Economy and Social Change - Essay Example

SOCIOLOGY ECONOMY AND SOCIAL CHANGE Introduction Most sociologists are for the view that the economy is an elementary pillar in the modern society. Apart from being a societal institute on its own, it plays a significant role in shaping the executive, educational, moral and legal as well as the spiritual organization of the society. The economy is the foundation upon which sees the establishment of the societal superstructure and also one among the various institutions that constitutes the society. The economy is also an extension of the religious or spiritual belief. Economy as the superstructure The economy is the foundation of the societal superstructure as it is that which shapes all the other social structures that include beliefs, politics as well as religion. Usually, people establish their own modes of subsistence and the consequential modes of production dictate their means of living. On the other hand, the economy that constitutes the method of production gives rise to division of labor as well as the different forms of property. The three major forms of property are the ethnic, primordial and feudal. The ethnic type of property follows the societal organization of the family and is comparatively primitive. The primordial type of property follows the creation of cities that comes as a result of amalgamation of various tribes. The feudal type of property is the result of the establishment of countries as well as the federation of craftsmen (Giddens, Mitchell & Richard 1996). The economy plays a very important role in determining the direction which the society will follow in that the economy determines all societal as well as the political structure. The economy determines the level of awareness in the society which then establishes all the ideologies. The economic foundation incorporates division of labor which is the source of conflict involving individual interests and common interests. And in this condition, the common interest constitutes the state that always acts in opposition to the personal interests. Thus, the current type of state is that which protects the interests of the leading economic group by undermining the personal interests of the working class. Solution will thus come in through a revolution which will see the ending of the dominant methods of production (Castells 2011). The leading economic group of people in the society is that which comes up with the strongest ideology in the society. The group that is leading in terms of material power in the society is at the same time the leading group intellectually. Therefore for there to be any social change then the working class, which mostly forms the largest group must hold a revolution against the leading economic class. One way of moving out of the problem is to ensure complete autonomy of the methods of production that in turn eliminates the domination of the ruling economic class. Individuals will have freedom to chase their personal interests with the abolition of both division of labor and private ownership of property (Adelman & Cynthia 1973). The major feature of the contemporary bourgeois civilization is the presence of the group of capitalists and workers. The workers are minors to the capitalists who have full control of all the factors of production. The development of the current industries and globalization is as a result of influence from the capitalists who encourage the establishment of free trade and to exploit the working class. This leads to the agglomeration of the masses, centralization of the factors of production and consequently the development of nation states as well as the concentration of wealth in a few people. This in turn means that the rights of the poor working class will have no means of coming out as all the control is in the hands of the ruling economic class (Savage & Roger 2007). The economy, on the hand, is also one among the various pillars that constitutes the society. The economy is a social factor that influences the social development of a person. The influence can change from economic to ideological thus shaping the manner which the individual thinks and behave towards the various matters affecting his life. The economy is part of the values, tendencies as well as the practices that altogether forms the societal facts (McCleary & Robert 2006). The economy is an important factor in the development of religion, law, morals, arts, science as well as politics. Religion and all other cultural practices have their foundation in the economy. People tend to hold beliefs and practices in response to the level of economy about what they have what they want to have and where they will be in the future. An abrupt change in the economy contrary to the expectation of the people may cause confusion in the society and causes a diversion in the manner which the people behave. The structural influences that cause selfishness and suicide are as a result of a reduction in the unconscious and slow development of crude solidarity that comes in as a result of both division of labor and industrialization. This is a condition that will influence all the different classes in the society (Garland 2012). A severe economic decline in the society will cause a reduction in the capability of traditional institutes such as religion in controlling and fulfilling the societal needs. This in turn will lead to the erosion of the indigenous societal regulators and at the end there is going to be a reduction in happiness that in turn leads to erosion of values. This condition mostly comes as a result of an abrupt change in the economy that in turn influence a rapid change in the social behavior of the people to match the change. In this situation the society will have no power of regulating and directing the masses towards a certain direction (Spaargaren & Arthur 1992). All the religious beliefs and cultural practices performed by a group of people in the society have clear effects on the economy and the way production activities will take place. A change in one will affect a change in the other. The society therefore while conceiving these beliefs will therefore keep an eye on the economic effects. For example, a religion that inhibits the consumption of alcohol will prevent the selling of alcohol and this will affect the economy of the given group. But with an increase in the profitability of the product and the desire to acquire wealth by some individuals in the group will influence them to divert from their religious beliefs and start selling alcohol. This in turn will continue to influence a change in the belief of the people against alcohol and at the end the negative attitude of the people against alcohol will be a matter of the past. The economy therefore laid the foundation for the change that has influenced the people to act in a manner that will be beneficial to them. And on the other hand if heavy campaign to influence the people to avoid alcohol succeeds then the product will lose economic value and the business will have to close down due to the change in the beliefs of the people about alcohol (Garland 2012). According to some sociologists, religion constitutes the foundation while the economy forms the superstructure. Thus, the influence the economy will have on the society comes from the sociology of religious conviction. Religion is that which shapes the economic direction that a given group of people will follow. For example, in the world history, Catholics had the tendency of favoring the development of moderate arts that comply with the principles of humanity while Protestants were for technical and scientific education in favor for industrialization. Those who had no power in the religion mostly engaged in business activities. Therefore the economy is the most perfect means of shaping the manner which the people behave as individuals who are more committed in gathering wealth are more likely going to be less religious and hence easier to change them. This explains why most sociologists are always focusing on the economy as the most perfect means of introducing the necessary social changes required in the contemporary society (McCleary & Robert 2006). While the economy is the tool for social change, it is at the same time a weapon for the erosion of values especially during crisis. Individuals will always struggle to achieve the highest quality of life that in turn depends on the ability to spend to acquire the services and the goods they need. During an economic recession, the people find difficulties in acquiring the necessary income to meet their requirements due to a reduction in the opportunities as well as the increased value of the products. To deal with the situation the people will then try to involve in any other activity, whether it complies with the morals of the society or not but with the aim of restoring their economic power to continue acquiring what they need. In this condition it is only an improvement in the economy that can enable them to change and behave appropriately in the manner desirable by the masses. For example, social erosion manifested by activities such as robbery is more rampant in poor countries or the areas that are economically unstable (Castells 2011). During a recession in the economy, the living conditions become harsh and individuals tend to take measures to free themselves from the problem. This means that the few individuals who control the factors of production become more powerful and exploitative since the poor have no otherwise but to accept their terms. While enjoying this power, the rich can then find an opportunity to spread ideas that will continue to favor their business activities and continue to dominate the production activities. In this condition it is very difficult to influence a social change and the only way is to reduce the dominance of the ruling economic class. This in turn means the revival of the economy and coming up with measures to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor to strike a balance of power (Lobao & Katherine 2001). Perhaps religious beliefs defer from one place to another depending on the environment and life history of the individuals residing in the given area. If one makes conclusion based on religion on observing a given group then most obviously his findings will not apply in the other areas. But on the other hand, the necessity for wealth is universal all around the world and nobody will ever take long time to accept an idea that will add more wealth. The economy is thus less prone to the history of any given group of people and thus provides the most universal tool for influencing a change in all the societies around the world. A conclusion by any expert based on the means of improving the economy will thus be applicable in all other societies irrespective of the differences in ideologies (Grier 1997). The social groups created in most societies in the world base on the distribution of wealth. This is because the distribution of wealth is always unequal and those who have succeeded in gathering more wealth acquire honor and respect while those who have little become inferior and minors. The honor or respect that each one acquires depends on what he or she can contribute in the society in terms of wealth. For example, during the ancient times when women had no right of owning a business in various societies in the world men were more dominant and always had to dictate all the matters affecting the family as women had nothing to contribute. But with the freedom to conduct business that saw women acquiring wealth and thus able to support themselves and the family resulted to a reduction in male domination. In addition, the excessive exploitation of the poor working class during economic crisis sees the loss of dignity and respect to the rich because conditions compel them to accept what they understand not to be right (Kumar 2009). Political rivalry in the society as well as resistance by some political leaders to the desired changes in the society is mostly due to the desire to safeguard their economic interests. On the other hand some individuals struggle to earn more wealth above the others with the aim of gaining political power. This explains why the government is sometimes very reluctant and unwilling to comply with public opinion. The economy therefore influences politics and politics on the other hand influences the social development of the people. Focusing on the economy is thus more significant since it is the foundation of all the changes required in the society (Lipset 1959). The definition of the class of people in the society will always base on the condition of the market. A class of people will come to existence when a particular group of people have similar interests in the control of the market. The existence of market conditions such as capitalism means that amount of wealth one has determines the class that he or she is going to belong. However, the overall battle based on the situation of the class will depend on the relationship between the influences and the results of the situation of the class. If that difference in the classes achieves an ultimate judgment then there will be no any chance for a change in the situation (Castles 2003). As opposed to the classes, the status group comes as a result of societal honor. However, status group can sometimes sum up into a class of people. However, the economic stratification is what defines the situation of the status group. Stratification on the other hand goes together with the complete control of the factors of production and business opportunities. If the foundation for the acquirement and distribution of income is stable it will favor the stratification by status. However, economic changes will terrorize the stratification by means of status. This in turn will push towards the development of status structure and allows for the recovery of the significance of societal honor. There is thus a clear affiliation between the economy and social development of the people and a change in the economy may directly reflect to a change in the social structure of the people. There is also a close link between religion and economic development with each one exerting influence on the other. This explains why many experts express a lot of concern on the economy as the best weapon towards the necessary changes required in the society (Adelman & Cynthia 1973). Conclusion The economy is very significant in shaping the social structure of the people. However, the degree at which the economy plays a significant role in defining the social structure of the people differs depending on the influence of certain other forces such as religion and historical background of the people involved. In some cases, the economy is the foundation of all the other factors that shape the society and the ruling economic class of people controls the production activities and use their power to exploit the poor as well as spreading their own beliefs. Improvement in the economy coupled with division of labor will produce positive effects on the society and builds societal solidarity. The economy affects other factors that are responsible for the development of the society and include politics, law and culture. In the modern world, free enterprise, division of labor, class battles, religion, ideology as well as economic forces are the determinant factors in social development. Bibliography Adelman Irma, & Cynthia Taft Morris 1973, Economic growth and social equity in developing countries. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Castles, Stephen 2003, ‘Towards a sociology of forced migration and social transformation,’ Sociology Vol. 37, no. 1, 13-34. Castells, Manuel 2011, The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, NY. Garland, David 2012, The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Giddens Anthony, Mitchell Duneier & Richard Appelbaum P. 1996, Introduction to sociology, WW Norton, NY. Grier, Robin 1997, ‘The effect of religion on economic development: a cross national study of 63 former colonies,’ Kyklos, Vol. 50, no. 1, 47-62. Kumar, Krishan 2009, From post-industrial to post-modern society: New theories of the contemporary world, John Wiley & Sons, London. Lipset, Seymour Martin 1959, ‘Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy,’ American political science review, Vol. 53, no.1, pp. 69-105. Lobao, Linda, & Katherine Meyer 2001, ‘The great agricultural transition: crisis, change, and social consequences of twentieth century US farming.’ Annual review of sociology, 103-124. McCleary, Rachel M., & Robert Barro J. 2006, ‘Religion and economy,’ The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 49-72. Savage Mike & Roger Burrows 2007, ‘The coming crisis of empirical sociology,’ Sociology, Vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 885-899. Spaargaren Gert & Arthur Mol P. 1992, ‘Sociology, environment, and modernity: Ecological modernization as a theory of social change,’ Society & natural resources, Vol. 5, no. 4,pp 323-344. Read More