Theories of social change

Spread the love




Lineal or evolutionary theory: 

In simple words, development means, the gradual transition of a simple and simple object into a complex state and even more clearly as it passes through certain levels.  Plain or simple thing turns into a complex object, it is called development.  In the words of Mr. MacIver and Page, “Evolution is a direction of change that manifests the diverse traces of a changed substance and that reveals the reality of that substance.”

Ogburn and Nimkoff wrote defining evolution.  Is “evolution only. There is only a change in a certain direction.”


Darwin’s theory of evolution: 

Since the theory of social development Mr. Darwin’s philosophy  If based on Uduvicas, so to understand the theory of Mr. Darwin’s necessary.  Following are the main points of this theory

1.In the beginning, every living being is simple and its different parts are mixed together in such a way that they cannot be separated nor has any definite form.  It is a condition of indeterminate integral equality.  But gradually different parts of that object become clear and separate, and at the same time its form also becomes fixed.  This is a state of definite differentiation.  For example, in the beginning a seed is simple and its different parts (like roots, fruits, flowers, etc.) are not separate, but gradually these organs become clear and differentiate them.  Thus, the development of integral totality in different totality is the first law of evoluation.


2 .  As different parts of living things become clear and separate, each organ starts doing a special type of work.  Take the human body for example.  While in the mother’s stomach, gradually different parts of the baby’s body like hands, feet, eyes, mouth, nose, etc. become clear and along with that each organ has a special function, such as walking of the feet.  If it works, then to see the eyes, to eat the mouth etc.  It cannot be that the hand acts as an ear, the ear is the stomach and the stomach is the foot.


  1. It is true that once different organs are developed and clear, the functions of each organ are divided differently.  But this variation does not mean that any organ is completely separate from or beyond other organs.  In fact, there is always interconnection and interdependence in different organs.  Other organs also become redundant when the stomach is upset.  Injury in the hand can have its effect on the whole body.


  1. The process of development is an ongoing process.  Which change occurred in the body of a monk, it cannot be said with certainty because every moment in is developing.  Your only younger sister is grown up in front of your eyes and definitely cannot tell how big that kava is getting.


  1. The process of growth takes place through certain levels, during which it gradually takes complex forms.  Take, for example, how simple a seed is, how complex it becomes when it grows into a tree, but when it changes from this simple to complex form, the baby is born at certain levels first, then its childhood.  Starts, then puberty then old age and finally death.


read now


Mr. Herbert Spencer states that the above rules of development also apply in society and relations as is clear from the following deliberation

1.In the early or ancient primitive era, society was very simple and simple.  For this, the limbs were found in such a way that they could not be separated.  A family used to do all kinds of social, economic and political tasks.  Not only this, the person knew and used to know only about his family.  All kinds of actions and thoughts were often from one.  From this point of view, everyone was often the same.  Also at this stage nothing was definite and, neither life, nor social organization nor culture, thus their condition was of uncertain and unsympathetic equality.  But gradually, experience, thoughts and knowledge progressed, they came to work together and various parts of social and cultural life became clear.  For example, the complex state, factory, religious institution, labor union, village, city etc. are clearly developed.


2.During development, different parts of the society are as obvious as each organ performs a particular type of work, that is, division of labor and specialization between different parts of the society.  The family performs a special type of work.  So the skills and colleges of one state, the second type of work, mills and factories, other types of work and trade unions start doing different tasks.  It cannot happen that the family works in the state, the state trade union or the trade union of religious institutions.

  1. Due to the development of different parts of the society, there is division and specialization of labor in them, but they are not separate or completely separate from each other.  There remain certain interrelations and interdependencies in them.  Family is related to and dependent on the state and the state is related to and dependent on the family, similarly teachers, cultivators, washermen, scavengers, weavers all have an interconnection and interdependence.


  1. This process of development goes on continuously and a whole society is built gradually over many years.


  1. The process of social development occurs through certain levels.  During which the simple form of society gradually becomes complex.  For example, in the beginning of economic life, work was started by swapping, but now that simple and simple system has taken the form of international trade.  Earlier people used to walk on a simple footing, now what to say about the speed of airplanes.  First person life at most  was limited to family,but now the same life has become international life.  This development has not taken place in a day, but gradually the trough has passed through certain levels.  For example, the major levels of growth in the economic sector are :


  1. Hunting level,
  2. Grassland level, 
  3. Level of agriculture, and 

      4.Industrial level. 


Thus we can say that earlier the society was simple and its various parts were integral ie more than each other were found.  But gradually different aspects of social life became clear and separate and there was division and specialization of labor in them, but despite this differentiation, coordination remained in different organs, that is, different organs are related to each other and dependent on each other.  Therefore, we can say that both differentiation and co-ordination are found in the society.  Also, the existence of the society is possible only due to the action of these two elements.  That is why it has been said that society is a dynamic balance of coordination and diversity.  Scientists who believe in this theory include Herbert Spencer, Louis Henry Morgan, August Comte, Emile Durkhiem etc.





Augast Comte (1798 – 1857):.


The French thinker Augast Coste, the father of sociology, in his book Positive Philosophy, shows the change in society on social evolutionary grounds.  They believe that the way a person’s brain develops, the society develops.  He has discussed social development dividing the process of development of society into three levels. In Comte’s own words – “Each of our leading conceptions each branch of our knowledge, passes successively through three different theoretical conditions the theological or fictitious, the metaphysical.  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 respectively the following.



  1.   Religious
  2. Metaphysical
  3. Scientific



Initially, the human brain was not very developed according to them.  Therefore, the knowledge of that stage was of a religious form.  This means that in the initial stage man used to interpret all the events on the basis of supernatural power.  Since the human mind was not developed, only the elements of faith and belief were present in human knowledge, there was a lack of logic and reasoning.  As a result, man could not know the work-time relationship behind any event, but believed the hand of supernatural power behind every event.  Like why a green tree dried up, why did someone fall ill, he believed in divine power behind all this.  It is not that there was no scientific knowledge in this period.  Man to friction two tree twigs he himself invented fire through this process, which is a proof of his unfortunate knowledge.  But this kind of scientific knowledge was very limited and religious knowledge was available all over.

According to Cost, the religious level itself passes through the following three sub levels.


2.Polytheism and

  1. Monotheism


Natural things are humanized in the level of fetishism.  Trees, rivers, mountains etc. are worshiped because people maintain the belief that these pre-existing things are the abode of Gods and Goddesses.  But as the brain develops.  By the way, there is a change in human knowledge.  The form of phantomism disappears and the spirit of polytheism comes into the people.  In this process domestic deities are established.  Also, people not only believe in many deities simultaneously, but the hierarchy of the deities is determined by their position.  Again, as human knowledge increases along with the human mind, the place of polytheism ends.  In this state man begins to realize that even though the names of the deities are many, the deities are one.  According to Cost, monotheism is the highest level of thinking of religious standards.

The second level of knowledge development is the metaphysical stage.  This second level of human knowledge serves as a link between the religious and positivist level.  According to the Agasta cost, where the religious level was a period of several thousand years, the elemental level is a period of a few years.  Actually, Comt has called it Transition Phase.  This level of knowledge is neither purely religious nor purely positivist.  Simply put, in this level of knowledge, various events are neither interpreted on the basis of supernatural power nor on the basis of logic and wisdom.  Actually events are interpreted on the basis of invisible power.  Agasta Cont says that in this level of knowledge, man does not accept the hand of supernatural power behind the events, but wants to know the cause of the incident.  But due to lack of reason and wisdom in knowledge, he is unable to know and in such a situation, he believes that not only supernatural power but Invisible Power is definitely working behind it.

Comt says that the third and last level of development of knowledge is the scientific level as a result of development in the human brain.  This level of knowledge is based on observation and analysis of facts.  Man interprets all events on the basis of logic and wisdom and considers the same to be true which stands on the basis of observation and examination.

While referring to three-level rules, Kont says that the above three types of thinking can exist in the same brain or in the same society.  But three types of thinking do not always succeed in maintaining their existence.  This clearly shows that even at the religious level, there was positivist knowledge but the quantity was less.  And in today’s positivist Yag, superstition, fanaticism etc. are present but gradually their quantity is decreasing.

These ideas of August Comte can also be understood by the following table:

Draw a table

Level of Knowledge         Domination in Society             Social

Organization       1.Religious level                             priest and military                            family

2.Elemental Level                       Pastor and Advocate                           State

3.The positivist level                 capitalist and industrial        courageous democratic state

therefore clear that August Comt has explained the evolutionary changes in social organization based on the development of knowledge in humans, but criticisms of this theory of Agasta Comt are also no less.

read now



1.Criticis say that this theory of cost is not the result of his original thinking but he has received it from scholars like St. Simon.  Hence cost can be called an efficient coordinator, not a fundamental thinker.


2.P.A. Sorokin says that these ideas of Augusta cost less scientific and philosophical.  Actually, Cost has not done any field study, but has given this theory based on data obtained from the memoirs of people, travelogues and other secondary sources.  In Sorokin’s own words, “All such theories have been nothing buta king of metaphysics. Ogburn and Nimcoff have also criticized it on the same basis.


  1. Pareto has described Cost’s ideas as completely unscientific and unworkable. Pareto.  Criticizing all evolutionists, including Cost, has said that these scholars have wanted to study human civilization from the past to the present which is unscientific.  H should be studied from the known to the unknown. That is, the present must be interpreted by the ghost. While evolutionary theorists have tried to move from the unknown to the known which is against the scientific spirit.


  1. Not only this, Pareto has  Describing evolutionary theory as wrong, it has been termed as Cinematography. They say that the way one scene after another comes from cinema and then the first  The scene disappears from the eyes. Just as the evolutionists discuss various levels in their theory that are under review. In support of this, Sorokin also says that evolutionary theory is similar to finding a black cat in a dark cell.  This means that following the evolutionary principle, one can and will never achieve truth.

On the basis of all the above discussion, it can be concluded that although Cost’s theory has been criticized quite a lot, despite all these criticisms, in the field of sociology, the payment of August Comte cannot be denied.


  1. H. Margan (1818 – 1881): 


Margan has also explained social change on an evolutionary basis in his book Ancient Society.  According to them, technological factor changes in society As technology develops in the society, so it enters from one end to another.

Morgan was a scholar who discussed development not only on the whole society but also on different parts of society.  According to them, due to development in technology, it enters from one level to another.  This stage is as follows



according to Morgan, the evolution of culture and family at different stages,

L.H. Morgan has described the changes 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 while man was absolutely wild in every sense.  This level has the longest history.  The three subscales of this level mentioned by Mr. Morgan are as follows:
  2. Oldest level of wild state – The history of this sublayer is very unclear yet it is so certain that it was the peak level of wild state.  In this sub-division, humans used to walk in the forest and hardly possess any kind of social organization or culture.  Eating raw meat, sustaining livelihoods by eating fruits, roots, tubers, establishing sexual relations, living in caves, living on trees or in caves temporarily without any restriction and without any kinship restrictions  Demonstrating animal-like tendencies are the main features of this sub-layer.


  1. Middle stage of wild state – This level started when the art of fishing and burning fire came in humans.  Therefore, instead of eating raw meat, the prey was roasted in fire and eaten.  It is the view of evolutionist scholars that collective life started from this sub-level and people started living in small groups.  Mr. Morgan has considered some Australian and Palenese tribes to be representative of this state.


(c) High level of wild state – This final level of wild state began with the invention of bow and arrow by man.  It is said that family life had also started in this sub-level, but no definite rules were found regarding establishing sexual relations.  Some stability is seen earlier in the collective life in the sense that the person was not just a person but avenged himself from a member of the group.  Started accepting  Hence not on individual basis but on group basis one group other.


  1. Barbarian Stage – This second level of evolution of social life started when man crossed the wild stage and moved to a relatively advanced level.  There are also three substrates of this level which can be presented as follows-


  1. Oldest level of untimely state- When man started inventing utensils, he stepped into this first layer of uncultivated state.  The life of man was not as much wandering as that of Jagla now like Bhakhanabdoshi, the tendency and need to settle from one place to another is not completely finished.  At the same level, the notion of wealth emerged, then the importance of Bhavya’s Akshaya group continued.  On the basis of groups, 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 was also clear beforehand.  But the determination of paternity of children was very difficult due to the freedom to establish sexual relations among all the people of Parwar.


  1. Middle stage of uncultivated state – Human entered this stage when he came to the art of raising animals and growing plants.  Those who made their livelihood through animal husbandry were required to move from one place to another in search of pasture.  Therefore, vanity life has not completely ended.  Still, people who grew plants.  That is, they used to work in agriculture, there was a lot of loss in their wandering life.  The notion of private property came out more clearly and the status of a person in the society also started to be determined on the basis of property.  The practice of barter became prevalent and through this exchange people started exchanging things among themselves.  The form of the family also became more clear and certain rules regarding establishing sex among family members developed.


(c) High level of uncivilized state – When man melted iron and came to make iron utensils and tools, it entered this level.  Many types of utensils and pointed and sharp weapons began to be manufactured.  In this sub-class, the labor system in the society was implemented on the basis of the distinction between male and female.  The women used to do the work related to the upbringing of the family and children, while the men used to stay out of the house and perform their duties.  The main feature of this level was the inclusion of women under property and the establishment of small republics.  Since the knowledge of smelting and using metal was the biggest achievement of this level.  For this reason, it is also known as Ghatu era.


  1. Civilized Stage – This is the last stage in the evolution of society or culture and also the ultimate attainment.  Mr. Morgan has mentioned three levels of this level, which is as follows:

(a) The earliest stage of the civilized state – human beings entered this stage when the art of writing and reading letters began.  In fact, with the development of the ability to write and read letters, it became much easier to transfer the cultural tradition from one generation to another.  In this stage, the form of the family is very clear and the regulation and control of sexual relations is considered a very important feature of this era.  The importance of family in agricultural work and industry remains in this stage as well.  Nevertheless, the development of cities, the expansion of trade and commerce and the advancement in arts and crafts – art gives this era the ability to be called a civilized era.


(b)Middle stage of civilized state – In this stage economic and social organization becomes organized and comes out in a systematic way. It can also be called the era of cultural progress. Progress is seen at this level in every aspect of culture. Becomes a notable basis of economic activity. Political organization grows further and the development of the field continues simultaneously. Government laws are enforced more systematically so that it is not only about life and property but also of rights.


(c)High level of civilized status – The beginning of this sub-level is considered as the northeast of 19th century while the emergence of modern civilized and complex society. The biggest feature of this level is the rapid pace of industrialization and urbanization.  In this stage, not only the development of big blocks takes place but on a very large scale production work is done in big mill factories etc. and at the same time the system of division of labor and specialization is also implemented in great detail.  Individual rights over the means of production remain a salient feature of many societies of this level, which has resulted in an extreme form of capitalist economy.  Also, in some societies, foliar or partial rights of society or state are also seen on these means of production.  Political organization has also reached a very advanced level and by accepting democratic principles, the direct election system emphasizes the formation of government by the representatives of the people.  The state is considered a welfare institution whose main task is to provide maximum amenities for all citizens.  Knowledge, science, art, philosophy make remarkable progress in all directions.  But everyone’s purpose is very materialistic.  Today most of the countries of the world are in a phase of civilized condition.

Not only the society and culture but also the various levels of growth of economic life, family etc. have been mentioned by the scholars.  Now we will discuss about them briefly.



Levels of Family Growth: 

Mr. Morgan has described five stages that have been overcome by the family to their current state.  Following are these five stages –


  1. Consanguine Family – These types of families are found at the initial stage of human life.  Among them, only blood relatives lived and even without any hesitation of blood, there were mutual marriages between brothers and sisters.


2 .  Punalunant Family – In the second stage of development, families of this pub were found.  In this, brothers of one family were married to all the sisters of the other family, but sexual intercourse between them was uncertain, ie each man “was the husband of all women and each woman was the wife of all men.


3.Syndasmian Family – Although in this type a man was married to the same woman, yet in the same family he had sex with other women.  To lived freedom each.


4.Patriarchal Family – this is the fourth in the evolution of the family. The man had a monopoly. He married more than one woman and had sex with all of them.


5.Monogamous Family – In this, a man is born one at a time. This is the present form of marriage and family.

The car Mr. Agasta Comte states that there are three clear levels in the development of religion and they are


  1. Polytheism and


Similarly, other scholars have also described the evolutionary states of various aspects related to human society and culture. For example, Mr. Haddan in the field of art  Describes the evolutionary process to occur. Mr. Morgan, family development. And Mr. Tyler in the field of religion.  National is presented describing the conditions.



Evolution of the level of economic life :     


supporters say the evolutionary theory that the evolution of human economic life has gone through the following four key stages-


1.Hunting and food gathering stage – This is the primary and primary stage of the economic aspect of human life.  Economic organization in this level is not only disorganized, but also unclear and uncertain.  The most important reason for this is that at this stage, humans do not produce food but compile it.  In this stage, human life is entirely in the lap of nature.  Man spends his life in the jungles and it is enough for him to survive in some way.  Humans do not have any knowledge of the production of the items required for stomach-fulfillment, so abdominal-supply is done by hunting and collecting fruits, root, tuber and honey.  But these means of survival are obtained with extreme difficulty.  People have to wander from place to place to hunt animals, to catch fish or to collect tubers, origin, fruit, herb etc. because it is impossible to always get hunting and fruit from one place.  As a result, social and economic life is highly uncertain, unstable and proud.  Relying solely on geographical and natural resources, these people have to gather food to survive from one place to another.  If the geographical conditions are favorable, then they get food easily, but if it is counterproductive then there is no other way before the primitive human, except as much as nature gives or as much as it gives.  Get the means of living.  Since these means of survival in such societies (hunting, fruit-root, herbicides, etc.) are available in very limited quantities and through difficulty, the struggle to survive here is also fierce and fierce.


2.Pastoral Stage – In the above situation, the level of animal husbandry in primitive societies stepped up when humans realized that animals

will also be able.  This made humans stable because animals received more means of survival from them until they were reared, instead of beating the condition and direction in India in search of a way to get those domesticated animals because those animals also brought their children.  Will be received as well as milk.  This made the economic life more fixed and stable than the first stage because it is difficult to change the place every day, so there is no special need to move in one place as long as the food and drink are found.  But when grasses are finished, they move to another place in the other pasture.

There is hardly any society in the world where there is no animal husbandry.  Society raises animals in some form or the other.  In the initial stage these animals are used to eat their flesh, to wear the skin and bones to make various ornaments and weapons.  Tundra region is twelve months old, yet nature has provided people with group animals such as white spear fox, rabbit, muscaball, reindeer etc.  The people there wear these clothes.  They are made of samur tales and long boots which are covered inside.  Are.  Similarly, there are many primitive societies in the world in which to raise animals.  The main purpose is to get their milk or other things made of milk into a good means of food.  Also, there are tribal societies in which people raise agricultural animals to put them into practice.  Yes.  By hitting each of the sows, a variety of snow tanks made white bear, wolf, this ability to raise the skin of the cows by planting a garden.


3.Agricultural Stage – This level starts when the art of growing mana seeds and plants has come.  Making this economic life of planting or cultivating fruit made it more stable than before.  However, for the tribes to produce garden fruits or to obtain food grains through farming, the condition of natural conditions was very high, and in this stage, hunting and gathering of fruits and animal husbandry became more regular.  Also, planting or cultivating fruit orchards is an economic activity that naturally binds the manus to the land.  This means that in this stage, humans got the opportunity to permanently settle at one place.  The supply of food increased and along with it the population also expanded the sphere of economic interactions and flourished the relationship between different societies.


4.Technological Stage – This level started especially after the invention of machines.  The invention of machines led to production work through machines.  As a result, large-scale production in large mills and factories started working and the field of life became international by crossing the boundaries of the province and the country.  Even machines were used in farming.  This is the current standard of economic life.


 Emile Durkheim: Social Change (1858 – 1917):                

French thinker Emile Durshim (1858 – 1917) in his book “Division of Labor in Society” (1893), which is his first work – Sociologically the division of labor.  He has used comparative scientific method in his research book. Durshim has explained the personal, economic and psychological factors of division of labor in the society. According to them, division of labor is a social “according to which the division of labor is a social fact, so it can be explained only on the basis of other social fact only. The central problem of this book is the relation of society to the individual and society.  They have looked at division of labor from three angles-

(i)what does it fulfill our needs?

(ii) What are the reasons for these?

(iii) Is it any inequality or deviation?


According to him, according to him, the root cause of social change is the division of labor and the following two reasons for division of labor:

  1. Increase in population and
  2. Expansion of society.

To see the dynamics of labor division, on the evolutionary basis he gave the following two  Type of organization is discussed.


1.Mechanical Solidarity and

   2Organic Solidarity


In the context of these two societies, the interest of the unfortunate is in  There is a need to know the factors and variables, because of which the unity or harmony of their societies remains. In the initial stage of the people of the durthim, the needs of the people were low and uniform, so there was no thing of interdependence among the people.  But as population increases, people adopt different professions to fulfill their needs.  Consequently the division of labor begins to become apparent.  Due to this mobility of division of labor, social organization came to be replaced by mechanical organization in society.  Variations of mechanical and personal organization can be seen as follows

1.In a mechanical society there is no discrimination, whereas in a social society there is sufficient differentiation.

2 . Individualism is lacking in a mechanical society, while personal society has freedom of individual consciousness.

  1. The strength of the mechanical society is sustained by “collective consciousness” and the strength of the savvy society by “collective representation”.
  2. The mechanical society has “oppressive laws” while the savvy society has “countervailing laws”.
  3. The strength of a mechanical society is based on morality, while the strength of a social society depends on contract.
  4. Mechanical society connects its members directly, whereas in Savvy society it comes through addition or a functional dependency.

7.The structure of a mechanical society is tied in affiliation, while the system of a savage society is divisive.

  1. Mechanical society is simple, while social society is complex.
  2. In a mechanical society, structure is usually normal, while in a social society, the structure is also unusual.


Criticism- Gabriel Tard has said that although Durshim is a social and it is also a social fact, but in his analysis the population growth of division of labor  Consider, which is a biological fact.




Herbert Spencer’s Contribution (1820 – 1902):



From the evaluation of the works of all the sociologists of the 19th century, we are clear that the study of social change has been the focus of sociologists.  In order to explain this Samaritan transformation, the first model (model) has been used.  The “evolutionary format” was the same.

Later conflict or cylical or consensus model (consent format) basis.  .  An attempt was made to explain social change.  The first British scientist Na Darwin in his book, “The Origin of Species, provided scientific theories based on evolutionary theories in the world. Influenced by this, many sociologists such as Herbert Spencer, Lewis Morgan, LT Howhouse etc. developed social change.  Attempted to do on the basis of.

Evolution is actually a process that is caused by internal factors  There is no contribution to slave factors or human actions. It is a self-paced process. Anything under this process is easily oriented towards complexity and meanwhile goes through many levels. It gradually  But the process is a continuous process. It is ten clear that evolution is a scientific concept as well as universal. Evolutionary process is basically based on two assumptions.

(A) Parallel growth of culture

(b) Mental unity of human

being due to these two major concepts, the evolutionary process has been accepted as a universal process.

In the latter half of 19th century, those who presented social ideology in the best manner  H.  Spencer’s name is notable.  He refined and made useful the framework of sociology which Agasta Comt presented.  However, according to Spencer, he had not even read the cost while writing The First Principle.  Comte and Spencer both decried sociology on the basis of philosophy and inspired by this, Cost wrote Positive Philosphy before clarifying the concept of sociology and Spencer created Synthetic Philosphy.  Among the major theories of Spencer is the social theory of society and evolutionary theory of society.

The concept of evolution was given by Charles Darwin before Spencer, but he applied it only to the living world.  Spencer adopted the broad meaning of evolution and stated that the law of evolution can apply to all objects in the visual world.  The rules of evolution have been demonstrated by Spencer in the second part of his book The First Principles.

According to Spencer our physical world is very complex.  In this, the substances are mixed with each other in such a way that it is not possible to analyze them like chemical substances.

So for the analysis of the visual world, Spencer drew some formulas to simplify the solution to his problems with the analyst.  Spencer did not say anything separately for the development of the society, but he said that the society is a leader of the Universe.

Therefore, in social development, only those rules work which work in universal development.  Referring to the transcendental evolution, Spencer says that each thinker first discovers Karka.  According to Spencer, this is Shakti, whose two forms are (a) matter and (b) motion-

Force has its own form unknown.Therefore, it is the work of religion to find Spencer’s antelope.  But their physical form is known, which is the work of science to discover.

According to Spencer, when the root force becomes active, then the process of development in matter and motion starts.  Spencer discussed three fundamental and four secondary rules to understand the evolutionary theory based on the laws of physical and mechanical (Machanics).

Referring to the fundamental rules, Spencer said that the first law is the ‘law of the existence of force’.  This means that from the very beginning a force is found in the Universe and due to that force everything is moving.  Spencer states that for evolution it is necessary that it be due to internal force and if the presence of a force is not accepted from the beginning, then the changes in the brahmands cannot be called evolution.

Referring to the second law, Spencer has interpreted the “law of continuty of motion”. According to Spencer, the speed that arises from the beginning of being a force in the Universe is constant.  Because the temporal process requires constant motion.

Referring to the third law, he has stated (Law of Indespensible of Matter) (according to Spencer the Force which is in the universe  Due to this, the matter changes in matter, but the substance changes only its internal structure, it does not end. It may or may not have an impact on the environment. So according to them the substance is indestructible.  . It only changes its form.

In addition to the Dun fundamental rules, Spencer also provided four Secondary Laws which are basically based on Fundamental Laws. He discussed the first rules (  The Law of Uniformity of Law as a rule of equality of rules. According to Spencer many types of forces work in Universe between which an equilibrium is found.  This means that the force does have an impact on each other, but that does not present an obstacle in Universe’s system (the system of the universe).  There is only one rule everywhere in the world.  In fact, those that look different are essentially different forms of the same rule.  That is, the law only changes, its soul remains the same.

The second secondary rule is the Law of Transformation and Equivalence.  According to this rule, no force should be wasted Instead, one Force always changes into another Force.  That is, matter is not destroyed, similarly power is not destroyed.

The third secondary rule is that of “law of abstinence and great attraction” (law lest resistence and greatest attraction).  According to this rule, every ka moves forward where it has least hindrance or gets maximum.

The fourth law is “the law of symmetry or alternation of motion (Rhyme or alternation). According to this rule, the process of evolution” is not found to have a symmetry in motion, but the speed varies.  That is, udvika is in the process of “Integration of matter” and then am (Disintegration) starts, where the motion decreases.  Similarly, the process of evolution can be seen on the basis of Inte and Disintegration.

In addition, Spencer defines evolution based on the three laws of biological evolution


 (a) Struggle for existence 

                          (b) Survival of fittest and 

                          (c) Natural selection. 



“Evolution is an integration of matter and concommitant dissipati. Of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoheron homogenity todefinitecoherent heterogenity and duringb which the retains motion undergoes a parallel transformation”.

It is clear from Spencer’s statement that initially each substance is in a precarious, uncorrelated state of being, that is, its various parts are so entwined that they cannot be separated, nor can they be separated.  There is a fixed form.  That is, at the beginning of all things, only one form is completely defeated.  But this power is powerful and it also has speed.  Gradually with the passage of time.  The nature of matter changes and its various parts – suffixes remain clear and distinct.  Are.  But in spite of this segregation and differentiation.

Spencer said that there was no human organization in the beginning, referring to the social evolution of the interconnected or interrelated organs.  Man used to roam from one place to another in search of food and clothes.  But gradually as the population increased, the problem of food arose.  Due to less resources, the tendency of war arose among the people.  As a result, the problem of Struggle for existence arose and one group defeated the other due to conflict.  This conflict has resulted in two types of fears.


  1.     Fear of the living: Origin of the state

2Fear of the Dead: Origin of Dharma


According to Spencer, in this confrontation, the first man who roamed from one place to another was a nomadic stage, but when the clash started again and again  Habitual Conflict came as a result of Militarism.

According to Spencer, two types of fears arose due to this conflict, that state-based institution and religion developed.  They say that the religious institution developed as a result of fear from the dead because those who were defeated came to believe that the reason for their defeat was that the spirit of their ancestors was angry with them and on the other hand, those who were alive got this fear.  It happened that the souls of his ancestors were pleased with him.  So they win.  If they start worshiping them, they will always be happy and they will continue to win.  The losers also started worshiping the ancestors so that their ancestors would be happy then they too can win.  As a result, both groups started worshiping the souls of their forefathers and later developed religious institutions.  Similarly, a state-like institution developed from Fear of Living.  The group that was defeated due to a clash between the two groups feared the winning group to kill them somewhere and the loser of the victor feared that the loser would never control him by defeating or killing him again.  Do it  So the winning groups made some rules to keep the losing groups under control.  These rules led to inequality in the society as well as social stratification.

In further discussion, Spencer has opined that as a state institution, there was a conflict between the states and on this basis large states were established.  When the state grew, the population increased and along with this growing population, it was necessary to pay attention to production.  But till now there was no possibility in militarism.  Hence gradually industrial stage came.  At this stage, large factory mills and factories started coming up where huge production started.  The freedom that people did not have in the state of militarism began to be attained in this stage because social mobility increased, due to which changes in people’s thoughts, values ​​etc. started.  Instead of Habitual conflict, people started living in a friendly peaceful manner towards Habitual peace develope.

Spencer opinions that in a peaceful society, the policy of repression ends and personal activity increases.  Social organization becomes like plastic in which individuals can move from one place to another but the elements of ‘Social Cohesion’ are present.

Although Spencer has tried to understand his theory systematically based on rules, sociologists have drawn attention to its many errors.

Keller has criticized Spencer’s theory that Spencer’s theory is based on philosophy rather than science.  Don Martindale has also supported this idea.

Spencer has propounded this principle by exceeding the limits of inspection, verification and logic.  Therefore, Sorokin says that this theory is absolutely unscientific.  The three levels that Spencer has discussed are not based on scientific opinions.  Therefore, more than three or less levels can also be discussed.

MacIver and Page have stated in clear terms that the change in the society is not only due to internal factors, but also external factors will contribute to it. But all developmentalists, including Spencer, have ruled out the role of external factors which are not justified.

Comte, Morgan, Spencer also discussed unilateral, social change.  When critics say that the historical facts in society are clear that there is progress along with progress. That means changes happen in different directions.


The reality or criticism of social development:


the fact that the promoters of the theory of occupation  Has presented its principles in a very orderly manner, yet they have completely forgotten some basic truths of society or social life, whose car  Most scholars today do not accept their analysis. The reality of social evolution will be automatically clarified by the following critiques.

1.The promoters of evolution theory have mistaken to believe that a single rule can be applied in the development of every society.  In fact, the geographical and other conditions of each society are different and their process of social development  It is natural to fall on s. So it would probably be wrong to say that in spite of varying circumstances, the evolutionary process must have been the same in every society.

  1. The promoters of this theory also claim that cultural or social in every society is wrong  Different levels of development have come from the same sequence.  Studies of primitive societies suggest that there are many primitive castes (not found in the northern and southern Americas. Primitive castes) that do farming, but have gone through the state of animal husbandry – proof

3.Golden Wiser has written that the major weakness of the social evolutionary theory is that the promoters of this theory have forgotten the importance of propagation.  The process of dissemination means the spread of cultural elements from one place to another.  In fact, people who believe in one culture as they come in contact with another culture, so the transaction of the culture increases, resulting in the growth of culture.

4.The originators of this theory may also forget the importance of invention.  Social development is less than you.  The process of evolution accelerates only as a result of inventions.

5.The Mclver and Page states that social relations or society is not born as a living being.  Human’s own efforts are important in social development, while natural powers are the only ones in pragmatic evolution.

6.Mr. Ginsberg opines that the notion that growth is a transition from a simple situation to a complex one is a matter of serious controversy.  This is the reason that it is not necessary that social life will inevitably become more complex after reaching from one level to another.  Human knowledge and science gives him greater ability to simplify the complex.  Therefore, increasing complexity is not a mandatory condition. More likely than not.


Conclusion: It is clear from the above discussion that it would be neither reasonable nor scientific to treat social development as the same as evolutionary evolution.  Yet it is certain that we have received some help in studying the evolution of different aspects of social life on the basis of evolutionary theory.  Sarvashri Mekiver and Page have also said that this principle has contributed significantly in separating the different stages of development of social life from each other and studying them deeply.  This theory has tried to show that the society is not an accidental event, nor is the development of different birds of the society only after two-four days.  The way we are seeing society today, it is a definite by product of development.


 Reality or Criticism of Social Evolution:

The proponents of social evolution have presented their interpretation in a sequential manner.  Lokan, these scholars have disregarded some facts so much that it would be a big mistake to always consider this principle as justified.  The reality of developmental theory can be understood on the following grounds

1.First of all, it can be said that while supporting Mclver, society and animal do not develop equally, this principle, while important in the development of the animal, does not explain the development of society.  Social relations are not as much affected by internal power as by the social conditions around man.  Thus, changes in social relations and social structure cannot be understood by automatic processes like development.

2.Goldenweiser states that the main cause of social change is cultural diffusion, it cannot be explained by evolutionary order.

3.According to the proponents of this theory, all sides of social life, in all societies, have passed through the same levels and reached the present position.  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 different levels of development have not been uniform in all societies.

4.Ginsberg is of the view that “the notion that evolution is a change from a simple situation to a complex one is a matter of serious controversy.”  “In fact, social life does not necessarily become complicated with every change. It can be more than just possible. Sometimes

  1. Most sociologists today are in favor of social change not by evolution but by inventions.Can be understood only on the basis of accumulation trend, cultural diffusion and prosecution process.
  2. Finally, it is also fair to say that development  The theory itself is an illusionary notion. Current discoveries are proving that the theory of evolution, based on which Marin Darwin discussed rigin, is only a fantasy.Some male skeletons found in Italy in 1966 confirm this statement. If the theory of rudeness is a fallacy, then how can it be appropriate to explain the change of society and social life based on this principle?                              Although the theory of evolution has not become more important in clarifying the notion of social change but it seems to be helpful in clarifying some social features.  McIver stated that “This theory has made a significant contribution in making different states interconnected. In addition, this theory seems to be right in explaining this type of society that every growth in civilization  With this the form of society becomes simple and complex. There is no doubt that this theory in clarifying the origin of many social facts  Hut has been helped. The theory of evolution, which is almost impossible to find a reason for origin, or (for example, the reason for the origin of religion and family and their present state), has been settled for some time by the theory of evolution.  Even after this, it should not be forgotten that ‘evolution’ is a very vague and confusing word and its use while discussing any institution or social fact.  More Avoiding more than just in our interest.

Only all such changes on the same basis Udvikaswadi that is clear went railed against the principle objections to a number of defects in the theory of evolution because that could not be understood.  Removing these flaws, the new form of evolution theory was introduced, we call it ‘Neo-Evolutionary Theory’.  In other words, it can be said that neo-evolution is a modified form of Darwin’s evolution.  The names of Steword and Lesliwhyte are particularly important among the exponents of neo-evolution.

The neo-evolution also carries with the belief that the changes in any object or entity arise from the influence of some internal forces and that the nature of these changes is to move easily towards complexity, even then the neo-evolution is  It does not assume that the changes occurring in each era occur as a straight line.  Accordingly, the form of change is in the form of a parabolic curve.  This means that when a change begins in a feature or a social institution, for some time this change exhibits different characteristics than the original one, although after some time the change again shifts back to its original form.  The ‘original form’ implies that an organization takes its fundamental characteristics in exactly the same form.


Cyclical Theory: The basic belief of this theory is that the speed and direction of social change is like a circle and hence from where social change starts, then there are Splengeler, Pareto etc.  I reach and end – this is how the cycle goes on in society.  Among its followers,


P.A. Sorokin’s theory of fluctuations: 

Sorokin discusses 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.  Validation of this principle according to the period of change in the society or the power to bring about change, the culture itself is inherent in its nature.  Change does not happen by any external force, but in the culture itself.

Sorokin discusses three types of cultures-


1.Emotional culture 

2.dealistic Culture 

3.Sensate Culture


According to Sarokin, Ideational Culture is a state of extreme spirituality, on the contrary, Sensate Culture changes naturally in both states of extreme materiality.

Idealistic Sensate Ideational Idealistic

The principle of sorokin can be seen at the following points-

1.According to Sorokin, the basis of the principle of social change is “Principle of Imminent Change”. Change in society or culture occurs because it is natural to happen. That is, the nature of culture itself has some such internal powers  There are changes in the society or culture as a result of which.


  1. Social change is neither towards a definite direction nor any of its cycle.  Speed ​​is only a process of fluctuations between cultural systems.


  1. Sorokin has explained on the basis of his Theory of Limits that when a society reaches a climax in one type of state  An opposing effect of the extreme state is active, as a result of which comes from one state to another, ie the earlier cultural system changes to another cultural system.  Becomes Rthyt and the birth of a new state.


  1. It goes between the cultural system is mainly of two types – Chetnatmk cultural system and emotional cultural system ups – and downs of the process these two cultural systems.


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

6.Sorokin says that the fluctuations in these two states do not occur under any fixed rule, but naturally and indefinitely.


Criticism: Sorokin’s theory of socio-cultural dynamics is criticized on the following grounds-


1.Sorokin’s thinking is unilateral.  He has made scientific progress with hatred due to change in and has ignored its welfare aspects.

2.According to Sorokin, the cultural system has internal power.  He has not explained this inner power.

3.To tie social change with a certain limit is that we have no scale to measure this limit.  It is clear from the above description that Sorokin has tried to explain the socially accepted theory with great scholarship.  Although neither has tried to explain it.  Although many objections have been raised against this theory.  Yet this theory suggests that sociocultural factor is responsible.  Change in cultural factors This theory suggests that social change is for.  Changes in cultural factors result in social change, because change is the functional form of ideas.  Change is the reality.  The reality is that this theory has indicated a new path of social change.

In his book “The Decline of the West”, Spengler has tried to explain the change of goods on a cyclical basis.  They say that from birth to adolescence, puberty and post-puberty, there are spots of decline or destruction.  Initially, a civilization is at the initial stage of its development, when it progresses a lot in mental development, it starts to decline. This is the old age of society or civilization.  After that the downfall of that society is certain.  So according to Spengler, society goes through the following stages-

1.Birth  2.Puberty  3.Old age   4.Fall

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







2.Vilfredo Pareto’s Theory of Elite Cruises:


Italian thinker Wilfredo Pareto first economist later known as sociologist because of his Mechanistic view of society as the founder of Mechanistic School.  We also know them as Prophet of Fascism, Karl Marx of Bourgeousic.  The entire theory of Italian sociology is based on the Theory of circulation of elites principle of Fascism and the concept of heterogeneity.  He tried to understand social balance and change through thinking.  In fact, his entire theory and thought is a product of the social and political conditions of the time.  He propounded the principle of his circulation of elite as a direct counter-protest to Marxist theory.  In place of Pareto Marx’s economic class, he discussed social class, under which he talked about Elite and non-elite.  While Marx emphasized equality, Pareto’s belief is that inequality is very important for the balance of social order.  According to him, the social system is strengthened only by the harmonious expressive balance of elements that disintegrate and store.  Inequalities in the society are found at all levels Physical, Intellectual, Moral etc.  They do not accept the assumptions of freedom, equality liberty etc. as reality.  Rather it is considered just Derivations or Rediculous concept.  He has clearly stated that any period in any society it is impossible for members to have complete equality.  In discussing Heterogeneity of Individualsar, it has been given the idea that every society must have a high level of low and low.  In these, some people are fit and sharp and some people are dull.  Apart from this, equality is not found in the environment, social living, education and training of every person.

Therefore, it is clear that in every society, in some form or the other, the setting remains.  He has clearly stated that there are two classes in the society Etite Class and Non Elite Class.  The number of elites is small and the number of non-elites is relatively high.  Elite at the peak of society while the rest live on an individual basis.  Generally, elites are those who have control over socioeconomic and political fields, they are skilled, intelligent and capable.  On the basis of these qualities, they are rulers of society.  They are capable and have the ability to cope with difficulties.  In contrast, non-elite can become Elite by increasing its moral level and knowledge.  In this way, Elite can go into the Non Elite class and Non Elite: Elite class.  This process goes on in society.  The same process of circulation is called by Pareto the Circulation of elite.  This process continues in the society forever.

The following points are contained in Pareto’s Circulation of Elite –

1.According to Pareto, no society or class is completely closed or Imrnobile.


2.The elite possess power and this power corrupts them leading to their downfall


3.The reason is that even in the lower class, there are intelligent and skilled people.  Which goes upward.  According to Pareto no aristocracy can remain aristocratic for more days.  Along with the change in time and circumstances, his downfall is inevitable and his stanza eclipses the new Elite Class.  Therefore, Pareto has called the entire history a graveyard of aristocratic systems.  The society undergoes a cyclical change continuously as a result of high class revolutions.  Pareto describes social change based on two category specific drivers – Residues of Combinations and Residues of Persistence of Aggregates.  The first class in which Residues of combinations is prominent.  He emphasizes immediate interests and is an advocate of variability.  He is a supporter of new values ​​and ideas etc.  The second category is the dominance of the Residues of the Persistence of aggaregates.  Believes in ideal goals and is opposed to change.  These two types of specific drivers only result in social change.  The Elite class also consists of two classes, the Governing Elite and the Non-Governing Elite responsible for political economic and consequently social change.  In the political arena, dynamic change occurs when the residues of the persistence of aggragates become more dynamic.  They are called Lion governing elite.  Lion elite has some strong belief in idealistic goals and these forces resort to violence against these ideals.  As a result of violent actions, he resorts to diplomacy to protect his existence.  Then they change from Lion to Fox.  But Non Elite contains foxes and they are always tried.  As a result, the fox of the lower class dies.  Only then does the political field change according to Pareto Every society is governed by small democracies. the ruler Fox is created due to the ill effects caused by the use of force, then he is removed by the lower class.

As far as the change in the economic sector is concerned, Pareto has discussed two economic classes Speculations and Rentiers.  Its income keeps fluctuating.  It has the predominance of Residues of combination.  First class people are inventors, industry leaders etc.  This class, due to its economic attachment, becomes a victim of corruption itself.  As a result.  He collapses and another class replaces him.

The cycle of mistrust and trust goes on in the field of ideal social change.  At one time, believers dominate the society.  But due to their perseverance or conservatism, they collect the means of their downfall on their own and replace it with the second class.

According to Pareto, no ruler, irrespective of the region, cannot live for long.  .  Hence change is necessary.  The ideas of Pareto and Marx are similar.  Marx described Social Change as the result of class struggle.  But while the basis of Marx’s class was economic, the basis of Pareto’s class is knowledge and tact.  Marx’s socialist society will be classless.  While Pareto has described the existence of class as inevitable in every society.  After the establishment of the communist class struggle came to an end but according to Pareto it is a continuous process.  Despite being “interesting and practical”.

Pareto called the “Circulation of Elite”.  The critics could not escape the criticisms-

(a) The change that Pareto has shown in the political arena is in fact derived from Machievelli idea. The theory of “Governing Elite” was also given by Mosca before Parato.


(b) This theory of Pareto is completely anti-Marx.  Therefore it is also called Karl Marx of Bourgeoisie.


(C) Lion, with impunity when Gov.  Elite arrives with the mass.  There is also no clear mention of how Mass reacts at that time.


(d) Pareto has discussed only two classes in his theory whereas in every society there are many types of classes on different grounds.  Pareto’s definition of Elite is also substantiated.  Virtually those who are intelligent, clever or leading in their field.  All can be called Elite.


(e) The notion of Democracy is also not correct to Pareto.Democracy does not mean that in a system of governance, all people are completely equal and do not differ.Democracy is a governance system that supports irespective of caste, creed, religion, equal opprtunity.  It does not seem appropriate to declare this Force a hypothetical concept.                     Despite the above criticisms, it is so clear that there is a lot of truth in the theory of Parato.  If we look at the Indian context also, it seems clear that the lower caste people are participating in the power like the upper caste and now they are constitutionally equal.  But the upper caste has fallen far below its status.  The reputation of Brahmins has declined significantly.



  1. Toynobee’s Challenge and response theory: 


Toynbee studied 21 civilizations of the world and introduced the principle of social change in his book History “. He found an ideal model of various civilizations and formulated the theory.  Challengge and Response Theory According to the theory of “Toynobee’s”, every civilization initially needs to adapt to face the choice between nature and human, the person also in response to this choice of civilization.  And builds culture. After this, social challenges are given in place of geographical choice. They are the challenges of internal problems of society.  Is given by groups or external societies.

Toynobee states that a society which successfully meets these challenges, survives and that which cannot do so, it perishes. Thus a society, creation and destruction  And goes through a tour of organization and disintegration. Natural calamities, tsunamis, earthquakes, earthquakes, storms, etc. have given natural challenges to the people of which the people there have responded.  Attempted to by a Brahmin. The same is true with the civilization of the Indus and Mesopotamia. Any draws less scientific theory similar Tiynbi theory does some shortcomings and philosophy more.  Nevertheless, he gives a view of seeing change in the society.




Conflictist theory



This theory holds that the factor for change in society is duality.  Supporters of this theory are Karl Marx, Ralph Dahrendarf, George-Simmel and Lewis Kozar etc.

The biggest proponent of the struggle 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 the concept of class.  Therefore, exploitation was not known in the society.  But as the population increased, the retention rate of people developed.  As a result, two classes arose in the society.  The first bourgeois (Haves) and the second proletariat (Haves not).

According to Marx, the economy of any society is its basic structure which is formed by the mode of production and relations of production.  On this basic structure, all other systems of society, religion, philosophy, ideas, science, morality, etc., which Marx called ‘super structure’, depend.  Apparently according to Marx, change in economy leads to change in society.  According to Marx, this change can be understood from the levels of historical materialism, based on dialectical materialism.


Materialistic Interpretation of History:

Karl Marx has given a materialistic interpretation of history on the basis of dialectical materialism.  According to Marx, whatever has been written in history till date, only kings and maharajas have a saga or some specific dates are mentioned.  Whereas the reality is that until we understand the history of the masses.  Till then it is impossible to understand the process of social development.  Clarity: Marx advocated by backward and proletariat.  In the famous book ‘Communist Manifesto’.  He has mentioned that the honourable history so far is the history of class struggle.  Since evolutionary ideology prevailed during Marx, he could not remain unaffected by evolutionism.  This is the reason that in the materialistic interpretation of history, Marx has shown the entire history of society by dividing it into five stages in evolutionary order.  Although the main reason for going from one stage to another is conflict.

According to Marx, the initial stage of human society was primitive – collective – economic system.  In this period man lived like animals in the forest.  They had no weapons or equipment to survive.  He used to fulfill his stomach by choosing fruits and flowers in the forests.  In this way, his life was completely dependent on nature.  Therefore, there was no sign of class or exploitation in the society.  But as the population grew, the needs of the people increased.  Gradually, powerful people started exploiting the innocent people with these weapons.  In this context, Marx says that weapon is the first capital of man in the field of exploitation.  The increasing population and increasing requirements gave rise to the concept of saving; in this stage some people in the form of weapons concentrated the power of the means of production.  Later, it started being counterattacked in the society, due to which the society entered into another stage.

The stage of slaves is accepted by Movers as the second stage in his historical analysis.  Two classes arose in this stage – 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.  Gradually, for agriculture and animal husbandry, man left his nomadic life and started permanent residence and thus started the slave era on the basis of changes in the means of production.  In this era, powerful people started enslaving other weak people for animal husbandry and food collection.  Therefore, one section in the society was those who had slaves as a means of production and the other class was of slaves, who were the property of their master.  According to Marx, instead of wood and stone tools, iron tools started being manufactured.  Irrigation was started to be arranged for agriculture.  The division of labor started coming into the society.  Weaving of cloth, making of earthen ware, etc. started, but in this whole process the owner had complete control over his slaves.  Slaves, which were the means of production, were given as much so that they could live physically.  The number of slaves was indicative of the social status of the owners and the owner could buy, sell or destroy the slave at his own will.  Apparently, for complete control over slaves, the owners enacted rules that nurtured private property and exploitation.  But, as the population increased, more production was needed.  The owners began to force the slaves to produce more, but on the other hand, the slaves were not interested in production, as their situation was not going to change.  As a result, dissatisfaction between the master and the slave increased.  As the atrocities and exploitation of the owners increased, the background of the struggle was set.  Ultimately the Galamas revolted, but the owners won in this struggle.  The society entered a different stage.  Even at this stage the class remained two but the class character changed. also of Marx started almost simultaneously and the expansion of agriculture has been feudal socio-economic.  In this period there were two classes in the society or society – land-feudal and semi-farmers.  The jir started to be made of iron, so in the field of agriculture, was bought and sold as it was, but lost its life.  At the same time, the slaves own property or their small pieces of land near the farmers is to say that the beginning of the slave era began almost simultaneously in the world and with the emergence of feudalism.

According to Marx, the third stage feudal socio-economic society was completely based on agriculture or and there were two classes in the society – in this period, humans started making iron weapons and tools, which also changed the situation of semi-farmers in agricultural SHI society.  The situation was not like that of slaves.  The practice of killing and selling slaves came to an end in this period.  Also, the slaves were nothing of their own, while the semi-peasants owned the land.  On whom he worked for himself after working in the fields of the owners.  Its feudol hords established feudal states and also arranged for the army to protect it.  During this period, many adventurous sailors and explorers were discovered in the world, which not only expanded the waterway but also started to become an international market.  The demand for these international markets could not be met by the handloom industry which resulted in the establishment of large factories in which thousands of laborers came to work together.  In this way, the establishment of industries paved the way for capitalism but independent workers were needed for production in the factory, whereas the feudal system was tied to the land of semi-farmers.  Fixed procedures in factories, cash payments, housing facilities and the glare of cities attracted many semi-farmers.  As a result they Migrated from farm to factories.  The result was that the oppression and exploitation of land parity on the semi-farmers started increasing.  There was a struggle between the two but the land was won by the feudal lords.  The society entered a second stage, where there were only two classes, but their class character changed.  Those two classes are known as Bujua and Proletariat respectively.  The fourth stage in the Marxist interpretation is the capitalist stage.  At this stage, production began to happen on a large scale through large factories.  Also, a definite system of distribution and consumption was made.  But the entire ownership of the property belonged to the bourgeoisie.  The laborers or the proletariat had no capital other than their labor.  But Marx says 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 be awakened and organized.  In the struggle that will take place for the first time in human history, the proletariat will win and the bourgeoisie will be defeated.  The reason for this is that there were slaves and semi-peasant classes but there was no organization in the absence of class consciousness.  They have called slaves and semi-farmers “Class in itself”.  According to Marx, in this struggle, Sarvhara will lose nothing but the chains of its slavery, while the bourgeoisie will lose everything.  While discussing the reasons for the struggle, Marx says that in the capitalist society, the capitalists have started to centralize the capital in their hands, due to which, poverty, polarization and separatism etc. have started to develop in the society.  As a result, there will be conflict due to growing dissatisfaction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

In the course of his analysis, Marx has stated that after this struggle, socialism will come in the society for a short time.  That is, the state will control the property and everyone

will get money according to need.  But this stage will be short term because gradually all people in the society will become equal.  Therefore, the nomination of the state will automatically disappear and the society will reach communist state.  According to Marx, for the establishment of communist era, the working class will eliminate the capitalist class with the same weapon with which the capitalists destroyed feudalism.  Hence Myers envisions a communist society in which.  Will be the same.  There will be neither class, no contradiction, no state nor exploitation, but all, one.

although Marx has given a materialistic interpretation of history in a consistent way, based on his theory of dialectical materialism, but his theory is not free from criticisms. While Marx has shown the interpretation of society in five stages, in relation to these states, scholars say that it has no scientific basis. August Comte has mentioned three, Durkheim has two and Morgan has mentioned three stages.  In the second dialectical and discussion of materialism, the order of social development given by Marx is not universal. According to the industrial revolution on which Marx had discussed the capitalist society, according to him, the first revolution to be done by the workers should have been in England and communism should be established on the basis of the power of the proletariat.  Therefore, the historical facts show that the arrival of capitalism after feudalism is not necessary.

Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism has many contradictions.  If every suit has a counter-claim, how can it be assumed that there will be no counter-protest of communism.  From this it appears that either Marx did not study these facts deeply, under which conditions a counterclaim of any suit arises or he is wrong to say that there will be no counter-protest of communism.

As far as class struggle is concerned, Marx has discussed the existence of only two classes in the society whereas Sorokin says that the largest section of the society belongs to the middle class.  The biggest drawback of Marxist theory is the denial of the role of the middle class in explaining social change.

Ralf Dahrendorf has criticized the theory of Marx, saying that Marx’s theory for traditional societies, however correct it is, becomes completely ineffective in modern industrial society.  They say that in the modern industrial society there will never be a direct conflict between the capitalist class and the working class because there are the elites as the link between the two.  Therefore, the management class between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat serves as the safety valve.  Secondly, Dahrendorf has said that the working class is divided into several levels which have different salaries and facilities.

Therefore, there is no possibility of the workers being united.  Despite all these criticisms, it is true that Marxism is a strong ideology of today’s era.  This gives us a new perspective on looking at history and society.  It is true that no society of the world has changed till today on the basis of Marxist ideology, but in terms of theoretical analysis it is definitely a strong ideology.




L.A. Coser


American sociologist Lewis A. Kozner was influenced by the ideas of German sociologist Georg Simmel.  Kozar put forward proposals on various aspects related to conflict in his book “Function of Social Conflict 1955. Virtually the nature of these proposals is speculative. He has focused his proposals on five aspects of conflict-

  1. Proposals related to the causes of conflict
  2. Proposals relating to the duration of conflict
  3. Proposals related to violent conflict
  4. Measures of conflict for a group
  5. Proposals related to the causes of conflict on the society as a whole Proposal related to the cause of conflict: Kozar has mainly made two proposals in response to why the conflict occurs-

1.First, when a large number of non-Baravari questions  Subordinate members protest and non-equalization does not give legitimacy.

2.Second, the limited absence of barley subordinate people sue the general subordinate.  “Lack of lack becomes an indictment. Conflict becomes widespread. It means that when the poverty and tragedy of some people becomes a tragedy of normal life, the struggle becomes relative. Kozar has given the definition of conflict”  When there is some kind of power, principle, means in the society and violently attack each other for opposing it or both come to a conclusion.  “Clearly conflict is a social process under which an individual or group threatens an opponent with violence or takes actual violent action to accomplish their goal.




Functions of conflict: The functions of Kozar’s conflict or the discussion of change are as follows-

1.If the group is in a state of conflict then the mutual relations of the members of each group increase and the 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 a state of conflict, the boundary between the two becomes clear. 3.If the group lacks a leader  Or if the leadership is weak then in the event of conflict with the other group, leadership change is done to strengthen their group and leadership is strengthened.

4.There is a change in values ​​that leads to new ideal paradigms that are beneficial to the group.

5.Conflicts within two groups result in conflicts within their groups that need to change the normative distribution and new ways  Functions are distributed from.  Therefore, a new structure arises as a result of conflict, which promotes social change.


Criticism: L. Chonsky and Ossipov have criticized Kozar, saying that conflict always proves to be destructive of the system.


read now


George Simmel: 


George Simmel and Karl Marx are the prominent 19th century conflict theorists. but there is a difference between these two ideas.  Where according to Simmel the struggle for social order.  Not only disruptive but also beneficial for the social system and strengthen the system.  According to Karl Marx, conflict changes society, then Simmel says that not every conflict changes society.

According to Simmel, there are two reasons for conflict-

1.Struggling basic tendency of the person and

2.Types of social relationships.  Both these elements make conflict a necessary event.


Changes of conflict:


                   1.Quantity of regulation in society form 

                   2.The amount of direct conflict and 

                   3.The amount of intensity in the conflicting parties 


When regulation is high in society, the conflict will become competitive and the organization will be strong.  If there is more violence in the society, the organization will decrease.


Theoretical sources of struggle – Following are the theoretical principles of Simmel’s struggle-

1.The more emotional attachment of the struggling parties to the struggle, the more intense the struggle will be.

2.He more organized the struggle parties are, the more organized they will behave in the conflict in conflict.

3.The more the members of the struggling party will sacrifice their personal interests, the more they will behave in the conflict.

  1. If the struggle will be used as a means for accomplishing a purpose, then the struggle will be less intense.

The theoretical explanation by Simmel states that once the goal of the conflict is clear, the struggling parties see how the goal will be achieved at the least cost.  The least price means that the option of violence and intensity will not be lost through conflict.




Consequences or Functions of Conflict – According to Simmel, the result of conflict falls on the struggling party and the whole society.  The results of the conflict can be put into a formula in this way-

1.The unity of the struggling parties increases as a result of the conflict.

2.The amount of intense conflict decreases when the struggling parties try to get organized.  This is because the goal would have been achieved by the mere threat of organized party and intensified.  There is no conflict or violence due to which social integration increases.  Marx has more expression.  Opinion is contrary to this, that the consolidation of parties leads to polarization of the conflict and violence.

3.The organization and internal system of those parties will be as intense as the struggle of the struggling parties.the more organized it will be.

4.The tendency of dictatorship in the parties will increase.the less organized the fighting parties are, the more the conflict will intensify.

  1. If the conflict will be intense.  And if there are struggling lotte or minority, then internal unity will increase in them.

6.When the fighting party fights for self-defence, it will have organization and unity.

It is clear from the views of Simmel that Marx considers Marx to be the essential event of social struggle, while Simmel values ​​both collaborative and non-cooperative trends.  According to Marx, conflict changes society while Simmel says that not every conflict brings change.



Change from conflict:



  1.Unity                               2.Conflict organized 

                              3.Intense conflict and         4.Trending trend 





Ralf Dahrendorf: 



German sociologist Ralf Dehreindarff, born in 1929, is indigenous to Marx.  Like Marx, he also explains the basis of the conflict theory of the dialectical scheme, but on other issues of conflict, there are deep differences in their views.  He explained conflict theory in his book “Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society” in 1959 and “Todis’s General Theory of Sociology”. He described his theory in modern industrial societies of Europe and America.  Has been presented in the context of. Dehrendarff has said that there are two aspects of any social system-

1.consensus and         2.Conflict


Functionalists, including Parsons, have shed considerable light on the consenting side, while other aspects of society have neglected conflict.

In their theory, Dahrendorf incorporates the dialectical process from Marx and the concept of power and power from Weber. Turner of Dehrendarff  The theory of conflict is called the doctrine of conflict. Dialectical because in any society no  Conflict continues between two classes. According to Dehrendorf, the basis of class formation is power and power. Due to unequal division of power and power, there are two classes in the society-


 1.Repressive or powerful class and

                      2.Depressed or powerless class


The oppressive class is the one who holds the power and wants status quo.  A repressed class is one who lacks power and power and is governed.  They are always trying to redistribute power.

According to Dehrendarff, any small group can refer to a formal organization or community or the whole society as an “order-oriented coordinated society”. They say that in any order-oriented coordinated society there is not only uneven distribution of power and power but  It goes on. As a result of this struggle, the powerless class defeats the powerful class and gets persecuted. In this way social change happens.

In his book”Class and Class Conflict” He gave the following proposal regarding the conflict-

1.People of any order-oriented coordinated society will have more consciousness about the real society, the more they will be likely to struggle.

2.The greater the needs of technical, political and social conditions.  The more supply will be in the organization, the more intense the conflict.

3.The less mobility in oppressive and repressed groups, the greater the conflict.

4.The more intense, intense and violent the conflict, the greater the social change.


Criticism: RK Marton and Amitai Itzioni say that they have struggled in society. Has attached great importance to the process and ignored the role of cooperation. Kozar believes that he has not discussed such contributions to the conflict that strengthen social status.


Functionalist theory: The term ‘functionalism’ first came up in the works of Herbert Spencer, but the French thinker Emile Durkheim in his book ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’ (1895) credited with using the term function as a scientific concept.  According to them, the function of any unit of any system which helps in meeting the need of the system is called ‘Function’.  They have divided the function into two parts-


   1.Positive Function and

                        2.Negative Function 


While they discussed many positive functions – discipline, organization etc., religion has discussed negative functions of suicide.

After Emile Durkheim, a detailed analysis of the function we find in the works of Radcliffe Brown and Malinowski. Radcliffe Brown has divided the word function into two parts-


  1.Eunomia and



Eunomia refers to a healthy effect on the system of the unit and dysnomia refers to a harmful effect.

Malinowski in his book ‘A Scientific Study of Culture and Argonoutes of the Western Pacific’ gave a detailed analysis of functionalism.  Both Brown and Malinowski scholars have discussed the three fundamental beliefs of functionalism

  1.Universal Functionalism 

           2.Functional Unity and

           3.Functional Indispensability 


Every unit of social order according to the recognition of universal functionalism. It contributes to some function. therefore, there is no such entity which is not collaborative. Therefore, entire units are functional. this principle is called universal functionalism.

Functional unity means that when all the units of the system are functional, unity is established in all these units.  In this way each unit is collaborative.  Therefore, all units  maintain functional unity by doing their own.

Functional inevitability means that when all units are functional as well as functional unity is established, then none of the units can be removed from the system.  Hence each unit has its own importance therefore cannot be expelled from any unit system.

A comprehensive analysis of functionalism in the modern sociological world was done by American sociologist R. K. Merton.  In his book The Social Theory and Social Structure, he not only brought functionalism back to the sociological world but also reinterpreted it. The major proponents of functionalist theory are Tolgat Parsons, who has tried to establish functionalism in his books “The Structure of Social Action”(1837) and “The Social System” (1851).  According to them, there are three pre-requisties of any social system.




  1.Biological Pre-requisites

              2.Cultural pre-requisites and.

              3.Functional Pre-requisites 

Parsons has emphasized on the functional pre-requisites the most of these three pre-requisites and stated that any social system has four functional pre-requisites which will be met by four sub-arrangements of that system.  Huh . These four prerequisites-



1.Pattern representation and stress relieving. 

 2.Goal Attainment 

3.Adaptation and


It is also abbreviated as AGIL.  There are also four former sub-systems-



1.Value System

2.Political system

3.Economic system and

4.Social system 


value system, where the latency meets the requirement of latency, while the political system fulfills the requirements related to the achievement of the goal;  Economy is related to adaptation and integration is related to social system.  In this way, Parsons says that these bars sub-systems respectively fulfill four kinds of requirements.  It can be seen briefly in this-         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 stated that if a doer wants to do any action, then he has two options out of which he chooses one and performs social action.  Following is the five addition pattern Variable- 1.Discipline vs Disciplinarity

2.Self vs. Vital

3.Specialism vs. Universalism

4.Part Vs Absolute and

5.Paid vs. Earned

So it is clear that Parsons has done a nuanced analysis to understand social change.


RK Merton:

American sociologist Robert Kingsley Merton has laid great emphasis on functionalist analysis in the sociopolitical world and is therefore considered one of the advocates of functionalism.  Merton is not only a contemporary of Parsons but has also been a disciple, as a result the influence of Parsons on Merton is clearly seen.  In addition to the Tolkat parsons, Max – Weaver and W I Thomas have also had an effect on Merton.  Merton also acknowledged the technology of his analysis, while acknowledging Max Weaver’s ‘Frame Work’ of social action.  Similarly, in the analysis of social phenomena of WI Thomas, it has also accepted the importance of social situation.  Although Merton Sir’s theory of social action and social behavior has had considerable influence, Merton’s approach in analyzing social phenomena is quite different.  Merton’s method of study is called Paradiom, on the basis of which he has presented an analysis of functionalism.

Functionalist analysis is not a new phenomenon, but we find such ideas in the works of earlier sociologists and social.  But it is to Merton that the credit for bringing this ideology back to the sociopolitical world and giving it a solid foundation.  Merton stated in clear terms that we get a lot of written material regarding functionalism.  In addition, he also said that functional analysis is based on the three methods, principles and facts, of which the weakest path is the method itself.

Merton not only brought the term function into sociology but also reinterpreted it and discussed other concepts such as function and various types of manifest and latew.  Prior to Merton, scholars like Durkheim, Radcliffe Brown, Malinowski, had discussed functionalism.  Brown and Malinowski discussed three assumptions of functionalism.  First, every element of society definitely contributes to its survival, if it does not, it will become non-existent.  Second, functional unity is found between all elements and third.  No element can be separated. Merton refuted all three of these beliefs.


Refuting the first notion of functionalism as propounded by the theory, Radcliffe Brown and Moulinovsky, Merton wrote that it is necessary to test the reality of functional unity of the society based on this belief by anthropologists.  It is true that there exists some unity in every society, this level of integration in Lokana society may be different.  This means that the ‘prevailing’ behavior in a society can be functional, in other society or group can be non-functional.  From this point of view it is necessary that the features of the functions of different units must be understood while performing functional analysis.  With the help of this, it can be understood how and how the functions of different units contribute in generating social integration in a particular society.

Refuting Brown and Moulinowski’s second belief, Merton stated that it is not necessary that each tradition as an established element of culture must be instrumental in maintaining society.  In other words, it can be said that the traditions which have been providing stability to the society for many generations, sometimes or at some particular period either prove to be unusable or cause a state of change in the society.  For example, the traditional functions of the caste system in India have become incapable in the present times and instead of providing stability to the social system, it has started to change.  Thus, Merton does not accept that the functions of any entity are universal in nature.  He states that any element of culture or social structure can also be functional, but it is not reasonable to assume that each such element will have some function.

Rejecting Brown and Moulinowski’s third belief, Merton states that it is not the case that ‘every type of civilization’ – customs, material elements, ideas and beliefs, etc., fulfill certain social functions.  Merton states that this phrase does not indicate that by this Malinowski wants to explain the inevitability of the function, or that he refers to the inescapability of cultural elements.  The reality is that recognition of the unavoidable function can be understood only on the basis of two interrelated conditions.  The first is that some functions are unavoidable if they cannot maintain the existence of society through their work.  This implies that some functions in each society are those which produce the pre-conditions that constitute the society.  These were what Merton called “functional pre-requiries” of society and based on these, he presented the concepts of ‘functional pre-requisites’.  Referring to Dasari Dasha, Merton stated that every society has certain social and cultural forms which help in accomplishing these functions.  Putting this belief in simple fashion, Maten said that just as there are many functions of different nature from one second of elements of the same nature, similarly the same function can also be related to many units.  This implies that Merton presented the function’s inevitability in its addressed form as “Functional-Alternatives”.


Marton says that many scholars have treated it in various ways so far as to explain the function.  Hence a problem of various concepts has arisen for a word function.  The term function has been used so far as utility, purpose, result, goal etc. – etc.  They also say that the concept of function is objective and observable.  Giving the definition of function, he has written that the mobility of any unit or element that helps in maintaining this system or in adaptation with other systems is called function.  Merton states that every entity is neither always functional nor universal.  It is here that he criticized the ideas of Durkheim, Brown and Malinowski.  It says that in every system there are some units which try to obstruct or hinder the fulfillment of the requirement of the system or weaken the balance of the system.  Therefore, such functionality is called non-function.  This is how Merton discusses the term non-action.  They also say that the same element can be functional for arrangement at one time and also non-functional at other times.  Also, what is functional for one group may be unusual for another, so again against Brown and Maliniewski, they say that every element is not required to remain in the society, the elements which have become non-functional can be removed.  is .  On this basis, they have also rejected the inability of the elements.

Clearly according to Merton, every element of society has both sides.  The reactivity of any element that makes a positive contribution to the system is called function which makes a negative contribution is called non-action.  For example, if religion binds people in the thread of unity, which strengthens the organization of the society, then it is the function of religion.  But if religion spreads jealousy, malice and dishonesty among themselves, which results in religious riots, then it is the inaction of religion.  In this way, function and non-function can be explained by many examples.  For example, if an organization has a system of giving time-bound promotions to its employees and if it increases the work efficiency of the employees, the mutual rivalry between them decreases then it is a function.  But periodic promotions result in relaxation of the employees and it reduces their work efficiency, so it is incurable.  In addition to the function, non-function, Merton has also mentioned the non-function.  According to them, there are some elements in every system that neither try to break the system nor keep its organization strong.  Merton has called such elements unacceptable, such as curtain-practice.  Whatever may have been the functions of Prada-system in the medieval period, but in today’s industrial society it has no functional importance.  Yet it is prevalent in some lower middle class Muslim families, which has no non-functional side.  In this way, the negation is that which has no effect on the system.                                  Furthering the discussion of Non-Function, Merton says that when its quantity increases in the society and the tribunals of social control are unable to stop them, then change in the society becomes inevitable.  In this way, according to Merton, the system changes only when the nonreactive method increases.


In the course of his analysis, Merton has divided function and non-function into two parts – manifest and latent.  Merton derived both words from Freud’s theory of dreams.  According to  The manifest function is the function that is clearly and authentically intended by the members of the society.  On the other hand, the latent function is called what is neither intended nor explicitly certified.  His unpretentious address gives sociologists a new vision so that they become more proficient in research.  Therefore, according to Merton, the job of sociologists is to find out the hidden secrets of society.  The manifest and the latent can be understood by many examples.  Merton gives the example of the Hopi tribe.  They say that the people of this tribe gather together to do rain and perform some sacramental rituals.  This ritual does not rain, but the estranged members of the Hopi tribe gather together and work collectively, their solidarity is strengthened.  This is not a minor achievement.  This is the latent function of this ritual.  Similarly, prohibition of negativity is valid in all societies of the world today.  Its obvious function is that it does not cause jealousy and fights in the family for sex.  Hence, the family remains organized but its latent function is that children are not ugly and crippled by the prohibition of sexual relations between close blood relatives.

Thurstein Bevelyn stated that buying precious things is quite prevalent in the luxury class.  The obvious function of buying precious things is that it meets our needs, but its latent function is that it becomes an indicator of high economic status of the buyer.

In the same way, the manifest and latent nature of non-work can be understood, such as – if the workers strike in a factory, its manifest inaction is that it stops the production, but if the strike is on fast unto death and out of it  If one of the employees died and the workers ransacked the factory, then it is untenable, because no one had expected it.

From the above analysis it is clear that Merton has presented a broad outline of functional analysis.  But since World War II, Merton’s Code of 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 many useful methods have developed in the field of sociology over the years – like exchange – theory, folk science etc.  Apart from this, functionalist analysis takes many such assumptions which need to be investigated in the system because they cannot be considered as axiomatic in any way.  Percys Cohen has divided all criticisms related to functionalism into three parts-

1.Logical         2.Fundamental and ideological 3.According to Cohen in logical critiques, formalism promotes objective interpretation.  It suggests subconceptions that are not worth examining. Also, it examines a scientific level that is not present in sociology.

In fundamental criticisms, Cohen states that functionalism puts more emphasis on idealistic elements in social life than necessary.  The result is that it reduces the importance of social conflict at the expense of social stability.  Functionalism emphasizes the harmonious nature of the social system so much that it is fails to explain the importance of condition and change of direction.  According to Cohen in ideological criticisms, formalism promotes conservative prejudices.  The rationale behind this is that functionalism tries to prove that all systems are among the best possible characteristics of the world by emphasizing the harmonious relationship between different parts of the social system.                 Criticizing Merton, it has been said that he has not been able to decide what role the study method will play in his theory.  Also, Merton’s concepts of function and non-function are quite vague because according to them any result can be functional for one and non-functional for another.  In such a situation, a clear dividing line cannot be drawn between function and non-function.  Merton says that change occurs when the amount of non-action in society increases.  But, critics say that due to increase in quantity, the society will not change but the society will be disintegrated.

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 gave his life.  Although Merton has been criticized, it is true that functionalism has been a strong ideology in the sociological world in the early 20th century.






Leave a Comment

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