he stepped into this first sub-level of uncivilized state. Man’s life has not been as nomadic as it was in Jagla, now the trend and necessity of going from one place to another like nomadism has not ended completely. In this stage, the concept of wealth emerged, then the importance of the group of expectations of sentiment remained high. It was on the basis of groups that one group used to attack another group and the aim of such attack was weapons. Women and utensils had to be obtained. In this stage, the nature of the family had also become somewhat clear. But it was very difficult to determine the paternity of the children due to the freedom of sexual relations among all the members of the family.
(b) Middle level of uncivilized stage- Man entered this stage when he got the art of rearing animals and growing plants. For those who lived by animal husbandry, it was necessary to move from one place to another in search of pasture. Hence the proud life did not come to an end completely. Still those who used to grow plants. That is, there was a lot of shortage in their nomadic life when they used to work in agriculture. The concept of private property came to the fore more clearly and the status of a person in the society was also determined on the basis of property. The practice of barter became prevalent and under this, people started exchanging things with each other. The form of the family also became more clear and certain rules developed regarding the establishment of sexual relations among the members of the family.
(c) High level of uncivilized state- When man came to melt iron and make iron utensils and tools from it, then he entered this level. Various types of utensils and pointed and sharp weapons started being made for daily use. In this sub-level, the labor system was implemented in the society on the basis of discrimination between men and women. Women used to do the work related to household and children’s upbringing, while men used to perform their duties by staying outside the house. The main feature of this level was the inclusion of women under property and the establishment of small republics. Since the knowledge of smelting metal and using it was the biggest achievement of this level. For this reason it is called Ghatu Yuga.

Also called by name.

3. Civilized Stage –

This is the last stage in the evolution of society or culture and also the ultimate attainment. Mr. Morgan has mentioned three sub-levels of this level which are as follows –
(a) The most ancient level of civilized state – Man entered this state when the art of writing and reading alphabets started. In fact, with the development of the ability to read and write letters, it has now become very easy to transfer cultural traditions from one generation to another. The form of family is very clear in this stage and the regulation and control of sexual relations is considered to be a great feature of this age. The importance of the family in agriculture and industry remains intact even in this stage. Nevertheless, the development of cities, expansion of trade and commerce and progress in arts and crafts give this age the ability to be called a civilized age.
(b) Middle level of civilized stage- In this stage, economic and social organization comes to the fore in a systematic way. It can also be called the era of cultural progress. Progress is seen in every aspect of culture at this level. It becomes a significant basis of economic activities. There is further development of the political organization and the development of the field of work goes on simultaneously. Government laws are implemented in a more systematic manner so that not only life and property are protected, but rights are also protected.
(c) High level of civilized stage – The beginning of this sub-stage is considered to be the latter part of the 19th century, whereas the modern civilized and complex society emerges. The biggest feature of this level is the rapid pace of industrialization and urbanization. In this level, not only big factories are developed, but large-scale production work is done in big mills, factories, etc., and also the system of division of labor and specialization is implemented in great detail. Individual ownership of the means of production remains a key feature of many societies at this stage, resulting in the extreme form of capitalist economy. Along with this, in some societies, the full or partial authority of the society or the state on these means of production is also seen. Political organization has also reached a very advanced level and accepting democratic principles, emphasis is laid on the formation of the government by the representatives of the people through the direct election system. The state is considered a welfare institution whose main function is to provide maximum comfort and facilities to all the citizens. Remarkable progress is made in all directions of knowledge, science, art, philosophy. But the aim of all is very much materialistic. Today most of the countries of the world are in the stage of civilized stage.
Scholars have mentioned different levels of development not only of society and culture but also of economic life, family etc. Now we will discuss about them in brief.

Levels of Evolution of the Family:

Mr. Morgan has described five stages through which the family has reached its present position. These five stages are as follows-
1. Consanguine Family – This type of family is found at the initial stage of human life. Only blood relatives used to live in them and even brothers and sisters could marry each other without any hesitation of blood.
2 . Punalunant Family – This type of family was found in the second stage of development. In this the brothers of one family were married to all the sisters of the other family, but the sex relationship between them was uncertain, that is, every man was the husband of all the women and every woman was the wife of all the men.
3. Syndasmian Family – In this type, although a man was married to only one woman, yet everyone was free to have sexual relations with other women in the same family.
4. Patriarchal Family – This is the fourth stage in the evolution of the family. Men used to have monopoly. He married more than one woman and had sexual relations with all of them. Family (Monogamous Family) – In this there is only one child of one male at a time. This is the present form of marriage and family. Car Mr. Auguste Comte states that there are three distinct stages in the development of religion and they are

1. existentialism
2 . polytheism and
3. Advaitism.

Similarly, other scholars have also presented the description of evolutionary stages of various aspects related to human society and culture. For example, Mr. Hudden has described the evolutionary process taking place in the field of art. The evolution of the family by Mr. Morgan. Ka and Mr. Tyler have presented a description of evolutionary stages in the field of religion.

Stages of development of economic life:

Supporters of evolutionary theory say that the evolution of human economic life has passed through the following four major stages-

1. Hunting and food gathering stage – This is the primary and initial level of the economic aspect of human life. The economic organization in this level is not only disorganized, but also vague and uncertain. The main reason for this is that at this stage

It does not produce human food, it collects it. In this level, human life is completely nurtured in the lap of nature. Man spends his life in the forests and it is enough for him to survive somehow by fulfilling his stomach. Humans do not have any knowledge to produce the things needed for sustenance, so sustenance is done by hunting and gathering fruits, roots, tubers and honey. But these means of survival are obtained with great difficulty. People have to wander from one place to another for hunting animals, fishing or collecting tubers, roots, fruits, vegetables, etc. because it is impossible to get hunting and fruits and flowers from one place forever. As a result, social and economic life is highly uncertain, unstable and proud. Completely dependent on geographical and natural resources, these people have to roam from one place to another and collect food for survival. If the geographical conditions are favourable, then they get food easily, but if it is adverse then there is no other way in front of the primitive man, except that nature gives as much or as much as it gives and in the same form. Get the means of living. Since these means of survival in such societies (hunting, fruit-roots, vegetables-leaves etc.) are available in very limited quantities and are difficult to obtain, for this reason the struggle to survive here is fierce and fierce.
2. Animal Husbandry or Pastoral Stage – In the above situation, primitive societies stepped into the level of animal husbandry when humans realized that instead of killing animals, if they were reared, they would get more means of survival because Those animals will get their children as well as milk. Due to this the economic life became more definite and stable as compared to the first level because it is difficult to change the place everyday, so as long as the animals have food and drink at one place i.e. pastures, there is no special need to change the place. But when the grass etc. ends, they go to another place of pasture.
There is hardly any such society in the world where the work of animal husbandry is not done. Society rears animals in some form or the other. In the initial stage, these animals are used to eat their flesh, to wear their skin and to make their bones into ornaments and weapons. Tundra region remains rainy for twelve months, yet nature has provided group animals like white bear, fox, rabbit, musk ox, reindeer etc. to the people here. The people there wear the clothes of these animals. Those samoor gloves and leather shoes which have samoor inside. Huh . Similarly, there are many such primitive societies in the world in which animals are reared. The main objective is to get their milk or other things made of milk in a better means of food. Also, there are tribal societies in which people keep farm animals for practical purposes.

3. Agricultural Stage – This stage begins when the art of growing seeds and plants has come. Planting fruit orchards or farming made this economic life more stable than before. Although the production of garden fruits or obtaining food grains by farming for the tribes was very much on the natural conditions and in this level hunting and gathering of fruits and animal husbandry started getting food more regularly. Also, planting fruit orchards or farming is such an economic activity that naturally binds man to the land. Its meaning is that in this stage humans got the opportunity to do economic work permanently by settling down at one place. The supply of food increased and along with it the population also expanded the area of economic interactions and patronage relations between different societies flourished.

4. Technological Stage (TechnoilogicalStage) – This stage started especially after the invention of machines. With the invention of machines, the production work was done by machines. As a result of this, large-scale production work started in big mills and factories and the sphere of life became international by crossing the boundaries of the state and the country. Even machines were used in agriculture. This is the current stage of economic life.

Émile Durkheim: Social Change (1858 – 1917):
French thinker Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) presented the division of labor in a sociological way in his book “Division of Labor in Society” (1893), which is his first work. Durkheim has denied the personal, economic and psychological factors of division of labor in the society. According to him division of labor is a social fact according to which the division of labor is a social fact, so it is explained on the basis of other social facts only. Can be done on A basis only. The central problem of this book is the relationship between the society and the individual. He has seen the division of labor from three points of view-
(i) Which of our needs does it fulfill?
(ii) What are their reasons?
(iii) Does it show any inequality or deviation?

According to him, the basic cause of social change is the division of labor and there are the following two reasons for the division of labor.

1. Growth in population and
2. Extension of society

To visualize the dynamics of division of labour, he has discussed the following two types of organization on evolutionary basis.

1. Mechanical Organization (Mechanical Solidarity) and
2. Organic organization. (Organic Solidarity)

In the context of these two societies, Durkheim’s interest is to know these factors and variables, due to which the unity or strength of their societies is maintained.
According to Durkheim, in the initial stage, the needs of the people were few and uniform, so there was nothing of interdependence among the people. But as the population increases, people adopt different professions to meet their needs. As a result, the division of labor becomes clear. Due to this dynamic of division of labour, organic organization came in place of mechanical organization in the society. The differences between mechanical and organic organization can be seen in the following way.
1. There is no differentiation in mechanical society whereas there is sufficient differentiation in organic society.
2. There is a lack of individualism in a mechanical society whereas in an organic society individual consciousness is free.
3. The strength of mechanical society is maintained by “collective consciousness” and the strength of organic society is maintained by “collective representation”.
4.Mechanical society has “repressive laws” while organic society has “retributive laws”.
5. The strength of mechanical society is based on morality, while the strength of organic society depends on contract.
6.Mechanical society connects its members directly, while in organic society it comes through a connection or a functional dependency.
7. The structure of a mechanical society is tied in association, while the system of an organic society is fragmented.
8.Mechanical society is simple while organic society is complex.
9. In mechanical society the structure is usually normal while in organic society the structure is also unusual.

Criticism – Gabriel Tard has said that although Durkheim considers it a social fact, and its reason is also a social fact, but in his analysis, the division of labor considers population growth, which is a biological fact.


Contribution of Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1902):

By evaluating the works of all the sociologists of the 19th century, it is clear to us that the study of social change has been the central point of the sociologists. In order to explain this Samaritan change, the first model (model) has been used. It was the “evolutionary model”.
Later on the basis of conflict or cylical or Consensus Model (consensus format). , An attempt has been made to explain social change. First of all, British scientist Na Darwin in his book “The Origin of Species” provided an explanation on evolutionary basis in the living world on the basis of scientific principles. Influenced by this, many sociologists like Herbert Spencer, Lewis Morgan, LT Howhouse etc. have given the theory of evolution of social change. tried on the basis of

Evolution is actually a process that occurs due to internal factors. It has no contribution to slave factors or human actions. It is an automatic process. Under this process, anything is oriented towards complexity from simplicity and passes through many levels in the meantime. It is a gradual but continuous process. It is clear in ten ways that evolution is a scientific concept as well as a universal one. The evolutionary process is basically based on two assumptions.

(a) parallel growth of culture
(b) Mental unity of man

Due to these two main concepts, the evolutionary process has been accepted as a universal process.
In the second half of the 19th century, H. Spencer’s name is noteworthy. He refined and made useful the outline of sociology which was presented by Auguste Comte. However, according to Spencer, he had not even read Coste by the time he wrote The First Principle. Comte and Spencer both refuted sociology on the basis of philosophy and inspired by this, Cost wrote Positive Philosphy before clarifying the concept of sociology and Spencer composed Synthetic Philosphy. Among the main theories of Spencer, the organic theory of society and the evolutionary theory of society are prominent. Charles Darwin had given the concept of evolution before Spencer, but he applied it only to the living world. Spencer adopted a wider meaning of evolution and said that the law of evolution can be applied to all the objects of the visible world. The laws of evolution have been propounded by Spencer in the second part of his book The First Principles. According to Spencer our physical world is very complex. In this, substances are mixed with each other in such a way that it is not possible to analyze them like chemical substances.
Therefore, the financier made a map of the world’s analysis, which made it easier to solve its problems with the analysis, for the development of the society. Lagari does not care, rather he says that society is a part of the Universe. The same rules work in social sub-development

Which in universal evolution.
Talking about universal evolution, Spencer says that every thinker first searches for factors. According to Spencer it is power, whose two swamps

(a) substance and (b) speed are-

According to Spencer, it is the work of religion to find its own form of Shakti (force). But they have physical form which is the work of planning science.
According to Spencer, when the root cause power (force) becomes active, then the process of development in matter and motion starts. pencer physical and mechanical
To understand evolutionary theory based on the laws of machanics, three principal and four secondary
(Secondary) discussed the rules.

Discussing the fundamental laws, Spencer said that the first law is the ‘Law of persistence of force’. This means that from the very beginning a force is found in the Brahmand (Universe) and because of that force everything moves. Spencer says that it is necessary for evolution to be due to an internal force and if the presence of a force is not accepted from the beginning, then the changes taking place in the universe cannot be called evolution.
Referring to the second law, Spencer has explained the “law of continuity of motion”. Because the evolutionary process requires constant movement.
Referring to the third law, he has said (Law of Indispensable of Matter) (impermanence of matter). According to Spencer, as a result of the Force that remains in the universe, matter changes, but matter only changes its internal structure, it does not end. It may or may not be affected by the environment. Therefore, according to them matter is indestructible. It only changes its form.
Apart from these fundamental laws, Spencer also gave four secondary laws which are basically based on the fundamental laws.

He discussed the first rules in the form of Law of Uniformity of Law. According to Spencer, many types of Force work in the Universe, among which an Equilibrium is found. The meaning is that the forces definitely influence each other, but it does not create any hindrance in the system of the universe. There is only one rule everywhere in the world. In fact, what appear to be different are essentially different forms of the same law. That means only the rule changes, its soul remains the same.
The second secondary rule is the Law of Transformation and Equivalence. According to this rule, no force can be wasted.
Rather one Force is always converted into another Force. Means matter does not get destroyed in the same way energy also does not get destroyed.
The third secondary rule is the “law of least resistance and greatest attraction”. According to this rule, every body moves forward where it has the least obstacles or gets the most.
The fourth Gine rule is “Rhyme or Alternation of speed”. According to this rule, the process of evolution is not found “symmetry in speed, but the speed keeps on changing”. That is, udvika is in the process of “integration of matter” and then am (disintegration) begins, where the motion decreases. Similarly, the process of evolution can be seen on the basis of integration and disintegration.
Apart from this, Spencer has given the three laws of biological evolution.

(a) Struggle for existence
(b) Survival of the fittest and
(c) Natural Selection

Giving a definition of evolution on the basis of, wrote “Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipati. of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoheron homogenity to definite coherent heterogeneity and during which the retains motion undergoes a parallel transformation”. It is clear from Spencer’s statement that in the beginning every substance is in a state of an indefinite, incompatible similarity, that is, its various parts are mixed with each other in such a way that they cannot be separated and neither can it have any form. There is a definite form. That is, in the beginning all the substances are not only one form but a lot. But this de is powerful and it also has speed. Gradually with the passage of time. The form of matter keeps on changing and its various parts and parts keep on becoming clear and separate. Huh . But in spite of this separateness and difference, there is a connection or interrelationship between the different organs.
Discussing social evolution, Spencer said that in the beginning there was no organization of human beings. Man used to roam from one place to another in search of food and clothes. But gradually the population increased and the problem of food arose. Due to lack of resources, the tendency of war arose among the people. As a result, struggle for existence

The problem of existence arose and due to conflict one group defeated the other group. As a result of this confrontation, two types of fear arose.

1. Fear of the living: Origin of the State
2 . Fear of the dead Origin of religion

According to Spencer, earlier in this conflict, as long as man roamed from one place to another, he was a nomadic stage, but when repeated conflicts started, habitual conflict came, resulting in the development of militarism. Happened .
According to Spencer, the two types of fear that arose due to this conflict led to the development of the institution of state and religion. He says that fear of the dead led to the development of religious institutions because those who were defeated came to believe that the reason for their defeat was that the spirits of their ancestors were angry with them, and on the other hand, those who won had this fear. It happened that the souls of their ancestors were pleased with them. That’s why they won. If they start worshiping him, he will always be happy and they will have equal victory. The losers also started worshiping ancestors because their ancestors become happy then they too can win. As a result, both the groups started worshiping the spirits of their ancestors, which later led to the development of religious institutions. Similarly, fear of living led to the development of the institution of the state. Due to conflict between two groups, the group that was defeated was afraid of the winning group not to kill it and the winner was afraid of the loser that the loser might again control it by defeating or killing it. Get it done So the winning groups made some rules to keep the losing groups under control. As a result of these rules, along with inequality in the society, social stratification was also introduced.
Discussing further, Spencer has opined that as a result of the formation of the state institution, conflicts started between the states and on this basis big states started to be established. When the state grew, the population increased and along with this growing population, it became necessary to pay attention to production. But till now there was no possibility in Militarism. So gradually the industrial stage came. In this stage, big factories, mills and tomorrow factories started opening where production started in large quantities. The freedom that people did not have in the state of militarism, they started getting in this stage because social mobility increased, due to which changes in the thoughts, values etc. of the people started. In place of habitual conflict, people started living peacefully in a friendly manner towards habitual peace develope.

Spencer is of the opinion that in a peaceful society the policy of repression ends and individual activity increases. Social organization becomes plastic in that individuals can move from one place to another but the elements of ‘Social Cohesion’ remain present. Although Spencer has tried to understand his theory systematically on the basis of rules, yet sociologists have drawn attention to its many errors.
Keller has criticized this theory of Spencer saying that this theory of Spencer is not based on science but on philosophy. Don Martindale has also supported this idea.
Spencer has propounded this principle by crossing the limits of observation, verification and logic. So Sorokin says that this theory is completely unscientific. The three levels discussed by Spencer are not based on scientific opinions. So more or less than three levels can also be discussed
MacIver and Page have clearly said that change in society is not only due to internal factors, but external factors also contribute to it. But all the evolutionists including Spencer have denied the role of external factors which is not justified.
Like Comte, Morgan, Spencer also discussed social change in a linear way. When critics say that it is clear from the historical facts in the society that progress
Along with Progress, there are also Rearess. That is, change takes place in different directions.

Reality or Criticism of Social Evolution:

It is true that the promoters of the theory of evolution have presented their theories in a very systematic way, yet they have completely forgotten some of the basic truths of society or social life, due to which most of the scholars do not accept their analysis today. The reality of social evolution will automatically become clear from the following criticisms-

1. The promoters of evolutionary theory have made the mistake of assuming that only one law can be applied in the development of every society. In fact, the geographical and other conditions of each society are different and it is natural for them to have an impact on the processes of social development. Therefore, it would probably be wrong to say that the evolutionary process must have been the same in each society, despite the different circumstances.
2 . The proponents of this theory also wrongly claim that in every society

Different levels of cultural or social development have come from the same sequence. From the study of primitive societies, it is known that there are many primitive castes as well (such as those of North and South America. Primitive castes are not found) who do agriculture, but they have passed through the condition of animal husbandry – such proof is not found.

3. Golden Wiser has written that the main weakness of social evolutionary theory is that the originators of this theory have forgotten the importance of diffusion. The process of diffusion means the spread of cultural elements from one place to another. In fact, as people who believe in one culture come in contact with another culture, the exchange of culture increases, as a result of which the culture evolves.
4. The promoters of this theory probably forget the importance of invention. Social development is less than you. The process of evolution gets speed only as a result of inventions.

5. Sarvashri McIver and Page (Mclver and Page) say that social relations or society is not born like a living being. In social evolution, man’s own effort is important, whereas in zoological evolution, natural forces are everything.
6. Mr. Ginsberg opines that ‘the notion that evolution is a change from a simple state to a complex state is a matter of serious controversy. This is because it is not necessary that social life will necessarily become more complex as one moves from one level to another. Man’s knowledge and science gives him more and more ability to simplify the complex. Therefore, increase in complexity is not a necessary condition. , At most it can be a possibility.

Conclusion: It is clear from the above discussion that it would be neither appropriate nor scientific to consider social evolution as the same as zoological evolution. Nevertheless, it is certain that on the basis of evolutionary theory, we have got some help in studying the evolution of various aspects of social life. Sarvashri MacIver and Page have also said that this principle has made an important contribution in separating the various stages of development of social life from each other and studying them deeply. This theory has tried to show that the society is not a sudden phenomenon, nor is the development of different birds of the society only after two-four days. The form in which we are seeing the society today, it is a definite result of a gradual development.

Reality or Critique of Social Evolution:

The proponents of social evolution have presented their explanation in a systematic manner. However, these scholars have ignored some facts so much that it would be a big mistake to consider this principle always correct. The reality of the theory of evolution can be understood on the following grounds.

1. First of all, while supporting McIver, it can be said that the development of society and animal does not happen equally, therefore this theory, despite being important in the development of the animal, does not explain the development of the society. Social relations are influenced not so much by any internal force as by the social conditions surrounding the man. Thus the changes in social relations and social structure cannot be explained by an automatic process like evolution.

2 . Goldenweiser states that the main reason for social change is cultural diffusion, it cannot be explained by evolutionary sequence.
3. According to the proponents of this theory, all aspects of social life, in all societies, have passed through the same stages to reach the present state. If this is true, then what is the reason that today there is so much difference in the social organization and social structure of different societies. This also proves that the different levels of development have not been uniform in all societies.

4. Ginsberg opines that “the notion that evolution is a change from a simple state to a complex state is a matter of serious controversy. “Indeed, social life does not necessarily become more complex with each change; at the most it can only be expected.
5. Today most of the sociologists are in favor that social change can be understood not through evolution but on the basis of process of inventions, tendency of accumulation, cultural diffusion and acculturation.
6. In the end, it would also be appropriate to say that the theory of evolution itself is an illusory concept. Current discoveries are proving that the theory of evolution on the basis of which Darwin discussed the origin of man was just an imagination. Some male skeletons found in Italy in 1966 confirm this statement. If the principle of evolution itself is a fallacy, then how can it be appropriate to explain the change of society and social life on the basis of this principle?
Although the theory of evolution has not become very important in explaining the concept of social change, but it definitely seems to be helpful in explaining some social characteristics. MacIver has said that “This principle has made an important contribution in separating different stages from each other. In addition, this principle has also been helpful in explaining this type of society.”

It seems absolutely correct that with each increase in civilization, the form of society goes from simple to complex. There is no doubt that this theory has helped a lot in explaining the origin of many social facts. The theory of evolution completely solved the theory of evolution for the time being, for which it was almost impossible to find any reason for its origin (such as the origin of religion and family and the reason for their present condition). Even after this complete discussion, it should not be forgotten that ‘evolution’ is a very vague and confusing word and it is in our interest to avoid using it as much as possible while discussing any institution or social fact.
It is clear from the objections raised against evolutionary theory that there are many defects in the theory of evolution due to which all kinds of changes cannot be understood on this one basis only. Removing these defects, the new form in which the theory of evolution was presented, we call it ‘Neo-Evolutionary Theory’. In other words, it can be said that neo-evolution is a modified form of Darwin’s evolutionism. Among the exponents of neo-evolution, the names of Steward and Lesliwhyte are particularly important.
Neo-evolution also follows the belief that changes in any object or institution arise from the influence of some internal forces and the nature of these changes is to move from simplicity to complexity, even after this neo-evolution is Does not believe that the changes occurring in each era are in the form of a straight line. According to this, the form of change is in the form of a parabolic curve. This means that when a characteristic or a social institution begins to change, then for some time this change exhibits characteristics different from the original characteristics, although after some time the change again turns in the direction of its original form. ‘Original form’ means the form in which an entity acquires its original characteristics.


Cyclic Theory:

The basic belief of this theory is that the speed and direction of social change is like a cycle and hence Sprangler, Pareto etc. are there from where social change begins. It ends after reaching M – this is how the cycle continues in the society. Among those who believe in this are Spengler Pai Roto etc.

Fluctuation theory of P.A.Sorokin:
Sorokin has discussed the process of social change in his book Social and Cultural Dynamics. Sorokin’s theory is based on the principle of Imminent socio-cultural change. According to the recognition of this theory, the time for change in the society or the power to bring change is inherent in the nature of the culture itself. Means change does not happen through any external force but in that culture itself.
Sorokin has discussed three types of cultures

1. Ideational Culture
2. Idealistic Culture
3. Sensate Culture

According to Sarokin, Ideational Culture is a state of extreme spirituality, just opposite Sensate Culture is a state of extreme materialism, change happens naturally in both.
Idealistic Sensate Ideational Idealistic
Sorokin’s theory can be seen on the following points –
1. According to Sorokin, the basis of the theory of social change is “Principle of Imminent Change”. Changes in society or culture take place because it is natural to happen. That is, there is something in the nature of the culture itself. There are internal forces that result in change in society or culture.

2. Social change is neither towards a fixed direction nor does it have any cyclical speed, it is only a process of ups and downs between cultural systems.
3. Sorokin has explained on the basis of his Theory of Limits that when a society reaches the extreme limit in any one type of state, then an opposing effect of that extreme state is active, as a result of which one state comes to another. That is, the earlier cultural system is transformed into another cultural system and a new stage is born.

4. This cultural system is mainly of two types – conscious cultural system and emotional cultural system. The process of ups and downs continues between these two cultural systems.

5. There is a normative state between the emotional and the conscious state in which . The qualities of both the cultures are found. That is, it is the middle stage of both.

6. Sorokin says that the ups and downs in both these stages do not happen under any fixed rule but naturally and uncertainly.
Criticism: Sorokin’s theory of socio-cultural mobility is criticized on the following grounds-
1. Sorokin’s thinking is one-sided. They have looked at scientific progress with hatred and neglected its beneficial aspects.
2. According to Sorokin, cultural system has intrinsic strength. He entered this

A’s power is not explained.
3. Tying social change with a certain limit is that we do not have any scale to measure this limit.
It is clear from the above description that Sorokin has tried to explain the theory of social value very scholarly. Though tried to explain otherwise. Although many objections have been raised against his theory. Nevertheless, this theory suggests that socio-cultural factors are responsible. This theory states that changes in cultural factors lead to social change. Social change comes as a result of change in cultural factors, because the functional form of ideas is the change. The reality is change. The reality is that this principle has indicated a new path of social change.

Spengler in his book “The Decline of the West” tried to explain the commodity change on a cyclical basis. They say that after birth, adolescence, youth and adulthood, the threads of downfall or destruction begin to appear. In the beginning, a civilization is at the initial stage of its development, when it goes far ahead in its development, then it starts to decline, that is the old age of the society or civilization. After this the downfall of that society becomes certain. Therefore, according to Spengler, society passes through the following stages –

1. Birth
2. Puberty
3. old age

Spengler made a historical study of the eight major civilizations of the world and found out that the state of development and destruction is found in each civilization.


2. Elite Cruise Theory of Vilfredo Pareto:

Italian thinker Vilfredo Pareto is known as the founder of the Mechanistic School because of his Mechanistic view towards society, first as an economist and later as a sociologist. We also know him by the name of Prophet of Fascism, Karl Marnx of Bourgeousic. The whole theory of this Italian sociology is based on Theory of circulation of elites, principle of Feticism and The concept of heterogeneity. He tried to understand the social balance and change through contemplation. In fact, his entire theory and thoughts are the product of the contemporary social and political conditions. He propounded his theory of circulation of elite as a direct counter-argument to Marxist theory. Pareto discussed social class instead of Marx’s economic class, under which he talked about Elite and Non-Elite. While Marx emphasized equality, Pareto’s belief is that inequality is essential for the balance of the social system. According to him, the social system is strengthened only by the harmonious meaningful balance of the disintegrating and collecting elements of the social system. Inequality in society is found at all levels, Physical, Intellectual, Moral etc. They do not consider the concepts of freedom, equality liberty etc. as reality. Rather it is only considered as Derivations or Rediculous concept. He has clearly said that it is impossible to have complete equality among the members in any society at any time. While discussing the Heterogeneity of Individuals, it has given the idea that in every society there is a layering of high and low on some or the other. Some of these people are able and fast and some people are slow-sluggish. Apart from this, equality is not found in the environment, social living, education and training of every person. Therefore, it is clear that stratification is definitely established in some form or the other in every society.
He has clearly told that there are two classes in the society, the elite class and the non-elite class. The number of Elites is less and the number of Non-Elites is relatively high. Elite at the top of the society while the rest of the people live at the base. Generally Elite are the small ones who have control over the social, economic and political sectors, they are skilled, intelligent and capable. On the basis of these qualities, they are the rulers of the society. They are capable and have the ability to face difficulties. On the contrary, Non Elite can become Elite by increasing their moral level and knowledge. Thus Elite can go to Non Elite class and Non Elite can go to Elite class. This process continues in the society. Pareto has called this process of circulation as Circulation of Elite. This process always goes on in the society.
Pareto’s Circulation of Elite consists of the following points –

I. According to Pareto, no society or class is completely closed or immobile.
II. Elites possess power and this power corrupts them leading to their downfall.
III. The reason is that even in the lower class there are intelligent and skilled people. which moves upwards. According to Pareto, an elite class cannot remain elite for long. With the change in time and circumstances, its downfall is also inevitable and its anthem is adopted by the new Elite Class. That’s why Pareto has called the whole history a graveyard of elite systems. As a result of the rotation of the upper class, there is a continuous cyclical change in the society. Pareto classified social change into two categories.

Explained on the basis of specific drivers – Residues of Combinations and Residues of Persistence of aggregates. The first class in which Residues of combinations is prominent. He emphasizes on immediate interests and is a supporter of change. He is a supporter of new values and ideas etc. The second class in which the Residues of the Persistence of aggregates predominate. Believes in idealistic goals and is opposed to change. Social change takes place as a result of these two types of specific drivers. Elite class also has two classes, Governing Elite and Non-Governing Elite are responsible for political economic and as a result social change. Cyclical changes in the political field become dynamic when the Residues of the persistence of aggregates become more dynamic. They are called Lion governing elite. Lion elite has some firm belief in some idealistic goals and to achieve these ideals, they resort to violent means. As a result of violent action, they resort to diplomacy to protect their existence. Then they change from Lion to Fox. But non-elite have foxes and they keep trying forever. As a result, it falls into the hands of the lower class fox. Only then there is a change in the political field. According to Pareto, every society is governed by small democracies. Fox becomes the ruler born by the use of force, then he is deposed by the lower class.
As far as changes in the economic sector are concerned, Pareto has discussed two economic and rentiers. Its income keeps on fluctuating. of combination has priority. People of the first class are inventions etc. This class itself becomes a victim of corruption due to its economic fascination, it declines and another class takes its place.
There is mistrust and belief in the field of normative social change. At any one time, the believers dominate the society. But due to conservatism, they collect the means of their downfall on their own and the economic class is specular. In this, Restha becomes the worker of industry. Far’s cycle goes on but they take their own power and their class.
According to Pareto, any ruler, no matter what the region is, does not last long, so change is necessary. The views of Pareto and Marx are similar. Value change is said to be the result of class struggle. But where Marx’s class comes. Whereas the basis of Pareto’s class is knowledge and cleverness. Marx’s socialist will. While Pareto has said the existence of class is inevitable in every society. After the establishment the class struggle came to an end but according to Pareto it is an infinite process.
Pareto could not escape the critics’ criticism of “Circulation of Elite” being very interesting and insightful-
(a) The change shown by Pareto in the political field was actually given by the machine. taken from consideration. The theory of “Governing Elite” cannot last till Mosca before Parato, Samavars has found the basis of social etc. despite the communists being a perpetual hack
(b) This principle of Pareto is completely anti-Marx. That’s why it is called Karl Marx. Also called Bourgeoisie.
(c) Lion , with ruthlessness like when Gov . Comes with Elite Mass. There is also no clear mention of how Mad reacts at that time.
(d) Pareto has discussed only two classes in his theory whereas many types of classes are found in each society on different grounds. Pareto’s definition of Elite is also compiled. In fact, those who are intelligent, clever or leading in their field. All can be called Elite.
(e) Pareto’s concept of Democracy is also not correct. Democracy does not mean that in such a system of governance all people are completely equal and there is no difference between them. Democracy is such a system of governance that supports equal opprtunity irrespective of caste, creed, religion. It does not seem appropriate to declare this Force as a hypothetical concept.
Despite the above criticisms, it is clear that in Pareto’s theory True to an extent. If we observe in the Indian context also, it seems clear. Lower caste people are sharing power like upper caste and now they have come down a lot in constitutional prestige. have become equal. But the upper caste has fallen far below its status. The prestige of Brahmins has decreased a lot.



A. Toynobee’s Challenge and Response Theory: Theory of Challenge and Response:

After studying 21 civilizations of the world, Tianba presented the theory of social change in his book “A Study of History”. He created an ideal model and theory of the development of different civilizations. Toynbee’s theory is also called the “Challenge and Response Theory”, according to which every civilization is initially challenged by nature and human beings, to face this challenge, a person needs to adapt. In response to this choice, it also creates civilization and culture. after that

Social challenges are given at Golik Chunitiya place. Those challenges are given in the form of internal problems of the society or by external societies.
Toynwi says that the society which successfully copes with these strategies survives and the one which cannot do so, perishes. Thus a society passes through the cycle of creation and destruction and organization and disintegration. Natural calamities, Tsunami, Earthquake, Storm, Hurricane etc. have given natural challenges to the people there, to which the people there have tried to respond through construction. The same happened with the civilization of Indus and Mesopotamia.
Any theory has some shortcomings of its own, in the same way, scientificity is less and philosophy is more seen in Toynwi’s theory. Still they give a perspective to see the change in the society.




Conflict Theory:

This principle believes that the cause of change in society is conflict. The supporters of this theory are Karl Marx, Ralph Dahrendorf, Georg-Simmel and Lewis Kozer etc.
The biggest proponent of conflict theory is Karl Marx. According to Marx, initially there was a situation of economic communism in the society, that is, in this period there was no concept of private property, nor was there a concept of class. Hence there was no sign of exploitation in the society. But as the population increased, the concept of savings developed among the people. As a result, two classes were created in the society. First bourgeois (Haves) and second proletarian (Haves not).
According to Marx, the economy of any society is its basic structure, which is made up of the mode of production and the relations of production. All other systems of society, religion, philosophy, thought, science, morality etc depend on this basic structure, which Marx has called ‘superstructure’. Clearly, according to Marx, changes in the economy lead to changes in the society.
According to Marx, this change can be understood from the levels of historical materialism, on the basis of dialectical materialism.

Materialistic Interpretation of History:
Karl Marx has given a materialist interpretation of history on the basis of dialectical materialism. According to Marx, whatever history has been written till date, there is only the saga of kings and emperors or some special dates are mentioned, whereas the reality is that until we understand the history of the masses, the process of social development It is impossible to understand. Clarity: Marx has advocated Dalits, backward and proletariat class. In the famous book ‘Communist Manifesto’, he has mentioned that human history till now is the history of class struggle, since evolutionary ideology prevailed at the time of Marx, it could not remain unaffected by evolutionaryism. This is the reason why in the materialist interpretation of history, Marx has shown the entire history of society by dividing it into five stages in evolutionary order. Although the basic reason for moving from one stage to another is struggle.
According to Marx, the initial stage of human society was the primitive collective economic system. In this period man lived like animals in the forest. They did not have any weapons or equipment for survival. He used to fill his stomach by picking fruits and flowers in the forests. In this way their life was completely dependent on nature. Hence there was no trace of class or exploitation in the society. But as the population increased, the needs of the people increased. Gradually, the powerful people started exploiting the pure people with these weapons. In this context, Marx says that weapons are the first capital of man in the field of exploitation. Increasing population and increasing needs gave rise to the concept of savings and in this stage the power of the means of production was concentrated in the hands of some people in the form of weapons. Later, there was a protest against it in the society, as a result of which the society entered the second stage.
The state of slavery is considered by Mavers as the second stage in his historical analysis. accepted. In this stage two classes emerged – the master and the slave. Marx says that in the primitive communist era, when man started animal husbandry instead of killing animals, the concept of private property developed in the society. Agriculture and animal husbandry. So gradually man left his nomadic life and started living permanently. In this way, on the basis of change in the means of production, the slave era started. In this era, powerful people helped other weak people for animal husbandry and food collection. Started making slaves. Thus, one class in the society were those who had slaves as means of production and the other class was the slaves, who were the property of their master. According to Marx In this stage, instead of wooden and stone tools, iron tools started being made. Irrigation was started for agriculture. Division of labor started coming in the society. Businesses like weaving cloth, making pottery etc. started, but in this whole process the owner had complete control over his slaves. Slaves, who were the means of production, were given only so much that they could survive physically. The number of slaves was an indicator of the social status of the owners and the owners could buy slaves at will.
Could sell or destroy. Obviously. , , In order to have complete control over the slaves, the owners made rules that fostered private property and exploitation. But, as the population increased, there was a need for more production. The owners started forcing the slaves to produce more, but on the other hand, the slaves were not interested in the production, because there was no change in their condition. As a result, the dissatisfaction between the master and the slave increased. As the atrocities and exploitation of the owners increased, the background of the struggle was prepared. Ultimately the slaves revolted but the owners won in this struggle. Society has entered a different phase. Even in this stage, the classes remained the same but the class character changed. Marx also says that the beginning of the slave-era began almost simultaneously in the world and the expansion of agriculture began to grow, leading to the emergence of feudalism (feudalism) in the field of agriculture.
According to Marx, the third stage has been feudalistic socio-economic. According to numbers in this period, the third stage was feudalistic socio-economic and there were two classes in the society – landed feudal lords and semi-peasants. The society was completely based on agriculture and there were two classes in the society – Bhu-Samat and in this period all the weapons and tools of man started being made of iron due to which agriculture developed rapidly. Fire in the society – There was a change in the condition of the farmers as well, the way they used to be bought and sold, but their condition in life is not like that of slaves. The way slaves were bought and sold, the practice of caste discrimination ended during this period. Also, the slave owned nothing of his master’s while the fi – the peasants had about the land – maat dupa on which he worked for himself after working in the master’s fields. These black feudal lords (feudal hordes) established feudal states and organized army for its protection. During this period, many adventurous sailors and explorers were discovered in the world, which not only expanded the waterways but also created international markets. The demands of these international islands could not be met by the handicraft industry, as a result of which big industries were established in which thousands of laborers came and started working together. In this way, the establishment of industries paved the way for capitalism, but production required free labor for production, while the feudal system – tied the peasants to the land. Fixed working conditions, cash payment, housing facilities and the glitz of the cities attracted many farmers. As a result, they started migrating from farm to farm. As a result, the oppression and exploitation of the landlords on the crop farmers started increasing. There was a struggle between the two but the victory was of the feudal lords. The society entered another phase where again the two classes remained but their class character changed. Those two classes are known as the bujuas and the proletariat respectively.
The fourth stage in the Marxist interpretation is the capitalist stage. In this stage, production started on a large scale through mass production. Along with this, a definite arrangement for distribution and consumption was also made. But the complete ownership of the property belonged to the capitalists i.e. the Wujua class. The workers or the proletariat had no capital other than their labour. But the numbers say that for the first time in human history such a large number of workers have gathered together as a result of which class consciousness will awaken in them and they will organize. In the struggle that will take place now, for the first time in the history of mankind, the victory will be of the proletariat and the defeat of the bourgeoisie. The reason for this is that there were slave and financial peasantry, but they lacked organization due to lack of class consciousness. He termed the slave and the financial farmer as “classes in their own right”. According to the numbers, in this struggle the proletariat will lose nothing but the chains of slavery while the bourgeoisie will lose everything. Discussing the causes of conflict, Marx says that in capitalist society, capitalists have started centralizing capital in their hands, due to which impoverishment, polarization and separatism etc. are being created in the society. As a result, there will be a struggle due to growing discontent between the Bajaya class and the proletariat.
Marx has told in the course of his analysis that after this struggle there will be socialism in the society for a while. Means the property will be controlled by the state and everyone will get money according to their needs. But this stage will be short-lived because gradually all the people in the society will become equal. Therefore, the name of the state will automatically disappear and the society will reach the communist state. According to Marx, to establish the communist era, the working class will destroy the capitalist class with the same weapon with which the capitalists destroyed feudalism. Hence Marx has imagined a communist society in which there will be neither class nor contradiction. There will be neither state nor exploitation but all people will be equal.
Although Marx has given a materialistic interpretation of history on the basis of his theory of dialectical materialism in a consistent manner, yet this theory of his is not free from criticisms. While Marx has shown the interpretation of society by dividing it into five stages, these stages

In this regard, scholars say that there is no scientific basis for this. August Kost has mentioned three, Darshim two and Margan has mentioned three stages. The sequence of social development given by Marx in the discussion of second dialectic and materialism is not universal. According to Marx, on the basis of industrial revolution, discussed the capitalist society, the first revolution by the workers should have happened in England, and on the basis of the power of the proletariat, communism should be established. Hence historical facts show that it is not necessary for capitalism to come after feudalism.
There are many contradictions in Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism. If every cause has its counter-argument, then how can it be assumed that there will be no counter-argument to communism. From this it appears that either Marx did not make a deep study of the facts under which conditions a counter-argument arises or he is wrong in saying that there will be no counter-argument to communism. As far as class-struggle is concerned, Marx has discussed the existence of only two classes in the society while Sorokin says that the largest part of the society is of the middle class. Denial of the role of the middle class in the explanation of social change is the biggest drawback of Marxist theory.
Criticizing Marx’s theory, Ralf Dahrendorf has said that however true Marx’s theory may be for traditional societies, it fails completely in modern industrial society. They say that there has never been a situation of direct conflict between the capitalist class and the working class in the modern industrial society. Because there is a management class as a link between the two. Therefore, the management class of the middle class and the proletariat works as a safety valve. Secondly, Dettendorf has said that the working class is divided into several levels whose wages and facilities are different. Therefore, there is no possibility of union of the workers.
Despite all these criticisms, it is true that Marxism is a dominant ideology of today’s era. This gives us a new perspective to look at history and society. And it is true that no society in the world has changed on the basis of Marxist ideology till date, but it is definitely a questionable ideology from the point of view of theoretical analysis.




L. A. Kozar:

American sociologist Lewis A. Kozer was influenced by the ideas of German sociologist Georg Simmel. Kozar in his book “Function of Social Conflict” (1955) made some proposals on various aspects related to conflict. In fact these proposals are hypothetical in nature. He focused his proposals on five aspects of conflict.

1. propositions relating to the causes of the conflict
2 . resolution relating to the duration of the conflict
3. proposals related to violent struggle
4. utility of conflict to the group
5. Effects of conflict on the whole society

Proposals related to the causes of conflict: In response to why there is conflict, Kozar has mainly made two proposals.
1. First, when a large number of subordinate members oppose the question of non-equal and do not give legitimacy to non-equal, then the conflict starts.
2. Second, when the limited deficit allegations of the subordinates become the deficit allegations of general subordinates, then the conflict becomes widespread. It means that when the poverty and tragedy of some people becomes the tragedy of common people’s life, then the struggle becomes relative.
While giving the definition of conflict, Kozar has written, “When there is some kind of power, principle, means in the society and for this protest violently attack each other or both reach a conclusion.” Clearly conflict is a social process. Under which a person or group threatens violence to the opponent or takes actual violent action to fulfill its goal.
Functions of conflict: Kozar’s discussion of the functions of conflict or change is as follows
1. If the groups are in a state of conflict, then the relations between the members of each group increase and collective consciousness develops. As a result of this consciousness, the internal unity of the group increases and the organization becomes stronger.
2. If two semi-groups are in conflict, the boundary between the two becomes clear.
3. If there is a lack of leader in the group or the leadership is weak, then in case of conflict with other group, leadership change is done to strengthen the group and leadership is made powerful.
4. There is a change in the ideal pattern and values of both, due to which new ideal pattern comes which is beneficial for the group.
5. Due to the conflict between two groups, the conflicts occurring within their group end, which has to change the probabilistic distribution and the tasks are distributed in a new way. Therefore, as a result of the struggle, a new structure emerges, which promotes social change.

Criticism: Criticizing Kozar, L Chonsky and Osipov have said that conflict always proves to be destructive of the system.




Georg Simmel:


Georg Simmel and Karl Marx are prominent conflict theorists of the 19th century. But there is a difference between the views of these two. Where according to Simmel the struggle for social order.

Not only disruptive but beneficial for the social system and strengthens the system. According to Karl Marx, the struggle changes the society, then Simmel says that every struggle does not change the society.
According to Simmel there are two causes of conflict

1. Struggle basic instinct of the person and
2. Types of social relations.
Both these elements make conflict a necessary phenomenon.

Conflict variables:

1.The amount of regulation in the society
2. Amount of direct conflict and
3. The degree of intensity in the conflicting parties
When the amount of regulation is more in the society, then the struggle will remain as competition and the organization will be strong. If there is more violence in the society, then the organization will decrease.

Theoretical formula of conflict – Following are the theoretical formula of Simmel’s conflict-

1. The greater the emotional attachment of the conflicting parties to the struggle, the more intense the struggle will be.
2 . The more organized the conflicting parties are during the struggle, the more passionately they will behave in the confrontational contest.
3. The more the members of the struggling party sacrifice their personal interests, the more passionately they will behave in the struggle.
4. If the struggle is used as a means to fulfill an objective, then the struggle will be less intense. In the theoretical interpretation by Simmel, it has been said that once the goal of the conflict is clear, the conflicting parties see how the goal will be achieved at the least cost. The least cost means that the option of violence and intensity will not be chosen by the struggle.


Consequences or functions of conflict – According to Simmel, the consequences of conflict fall on the fighting party and the whole society. The results of the struggle can be summed up as follows.

1. As a result of the struggle, the unity of the struggling parties increases.
2. When the struggling parties try to get organized, the intensity of the intense struggle decreases. This happens because the mere threat of an organized party leads to the achievement of the goal and faster. There is no need for conflict or violence, due to which social integration increases. Marx’s expression is more. The opposite view is that the consolidation of parties leads to polarization of the conflict and more violent manifestations.
3. The more intense the struggle of the fighting parties, the more organized will be the organization and internal system of those parties.
4. The less organized the fighting parties, and if the intensity of the struggle is intense, the tendency of dictatorship will increase in the parties.
5. If the struggle will be intense. If there are more struggling groups or minorities, then their internal unity will increase.
6. When the struggling party will struggle for self-defense, it will have organization and unity. Comparing the ideas of Simmel with the ideas of Marx, it is clear that Marx considers social struggle as an inevitable phenomenon, while Simmel gives importance to both cooperative and non-cooperative tendencies. According to Marx, society changes through struggle while Simmel says that not every struggle brings change.

Change from conflict:

1. Unity 2. united struggle
3. Intense struggle and 4. dictatorial tendencies


Ralph Dehrendorf:

German sociologist Ralf Dehrendorf, born in 1929, is a compatriot of Marx. Like Marx, he also explains the conflict theory as the basis of the dialectical scheme, but there are deep differences in the views of these two on other issues of conflict. He explained the conflict theory in his book “Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society” (Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society) in 1959 and in “Todis’ General Theory of Sociology”. He applied his theory to modern industrial societies of Europe and America. Dehrendorf has said that there are two aspects of any social system-

1. Consensus and 2. Conflict.

Other functionalists, including Parsons, have thrown much light on the consensual aspect, while neglecting the other aspect of society, conflict.
In his theory, Dehrendorf has included the dialectical process from Marx and the concept of authority and power from Weber. Turner named Dehrendorf’s theory as Dialectical Conflict Theory. Dialectical because in any society the struggle goes on continuously between two classes.
According to Dehrdorf, the basis of class formation is power and authority. There are two classes in the society due to the unequal division of power and authority.

1. Oppressive or powerful class and
2. The oppressed or powerless class.

The oppressive class is the one who occupies power and wants status quo. The oppressed class is the one who lacks power and authority and who are ruled. They always try to redistribute power.
According to Dehrendorf, any small group formal organization or community or the whole society can be given the name of “order index coordinated society”. They say that in any order index coordinated society there is not only unequal distribution of power and authority but also As a result of this struggle, the powerless class defeats the powerful class and attains power.

This is how social change happens.
In his book “Class and Class Conflict” he has given the following proposals about the struggle-
1. The more consciousness the people of any command-indicative coordinated society have about the real society, the more they are likely to struggle.
2. The needs of more technical, political and social conditions. The more the fulfillment will be in the organization, the more intense the conflict will be.
3. The less mobility the oppressor and the oppressed groups have, the greater it is.
4. The deeper, more intense and more violent the struggle, the greater will be the social change.

Criticism: RK Merton and Amitai Itzyoni say that he has given too much importance to the process of conflict in society and the role of cooperation has been ignored.
Kozar believes that he has not discussed the contributions of struggle to the strengthening of the social status quo.



Functionalist Theory:

The word ‘FUNCTION’ was first discussed in the writings of Herbert Spencer, but the credit for using the word FUNCTION as a scientific concept is given by the French thinker Emile Durkheim in his book The rules of Sociological Method (1895). According to him, the contribution of any unit of a type system which helps in meeting the requirement of the system is called ‘function’.] In this function is divided into two parts-

1. Positive function
2. Negative Function

In religion, where he discussed many positive functions – discipline, organization etc., he discussed the negative types of suicide. After Emile Durkheim, we find elaborate analysis on the function word in the works of Radcliffe Brown and Maulinowski. Radcliffe Brother has divided the word type into two parts-

1. Eunomia
2. Dysnomia

Eunomia refers to the arrangement of the unit with natural effect and dysnomia refers to harmful effect.

B. Molinoskini did a detailed analysis of functionalism in his book A Scientific Study of Culture and Argonoutes of the Western Pacific. Both Brun and Maulinowski scholars have discussed three basic assumptions of typology-

1. Universal Functionalism
2. Functional Unity and
3. Functional Indispensability

Every unit of social order according to the assumption of universal typology. Contributes to one function or the other. Therefore, there is no entity that is not cooperative in some way or the other. Therefore all units are functional. This theory is called universal functionalism.
Functional unity means that when all the units of the system are functional then unity is established in all these units. In this way each unit is cooperative. Therefore, all the units maintain functional unity by performing their respective functions. Functional indispensability means that when all the units perform their functions as well as functional unity is established, then none of them can be removed from the arrangement of the unit. . Hence each unit has its own importance so no unit can be excluded from the system.
American sociologist RK Merton did a comprehensive analysis of functionalism in the modern sociological world. In his book The Social Theory and Social Structure, he not only brought functionalism back to the sociological world but also reinterpreted it.
The main proponent of functionalist theory is Tolgut Parsons, who tried to establish functionalism in his book The Structure of Social Action (1837) and The Social System (1851). According to them, there are three pre-requisites of any social system.

1. Biological Pre-requisites
2. Cultural Pre-requisites and,
3. Functional Pre-requisites

Parsons has given maximum emphasis on the functional pre-need out of these three pre-needs and has told that there are four functional pre-needs of any social system which are fulfilled by the four sub-systems of that system. These are the four pre-requisites-
1. Pattern Formulation and Release of Stress (Latency)
2. Goal Attainment
3. Adaptation and
4. Integration


It is also called AGIL for short. Also there are four former sub-systems-

1. Value System
2. Political System
3. Economic System and
4. Social System

Where the value system fulfills the need of Latency, the political system fulfills the requirements related to goal-achievement; Economy is related to adaptation and integration is related to social system. Thus Parsons says that these four sub-systems are respectively

Meets all four types of needs. In short, it can be seen as follows-
Sub-System Pre-requisites
Value Latency
Political Goal
Economic Adaptation
social integration
Apart from this, Parsons has discussed five pairs of Pattern Variables. In this, he has told that if a doer wants to do any action, then there are two options in front of him, out of which he chooses one and does social action. This five addition pattern variable is as follows.

1. Freedom from discipline vs. commitment to discipline
2. Self-interest vs. altruism
3.Particularism vs Universalism
4. Part vs Whole and
5. Paid vs Earned

So it is clear that Parsons has made a detailed analysis to understand the social change.


RK Merton:


American sociologist Robert Kingsley Merton has given great emphasis on functional analysis in the sociological world, hence he is considered one of the proponents of functionalism. Merton is not only a contemporary of Parsons but has also been his disciple, as a result of which the influence of Parsons on Merton is clearly visible. Apart from Tolcott Parsons, Max-Weaver and W.I.Thomas have also influenced Merton. Merton has also accepted the technique of his analysis while accepting Max Wever’s ‘Frame Work’ of social action. Similarly, the importance of social situation has also been accepted by W.I. Thomas in his analysis of social phenomena. Although the theory of social action and social behavior have been greatly influenced by Merton Sir, Merton’s approach to the analysis of social phenomena is completely different. Merton’s method of study is called Paradiom, on the basis of which he has presented the analysis of functionalism.
Functional analysis is not a new phenomenon, but such ideas are found in the works of earlier sociologists and sociologists. But the credit goes to Merton for bringing back this ideology in the sociological world and establishing it and giving it a solid basis. Merton clearly stated that we get a lot of written material regarding functionalism. At the same time he also said that unmanifested. Merton derived both terms from Freud’s theory of dreams. According to them Manifest function is called that function which is intended and clearly proved by the members of the society. On the other hand latent function is said to be that which is neither intended nor clearly proved. According to them, the hidden address gives a new vision to the sociologists, due to which he becomes more proficient in the research work. Therefore, according to Merton, the work of sociologists is to find out the rest of the hidden secrets of the society. Manifest and unmanifest can be understood from many examples. Merton has given the example of the Hopi tribe. They say that the people of this tribe gather together and perform some worldly rituals to bring rain. This ritual does not cause rain, but the disparate members of the Hopi tribe come together and act collectively, strengthening their solidarity. This is not a minor achievement. This is the unmanifest function of this ritual. Similarly prohibition of proximity is valid in all the societies of the world today. Its apparent function is that it does not cause jealousy and quarrels in the family about sex. Hence the family remains united but its hidden function is that the prohibition of sex relations between close blood relatives does not result in ugly and crippled children.

Thurstein Bevlin said that buying expensive things is very popular in the luxury class. The overt function of buying expensive things is that it fulfills our needs, but its unmanifest function is that it becomes an indicator of the high economic status of the buyer.
Similarly, visible and hidden form of inaction can also be understood, such as when the workers go on strike in a factory, then its apparent inaction is that production comes to a standstill, but if the strikers fast unto death and out of that If one worker died and the workers ransacked the factory, then it is an unmanifested failure, because no one had expected it.
It is clear from the above analysis that Merton has presented a broad framework of functional analysis. But since the Second World War, Merton’s functionalism has also been severely criticized and this theory has proved to be weak in terms of popularity. The main reason for this is that in these years many useful methods have been developed in the field of sociology – such as exchange theory, public law science etc. Apart from this, functional analysis takes many such assumptions, the system of which is necessary to be checked because they cannot be considered axioms in any form. Percys Cohen related to functionalism

All the criticisms are divided into three parts-

1. logical
2. Original and Conceptual
3. logical

In criticisms, according to Cohen, functionalism promotes objective interpretation. It suggests hypotheses that do not stand up to test, and at the same time, it tests at a scientific level that is not present in sociology.
In one of the fundamental criticisms, Cohen says that functionalism overemphasizes the normative elements in social life. The result is that it minimizes the importance of social conflict at the cost of social stability. Functionalism places so much emphasis on the harmonious nature of the social system that it fails to explain the importance of social change. In ideological criticisms, according to Cohen, functionalism promotes conservative biases. The rationale behind this is that functionalism tries to prove that all systems are among the best possible features of the world by emphasizing the harmonious relationships between the different parts of the social system.
Criticizing Merton, it has been said that he has not been able to decide what will be the role of study method in his theory. Also, Merton’s concepts of function and non-function are quite ambiguous because according to them any result may be functional for one and non-functional for another. In such a situation, a clear dividing line cannot be drawn between function and non-functioning. Merton says that when the amount of dysfunction increases in the society, change takes place. But, critics say that increasing the amount of non-functioning will not change the society, but will lead to disintegration of the society.
On the basis of all the above discussions, it can be concluded that Merton’s contribution is that he not only brought functionalism from anthropology to the field of sociology but also provided its vitality. Although Merton has been criticized, it is true that functionalism has been a strong ideology in the sociological world in the first half of the 20th century.





This course is very important for Basics GS for IAS /PCS and competitive exams




*Group c*

*Forest guard*





*Complete General Studies Practice in Two weeks*





**General science* *and* *Computer*


*Must enrol in this free* *online course* xxx76D77B987A





**English Beginners* *Course for 10 days*







समाजशास्त्र का परिचय











Beginners Urdu Learning Course in 2Weeks



Hindi Beginners Learning in One week



Free Sanskrit Language Tutorial



Follow this link to join my WhatsApp group:


Join Teligram group


Join What app group for IAS PCS


Join Facebook


Instagram link

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.