Social Thought and Social Change - Essay Example

Social Thought and Social Change Introduction The changing of the mainstream structures existing within the society is referred to as social change. It encompasses the genuine transformation of various systems of culture and behavior that enters into an evolutionary stage of development (Britannica, 2010). The alteration of the old systems of living has been a phenomenon not new to humans, especially as the world enters into the gates of modernity and as the society adopts the system of globalization. Passing years have witnessed how the old orders of things have been changed and modified, making them more and more innovative and sophisticated. Several theorists have contributed to the comprehensive view of social change, not confining the understanding of social change as associated with globalization alone. Of these theorists come three of the pillars of sociology, whose thoughts have been applied even today. These theorists include Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim. Their concepts might have some strands of divergence, yet these concepts were converged to forming a single praxis for academic integration. Karl Marx and the Post-Industrial Society According to Daniel Bell (1999 cited in Kalantzis & Kope, 2008), a sociologist from Harvard University, “post-industrial society” is a term coined to refer to “new principles of innovations, new modes of social organization, and [the emergence of the] new classes in society… [highly featuring] the codification of theoretical knowledge and the new relation of science to technology.” In addition, the post-industrial society is also characterized by a rapid-growing service sector with focus on information dissemination and modern technological drives that utilize extensively human knowledge and not human muscles (Bell, 1973, p.127). During Marx’s time, the dominating classes involved in the production system are the proletariats and the bourgeoisie, with the latter own the means of production. In the post-industrial society, a large and a growing number of workers are working not in factories of goods production but in service industries, all of which are using their intellects and technical capabilities instead of physical strength. This class of workers, mostly are professionals, are what Bell calls the new class. The concept of “post-industrial society” supports Karl Marx theory of social change. Karl Marx believed in historical materialism that suggests that there are specific stages for the development of the society, such that the primitive society gradually evolves into a capitalist society, which is today’s kind of society. The concept of social change that had brought up the “post-industrial society,” for Marx, is the effect of humans’ constant desire to dominate nature; and with such domination come further innovations that humans create in order to cater for their own interests; thus, the promulgation of technology (Coser, 1977). Transforming nature to cater for the interests of humans at every phase of societal development makes possible for social change to take place through the struggles among social classes. Every level of social organizations formed through different social modes of production in the society is characterized by social inequality. Such social inequality puts one social class to be under the other—exploited under the exploiters. When such class antagonism reaches the climax, it triggers the exploited class to go against the existing system of exploitation, creating a new form of social order with new productive forces to further advance the material conditions of the society (Coser, 1977). Hence, Marx’ historical materialism as a pattern for social change justifies the occurrence of the “post-industrial society.” Through the instrumental rationality—that is, “the dominant mode of thinking… that lacks no limits and has led to the creation of the modern technological infrastructure (Business Dictionary, 2010) of humans as they dominate nature enabled more new technological innovations. Anchored by the antagonisms between opposing social classes to advance each other’s material condition, a new order in underway; and together with technological advancements, the primitive society is sped up into a capitalist society. In the capitalist society comes the “post-industrial society” wherein technology dominates and new social classes emerge (Bell, 1999 cited in Kalantzis & Kope, 2008). McDonaldization and Weber’s Theory of Social Change (Theory of Rationalization) Max Weber is a theorist known for his two major contributions: (1) “the rationalization thesis”; and the (2) “Protestant Ethic thesis,” which had made him become one of the “founding theorists of modernity” (Kim, 2007). According to Benjamin Hadis (n.d.), Max Weber’s theory of social change is anchored primarily on the use of human rationality. In addition, rationality, for Weber, enables the speeding up of modernity that transforms any remnant of superstitious, magical, and traditional beliefs into a set of new technological discoveries. In such a modern world, science, therefore, highly matters. George Ritzer (n.d.), as cited in an article by Robert Keel (2010) also puts Weber’s theory of Rationalization as “a far reaching process whereby traditional modes of thinking were being replaced by an ends/ means analysis concerned with efficiency and formalized social control. In the “McDonaldization” of the society, Weber’s theory of social change (theory of rationalization) is applied. The four major dimensions of Weber’s theory of rationalization—which include efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control—are applied to the McDonaldization of society (Ritzer, 2004). Firstly, calculability, which concerns the quantitative aspect of goods and services, is applied through how McDonald’s calculate the quantity of their products fit for the goods’ quality. Efficiency, the next dimension in Weber’s theory of rationality, is manifested in how the employees and employers of McDonalds organize and market plan the best strategies for operative purposes (Ritzer, 2004, pp.12-13). The next dimension, predictability, is defined in the uniformity of the quality, quantity, and prices of the goods sold at every McDonald’s restaurants all over the world. Lastly, the dimension of control through nonhuman technology is defined in the overtaking of machine-run technologies in the works supposedly designated to humans. Another form of control which is not a matter of nonhuman technology control is the control of the employers to the employees (Ritzer, 2004, pp.14-15). This employer-employee control which shows the hierarchy that persist in McDonald’s restaurants also depict Weber’s use of the bureaucracy as an avenue that further rationalization is all aspects of the society (Ritzer, n.d. cited in Keel, 2010). Therefore, Weber’s theory of social change, the theory of rationalization, is applied in the McDonaldization of society through how the McDonald’s fast-food restaurants apply the four dimensions of Weber’s Rationalization, and his representation of the bureaucracy as an important avenue for the flourishing of rationality. The Risk Society: A Failure to the Theory of Rationalization Ullrich Beck (n.d. cited in Rosa, 2006) defined a “risk society” as a term defining the “ubiquity of risks, not only as the dominant consciousness of the age but also as the challenge that threatens to overwhelm societies.” In addition, it is also referred to as the “cultural thesis about the effects of wild globalization”—the use of dangerous technologies as means to cater for massive production in the globalized society (Jones, 1995). In other words, risk society is a stage where the once livable society had become the den of “social toxics”—not only toxic chemicals for production but also crimes and other forms of delinquencies—that threaten the existence and survival of humans and other creatures. The notion of a “risk society” defeats the essence Max Weber’s theory of rationalization. With the conspicuousness of risks existing in the society mostly because of modern technological advances, as Beck (n.d. cited in Rosa, 2006) and Jones (1995) put it, irrationality, instead of rationality, tends to be the dominating approach in the modern era. As Jones (1995) stipulated, the existing risks in the industrial society could no longer be rationally controlled. A kind of backlash with Weber’s theory of rationalization occurs since there is a major setback which the “end” to rationality—which is to produce technological innovations for efficient works is accompanied with the adverse impacts of risks coming from the technologies themselves, putting the lives of many individuals at stake. Conclusion It could therefore be concluded in this account that social change is not just a mere phase of “development” per se. In fact, together with the rise of the level of the standard of living brought by the discovery of modern technologies, there persists a system of threat, which occurs in a domino effect that affects all living creatures around the world. In this ‘post-modern world,’ not only are the antagonisms between differing classes the major concerns; and in the McDonaldization of the society, not only is making efficient universal service delivery through the aid of nonhuman technologies important. In the process of social change, the imperative facet to be considered is “life.” The importance of having a “post-industrial society” and the McDonaldization of society in order to provide convenience for the constituents of the world would turn out futile if in every step that these “societies” are made up from are the very causes of the extinction of every living creature in the world. Thus, it is noteworthy to take into account that social change came about because of the lives of individuals devoted to making it realized; and it should always be for them that such change be wholly rendered to. Reference List Bell, D., 1973. The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books. Britannica, 2010. Social change. [Online] Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/550924/social-change [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Business Dictionary, 2010. Instrumental rationality. [Online] Available at: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/instrumental-rationality.html [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Coser, L., 1977. Karl Marx: Dynamics of social change. [Online] Available at: http://www.bolenderinitiatives.com/sociology/ karl-marx-1818-1883/karl-marx-dynamics-social-change [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Hadis, B., n.d. Soicology and social change. [Online] Available at: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/~hadisb/dev3.htm [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Jones, P.H., 1995. The ‘risk-society’: tradition, ecological order and time-space acceleration. [Online] Available at: http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-64536-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Kalantzis, M. & Kope, B., 2008. Daniel Bell on the post-industrial society. [Online] Available at: http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-3-learning-for-work/ daniel-bell-on-the-post-industrial-society/ [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Kim, S., 2007. Max Weber. [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/ [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Keel, R., 2010. The Mcdonaldization of society: an introduction to sociology. [Online] Available at: http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/010/mcdonsoc.html [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Ritzer, G., 2004. The Mcdonaldization of society. California: Sage Publications. Rosa, E., 2006. Risk society. [Online] Available at: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Risk_society [Accessed 18 May 2010]. Read More