Social Concepts Analysis - Assignment Example

Social concepts Enlightenment and social change Introduction: Social change is defined as the change that occur on peoples material and non material culture, social change is dynamic and change is caused by a number of factors including technology, population changes, diffusion and the physical environment. Enlightenment is a concept that refers to the changes that occurred in the society due to changes in intellectual thoughts. Relationship: These two concepts are related in that the two depicts changes in the society that occur and continue to occur, changes in intellectual thoughts led to changes in the society in the past example the declaration of independence in America, this is termed as social change and this was a result of changes in rights which spread in many regions of the world, therefore enlighten led to social change where individuals gained more freedom. (Houston 34) Enlightenment also depicts the diffusion of cultural values from one culture to another which is the case with social change which depicts changes in society occur due to diffusion of values and beliefs in a society, social change therefore explains the impact of enlightenment on the society and also explains adoption of values by the society in the past. Social change theories discuss the various agents of change in the society, enlightenment is one of the agents of change with the adoption of foreign values and believes by other societies, however it is evident that social change does not occur at the same rate in all society and this is due resistance of change by a number of cultures, a good example abolishment of slave trade in the US and this was change in intellectual thoughts although not immediately adopted by all and this was due to resistance to social change. (Giddens 21) Conclusion: Enlightenment depicts a positive change in the society. This is evident where thoughts are geared toward making the society a better place for individuals, however social change depicts changes in society that may have both positive and negative consequences. From the above it is evident that enlightenment refers to social change occurring as a result of change in intellectual thought and this means that enlightenment leads to social change. 2. Progress and stages of history Introduction: Adam Smith states the four stages of history which include the hunters’ stage, the shepherd stage, agricultural stage and the commerce stage. These stages explain the social and economic development that occurred in history. Social progress on the other hand refers to changes in the society toward an ideal society. Therefore the two concepts depict changes in society. Relationship: Modernization in sociology is aimed at achieving liberty, progress and liberty, therefore the modern world is said to have progressed, on the other hand stages of history show the change in society in both economic and social activities and organization, these stages show progress in the society whereby man evolved from simple to more complex organization of society. The stages of history depict the changes in economic and social organization of the society, the society changed from hunters and gatherers into the commerce stage; this is viewed as progress whereby the social organization of the society changes into an ideal form of society. The stages of history shows that individuals in the society experienced changes from being hunters to become shepherd and then involved themselves in agriculture and finally commerce emerged where individuals are now involved in businesses and this is referred to as the modern world, this is seen as progress although there socially the society has not progressed following critics on the social organization of the society. Conclusion: Stages of history depict progress in society, however this may not be referred to as progress in that the modern world is characterized by factors that do not make it ideal, this include alimentation in the modern world, rationality that results into a scenario referred to as Weber as the lion cage of rationality whereby people are imprisoned are unable to get out. Durkheim also criticizes the modern world as characterized by the rise in organics solidarity and the decline in collective consciousness; therefore we cannot refer the modern world as ideal. (Giddens 17) 3. Rationalization and bureaucracy: Introduction: Rationalization refers to the attempt to increase social actions and processes based on efficiency. Marx Weber also introduced the concept of bureaucracy where he defines bureaucracy as the hierarchical organization of social structures; the ideal type bureaucracy is characterized by specialization, hierarchical organization, governance by explicit rules, impersonality and rewards based on performance. (Weber 46) Relationship: These two concepts are related in that according to Weber bureaucratic organizations helps achieve efficiency. This means that these organizations are more efficient and effective in the production of goods, this is because a large number of people in an organization are organized in the pursuit of a common goal, there is division of labor in order to increase productivity and that several tasks can be undertaken simultaneously, all these are attempts to increase efficiency and therefore rational actions. According to Marx Weber bureaucracies are rational in that they helps increase productivity of an organization through organization of workers in way that they become more efficient, a number of task can also be undertaken simultaneously and this enables increased productivity and efficient. Division of labor in such an organization will also lead to specialization and this will increase productivity which is a form of rationalization. (Weber 47) Conclusion: Despite bureaucracies being seen as rational there exist some informal norms that results to irrationality of bureaucracies, for example when workers in an organization decide not to be more productive. One of the critics about the rationality of bureaucracy is the Parkinson’s Law, this law states that workers in an organization will spend more time performing certain tasks and therefore work will expand to fill the time available for completion and this result into irrationality. (Parkinson 16) Bureaucracies are irrational in that they are characterized by the protection of the inept, bureaucracy will retain its workers in cases where workers become more inefficient. The Peter Principle states that promotion to a new position means that the worker is less efficient in that position and this result to irrationality whereby bureaucracies will remain inefficient because of employing individuals in positions which they arte less competent to perform. Bureaucracies are also characterized by ritualism, everything in a bureaucracy works according to procedures and rules set and people become less creative. Therefore from the above discussion it is evident that Bureaucracies are forms of rationalization but they themselves are irrational due to the informal norms that affect the functioning of these organizations. (Peter 19) 4. Organic solidarity and meritocracy Introduction: Organic solidarity is a concept that was introduced by Emile Durkheim, organic solidarity is defined as social cohesion emanating from the dependence of individuals in a society, and he states that the survival of the modern society is based on the dependence of individuals in the society. Meritocracy on the other hand was coined by Michael Young and stated that appointments in organizations were made with reference to abilities and talents of individuals. (Durkheim 23) Relationship: The two concepts are related in that the two concepts define the modern world, meritocracy defines leadership in the modern society and organic solidarity also defines social cohesion in the modern world. Meritocracy states that the leaders in the society are the talented and once in power they become detached to the needs of the masses, this leads to a revolution by the masses as the elite group becomes disconnected with the masses. (Kamolnick 87) The two concepts show the characteristics of the modern world, the modern world leaders will be appointed with reference to their talent and abilities, on the other hand social cohesion in the modern world is based on the inter dependence of individuals in the society, the social cohesion concept shows stability in the modern world while meritocracy shows conflict in the modern world that will result into a revolution. The two concepts also define social change and the difference in the traditional society and the modern society, organic solidarity is a characteristic of the modern world while mechanical solidarity defines cohesion in the traditional society. On the other hand meritocracy defines appointment in the modern world which changes from the traditional society where appointments were based on oligarchy and nepotism. The two concepts are also related in that meritocracy is possible due to the existence of organic solidarity rather than mechanical solidarity, organic solidarity helps eliminate nepotism and oligarchy in the appointment of individuals into positions in the society. Conclusion: Durkheim shows that social cohesion in the modern world will prevail due to people becoming dependent on one another; however meritocracy concept shows that even with social cohesion there will be a revolution whereby the masses will overthrow the elite group when they do not meet the needs of the society. Although the meritocracy concept shows that the modern world characterized by appointments with reference to ability the society still has problems that depicts appointments based on nepotism due to mechanical solidarity that exist within the society. Reference: Cyril Parkinson (1996) Parkinsons Law: And Other Studies in Administration, McGraw Hill Press, New York Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press, 1933. Giddens, Anthony. Selected Writings. London: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Kamolnick, Paul. The just meritocracy: IQ, class mobility, and American social policy. New York: McGraw Hill Press, 2005. Laurence, Peter and Raymond, Hull. The Peter Principle. London: Buccaneer Books, 1996. Weber, Max and Hans, Heinrich. From Max Weber: essays in sociology. New York: Routledge, 1991. R. A. Houston. Social change in the Age of Enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Read More