Introduction

Prior to the advent of the social sciences, our understanding of society was guided by the perception of sages and savants, who mixed descriptions of ‘actually existing social situations’ with prescriptions regarding a desirable social structure, norms of behaviour, and cultural patterns. These native philosophers did not make a distinction between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’. In fact, the treatises, particularly of the Indian sages, were couched in terms of a ‘desirable’ future for our culture. They can also be seen as a set of prescriptions and proscriptions to be followed by the people at a given time. These writings cannot be treated as dependable descriptions even of our past; and certainly our present cannot be regarded as a departure from these normative contours. While these are certainly of historical interest, they cannot be regarded as sociological treatises.

We had already indicated that earlier social science attempts to understand change focused either (i) on the origins of society, or of social institutions in them, or (ii) on delineating stages of their evolution. There were later attempts to verify such reconstructions of the past through empirical researches in contemporary societies. However, this line of enquiry did not yield much by way of a sociological theory of change.

Researchers of a later era exhibited more interest in outlining the existing social structures. They were oriented more towards the ‘present’. The preoccupation with the present naturally ignored the phenomenon of change per se. At best they indulged in comparisons between societies and highlighted the differences, and such differences were explained in terms of different rates of growth. Societies were divided into two groups—developed and underdeveloped. Somehow, practitioners of sociology came to concentrate on developed societies—societies to which they themselves belonged—and practitioners of social anthropology specialized in undeveloped societies—the primitive tribes, particularly of the non-Western world, as well as the indigenous population of the Americas, and of Australia and New Zealand.

Living in the midst of rapid social change, sociologists became interested mainly (i) in the persistence of social structures, and (ii) in the mechanisms of social control arresting the processes of disorganization. For quite different reasons, social anthropologists also focused on the existing social structures of primitive people to identify the differences between primitive and modern societies. To them, the slow-moving primitive societies appeared to be non-changing. Thus, the twin disciplines of sociology and social anthropology initially concentrated on the present and only indirectly paid attention to social and cultural change. The persistence of earlier theories led to the contrast between developed and underdeveloped societies being seen as the product of the various processes of change operating in these societies.

Although change did not figure as such in early phases of the development of Western sociology (which came about with the advent of the Industrial Revolution), the consideration of this phenomenon was present in one form or the other. The processes mentioned above did figure in the analyses. Western sociology paid particular attention to the phenomenon of social disorganization on the one hand, and attempted to measure the consequences of innovation on the other. While it is true that one does not find on change in a large number of earlier textbooks of sociology originating in the West, in all of them there is a discussion on social control, crime, and other forms of disorganization such as divorce, juvenile delinquency, prostitution, etc. Changes brought about by the introduction of new technology also received their attention.

It would thus be wrong to allege that no attention was paid to change by Western sociology. Major contributions have been made to understand the phenomenon of conformity and social deviation. This phase in the social sciences, oriented towards the present, treated change in terms of dislocation and rearrangement of social relationships.

Useful material has been produced by Western sociologists with regard to changes in social values, institutional change, changes in the distribution of possessions and rewards, changes in personnel, and changes in attitudes and abilities. Those who studied industrialization as an aspect of social change indicated the non-utility of some elements of pre-industrial social systems, and identified prerequisites for an industrial system. For example, scholars recognized that an industrial system requires individual mobility (that is, less attachment to a place) and placement on the basis of merit and not kinship connection—although this premise has been challenged by empirical evidence from several non-Western societies. In terms of institutions, changes were noticed in the institutions of property, labour and exchange. Transferability of the rights to property, mobility of labour, and commercialization of exchange (assigning monetary value to industrial products) were seen as necessary in the context of industrialization. Taking a cue from Max Weber, industrialization can be seen as a process towards the institutionalization of rationality—involving a rational organization of work and a supportive bureaucracy. These studies have also analysed the consequences of industrialization in terms of urban growth, reduction in the proportion of people engaged in agriculture, development of skilled manpower, creation of markets, emergence of banking as an institution, and the growth of a consumer culture.

Since all changes occurring in society could not be directly attributed to industrialization, scholars coined the term Modernization to encompass the entire range of changes in industrial society. The adjective ‘Modern’ suggested a dichotomy, in which the opposite pole was vaguely regarded as ‘Tradition’. Modernization thus implied an irreversible progression from tradition to modernity. This process was initially seen as a natural movement as it occurred in the developed societies of the West through inventions and discoveries. The spread of these elements to other areas of the world as part of the colonization process was seen as ‘Westernization’ or as ‘sponsored modernization’. It is in this context that a useful distinction was made between invention (and discovery) and its adaptation by other cultures (diffusion); the new term innovation was proposed to cover all these processes.¹ It was recognized that modernization can start from different vantage points and may take different routes. In this sense, modernization is not a new phenomenon.

Sociological studies of the so-called underdeveloped societies also began as studies of existing social structures. It is only in the post-World War II era—characterized by de-colonization and development—that changes occurring in them became the subject matter of study. They were carried out in the framework of Westernization-Modernization theories, propelled by programmes of directed change to promote development—primarily economic development.