essay on social changes

Your Article Library

Essay on social change: meaning, characteristics and other details.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Here is your essay on Social Change! 

Introduction:

Change is the internal law. History and science bear ample testimony to the fact that change is the law of life. Stagnation is death. They tell us stories of man’s rise and growth from the Paleolithic age to the Neolithic age, then to the Stone Age and next to the copper age etc. On the stage of the world, scenes follow scenes, acts follow acts, and drama follows drama. Nothing stands still.

Image Courtesy : 2.bp.blogspot.com/_1-xvEOICRwA/SHQeR5CcI3I/AAAAAAAAAVs/OUtRL2GLZXg/s1600-h/PontmorlaisWest_CircusParade_1948-49_CliveArthur.jpg

The wheel of time moves on and on. The old dies and the young steps into the world. We ring out the old and ring in the new. A child changes into a boy, a boy into a youth and then into a man. The bud changes into a flower. The dawn turns into morning, morning into noon, noon into afternoon and afternoon into night.

It is said, “Today is not yesterday, we ourselves change. No change is permanent, it is subject to change. This is observed in all spares of activity. Change indeed is painful, yet needful”. Flowing water is wholesome, and stagnant water is poisonous. Only when it flows through and alters with changes, it is able to refresh and recreate.

Change is an ever-present phenomenon. It is the law of nature. Society is not at all a static phenomenon, but it is a dynamic entity. It is an ongoing process. The social structure is subject to incessant changes. Individuals may strive for stability, yet the fact remains that society is an every changing phenomenon; growing, decaying, renewing and accommodating itself to changing conditions.

The human composition of societies changes over time, technologies expand, ideologies and values take on new components; institutional functions and structures undergo reshaping. Hence, no society remains complete static. Incessant changeability is very inherent nature of human society.

A social structure is a nexus of present relationships. It exists because social beings seek to maintain it. It continues to exist because men demand its continuance. But the existing social structure is influenced by many factors and forces that inevitably cause it to change. Society is thus subject to continuous change.

The change of man and society has been the central and quite dominant concern of sociology right from the time when it emerged as branch of learning. The concern for social change is of great importance not only in studying past changes but also in investigating ‘future’ developments.

Meaning of Social Change :

Change implies all variations in human societies. When changes occur in the modes of living of individuals and social relation gets influenced, such changes are called social changes.

Social change refers to the modifications which take place in life pattern of people. It occurs because all societies are in a constant state of disequilibrium.

The word ‘change’ denotes a difference in anything observed over some period of time. Hence, social change would mean observable differences in any social phenomena over any period of time.

Social change is the change in society and society is a web of social relationships. Hence, social change is a change in social relationships. Social relationships are social processes, social patterns and social interactions. These include the mutual activities and relations of the various parts of the society. Thus, the term ‘social change’ is used to describe variations of any aspect of social processes, social patterns, social interaction or social organization.

Social change may be defined as changes in the social organization, that is, the structure and functions of the society.

Whenever one finds that a large number of persons are engaged in activities that differ from those which their immediate forefathers were engaged in some time before, one finds a social change.

Whenever human behaviour is in the process of modification, one finds that social change is occurring. Human society is constituted of human beings. Social change means human change, since men are human beings. To change society, as says Davis, is to change man.

Theorists of social change agree that in most concrete sense of the word ‘change’, every social system is changing all the time. The composition of the population changes through the life cycle and thus the occupation or roles changes; the members of society undergo physiological changes; the continuing interactions among member modify attitudes and expectations; new knowledge is constantly being gained and transmitted.

Defining Change:

The question to what social change actually means is perhaps the most difficult one within the scientific study of change. It involves the often neglected query of what ‘kind’ and degree of change in what is to be considered social change.

Most analysts of social change deal with this question implicitly somewhere in their theoretical system or in the context of the latter’s application to some empirical case. For the present purpose it should suffice to examine definitions that are frequently used to conceptualise change.

According to Jones “Social change is a term used to describe variations in, or modifications of any aspect of social processes, social patterns, social interaction or social organization”.

As Kingsley Davis says, “By Social change is meant only such alternations as occur in social organization – that is, the structure and functions of society”.

According to Maclver and Page, “Social change refers to a process responsive to many types of changes; to changes the man in made condition of life; to changes in the attitudes and beliefs of men, and to the changes that go beyond the human control to the biological and the physical nature of things”.

Morris Ginsberg defines, “By social change, I understand a change in social structure, e.g., the size of the society, the composition or the balance of its parts or the type of its organization”.

P. Fairchild defines social change as “variations or modifications in any aspects of social process, pattern or form.

B. Kuppuswamy says, “Social change may be defined as the process in which is discernible significant alternation in the structure and functioning of a particular social system”.

H.M. Johnson says, “Social change is either change in the structure or quasi- structural aspects of a system of change in the relative importance of coexisting structural pattern”.

According to Merrill and Eldredge, “Change means that large number of persons are engaging in activities that differ from those which they or their immediate forefathers engaged in some time before”.

Anderson and Parker define, “Social change involves alternations in the structure or functioning of societal forms or processes themselves”.

According to M.D. Jenson, “Social change may be defined as modification in ways of doing and thinking of people.

As H.T. Mazumdar says, “Social change may be defined as a new fashion or mode, either modifying or replacing the old, in the life of people or in the operation of a society”.

According Gillin and Gillin, “Social changes are variations from the accepted modes of life; whether due to alternation in geographical conditions, in cultural equipment, composition of the population or ideologies and brought about by diffusion, or inventions within the group.

By analyzing all the definitions mentioned above, we reach at the conclusion that the two type of changes should be treated as two facts of the same social phenomenon. Two type of changes are e.g. (i) changes in the structure of society, (ii) changes in the values and social norms which bind the people together and help to maintain social order. These two type of changes should not, however, be treated separately because a change in one automatically induces changes in the other.

For example, a change in the attitude of the people may bring about changes in the social structure. Towards the close of the 19 century, there was a tendency in the countries of Western Europe for families to grow smaller in size. There is a general agreement that this has been brought about mainly by voluntary restriction of births”.

In this case, a change in the attitude of the people is mainly responsible for change in the social structure. On the other hand, a change in the social structure may bring about attitudinal change among the members of the society. Transformation of rural society into industrial society is not simply a change in the structure of society. For example, industrialisation has destroyed domestic system of production.

The destruction of domestic system of production has brought women from home to factory and office. The employment of women gave them a new independent outlook. The attitude of independence instead of dependence upon men has become the trait of women’s personally. Hence, these two type of changes should not be treated separately but both of them should be studied together.

The problem of social change is one of the central foci of sociological inquiry. It is so complex and so significant in the life of individual and of society that we have to explore the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of social change in all its ramifications.

Characteristics of Social Change :

The fact of social change has fascinated the keenest minds and still poses some of the great unsolved problems in social sciences. The phenomenon of social change is not simple but complex. It is difficult to understand this in its entirety. The unsolved problems are always pressurising us to find an appropriate answer. To understand social change well, we have to analyse the nature of social change which are as follows:

1. Social Change is Social:

Society is a “web of social relationships” and hence social change obviously means a change in the system of social relationships. Social relationships are understood in terms of social processes and social interactions and social organizations.

Thus, the term social change is used to describe variation in social interactions, processes and social organizations. Only that change can be called social change whose influence can be felt in a community form. The changes that have significance for all or considerable segment of population can be considered as social change.

2. Social Change is Universal:

Change is the universal law of nature. The social structure, social organization and social institutions are all dynamic. Social change occurs in all societies and at all times. No society remains completely static.

Each society, no matter how traditional and conservative, is constantly undergoing change. Just as man’s life cannot remain static, so does society of all places and times. Here adjustment take place and here conflict breaks down adjustment. Here there is revolution and here consent. Here men desire for achieving new goals, and here they return to old ones.

3. Social Change occurs as an Essential law:

Change is the law of nature. Social change is also natural. Change is an unavoidable and unchangeable law of nature. By nature we desire change. Our needs keep on changing to satisfy our desire for change and to satisfy these needs, social change becomes a necessity. The truth is that we are anxiously waiting for a change. According to Green, “The enthusiastic response of change has become almost way of life.

4. Social Change is Continuous:

Society is an ever-changing phenomenon. It is undergoing endless changes. It is an “ongoing process”. These changes cannot be stopped. Society is subject to continuous change. Here it grows and decays, there it finds renewal, accommodates itself to various changing conditions.

Society is a system of social relationship. But these social relationships are never permanent. They are subject to change. Society cannot be preserved in a museum to save it from the ravages of time. From the dawn of history, down to this day, society has been in flux.

Social change manifests itself in different stages of human history. In ancient times when life was confined to caves (Stone Age), the social system was different from that of the computer age today. There is no fixity in human relationships. Circumstances bring about many a change in the behaviour patterns.

5. Social Change Involves No-Value Judgement:

Social change does not attach any value judgement. It is neither moral nor immoral, it is amoral. The question of “what ought to be” is beyond the nature of social change. The study of social change involves no-value judgement. It is ethically neutral. A correct decision on what is empirically true is not the same as correct decision on what ought to be.

6. Social Change is Bound by Time Factors:

Social change is temporal. It happens through time, because society exists only as a time-sequences. We know its meaning fully only by understanding it through time factors. For example, the caste system which was a pillar of stability in traditional Indian society, is now undergoing considerable changes in the modern India.

There was less industrialisation in India during 50s. But in 90s, India has become more industrialized. Thus, the speed of social change differs from age to age. The reason is that the factors which cause social change do not remain uniform with the changes in time.

7. Rate and Tempo of Social Change is Uneven:

Though social change is a must for each and every society, the rate, tempo, speed and extent of change is not uniform. It differs from society to society. In some societies, its speed is rapid; in another it may be slow. And in some other societies it occurs so slowly that it may not be noticed by those who live in them. For example, in the modern, industrial urban society the speed and extent of change is faster than traditional, agricultural and rural society.

8. Definite Prediction of Social Change is Impossible:

It is very much difficult to make out any prediction on the exact forms of social change. A thousand years ago in Asia, Europe and Latin America the face of society was vastly different from that what exists today. But what the society will be in thousand years from now, no one can tell.

But a change there will be. For example, industrialisation and urbanisation has brought about a series of interrelated changes in our family and marriage system. But we cannot predict the exact forms which social relationships will assume in future. Similarly, what shall be our ideas, attitudes and value in future, it is unpredictable.

9. Social Change Shows Chain-Reaction Sequences:

Society is a dynamic system of interrelated parts. Changes in one aspect of life may induce a series of changes in other aspects. For example, with the emancipation of women, educated young women find the traditional type of family and marriage not quite fit to their liking.

They find it difficult to live with their parents-in-law, obeying the mother-in-law at every point. They desire separate homes. The stability of marriages can no longer be taken for granted. The changing values of women force men to change their values also. Therefore, society is a system of interrelated parts. Change in its one aspect may lead to a series of changes in other aspects of the society.

10. Social Change takes place due to Multi-Number of Factors:

Social change is the consequence of a number of factors. A special factor may trigger a change but it is always associated with other factors that make the triggering possible. Social change cannot be explained in terms of one or two factors only and that various factors actually combine and become the ’cause’ of the change. M. Ginsberg observes: “A cause is an assemblage of factors which, in interaction with each other, undergo a change”. There is no single master key by which we can unlock all the doors leading to social change. As a matter of fact, social change is the consequence of a number of factors.

11. Social Changes are Chiefly those of Modifications or of Replacement:

Social changes may be considered as modifications or replacements. It may be modification of physical goods or social relationships. For example, the form of our breakfast food has changed. Though we eat the same basic materials such as meats, eggs corn etc. which we ate earlier, their form has been changed.

Ready-to-eat cornflakes, breads, omelets are substituted for the form in which these same materials were consumed in earlier years. Further, there may be modifications of social relationships. For example, the old authoritarian family has become the small equalitarian family. Our attitudes towards women’s status and rights, religion, co-education etc. stand modified today.

12. Social Change may be Small-scale or Large-scale:

A line of distinction is drawn between small-scale and large scale social change. Small-scale change refers to changes within groups and organizations rather than societies, culture or civilization.

According W.E. Moore, by small-scale changes we shall mean changes in the characteristics of social structures that though comprised within the general system identifiable as a society, do not have any immediate and major consequences for the generalised structure (society) as such.

13. Short-term and Long-term Change:

The conceptualization of the magnitude of change involves the next attribute of change, the time span. That is to say, a change that may be classified as ‘small-scale from a short-term perspective may turn out to have large-scale consequences when viewed over a long period of time, as the decreasing death rate since the 1960 in India exemplifies.

14. Social Change may be Peaceful or Violent:

At times, the attribute ‘peaceful’ has been considered as practically synonymous with ‘gradual’ and ‘violent’ with ‘rapid’. The term ‘violence’ frequently refers to the threat or use of physical force involved in attaining a given change. In certain sense, rapid change may ‘violently’ affect the emotions, values and expectations of those involved.

According to W.E. Moore, “A ‘true’ revolution, a rapid and fundamental alternation in the institutions or normative codes of society and of its power distribution, is rapid and continuous by definition and is likely to be violent, but may well be orderly as opposed to erratic”.

‘Peaceful’ has to do with the changes that take place by consent, acceptance or acquisition and that are enforced by the normative restraints of society.

15. Social Change may be Planned or Unplanned:

Social change may occur in the natural course or it is done by man deliberately. Unplanned change refers to change resulting from natural calamities, such as famines and floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruption etc. So social change is called as the unchangeable law of nature. The nature is never at rest.

Planned social change occurs when social changes are conditioned by human engineering. Plans, programmes and projects are made by man in order to determine and control the direction of social change.

Besides that by nature human beings desire change. The curiosity of a man never rests; nothing checks his desire to know. There is always a curiosity about unknown. The needs of human beings are changing day by day. So to satisfy these needs they desire change.

16. Social Change may be Endogenous or Exogenous:

Endogenous social change refers to the change caused by the factors that are generated by society or a given subsystem of society. Conflict, communication, regionalism etc. are some of the examples of endogenous social change.

On the other hand, exogenous sources of social change generally view society as a basically stable, well-integrated system that is disrupted or altered only by the impact of forces external to the system (e.g., world situation, wars, famine) or by new factors introduced into the system from other societies. For example, technological transfer and brain drain, political and cultural imperialism may lead to the diffusion of cultural traits beyond the limits of single societies.

17. Change Within and Change of the System:

The distinction between kinds of change has been developed by Talcott Parsons in his analysis of change ‘within’ and change ‘of the system, i.e., the orderly process of ongoing change within the boundaries of a system, as opposed to the process resulting in changes of the structure of the system under consideration. Conflict theorists draw our attention to the fact that the cumulative effect of change ‘within’ the system may result in a change ‘of’ the system.

To conclude, some of the attributes most frequently used in describing change are: magnitude of change (small-scale, large-scale changes), time pan, direction, rate of change, amount of violence involved. These dimensions should not be taken as either/or attributes but rather as varying along a continuum from one extreme to another (e.g., revolutionary vs evolutionary).

Other categorization that have been devised involve division of changes on the basis of such characteristics as continuous vs spasmodic, orderly vs erratic and the number of people (or roles) affected by or involved in change.

Although no hard and fast categories have yet been developed into which we can fit different types of change, the use of the foregoing distinctions, may be helpful in clarifying one’s conceptualization of any type of change or at least, they can help one to understand the complexities involved in developing a definition of the subject of social change.

Social Evolution :

In explaining the concept of social change, sociologists from time to time used words and expressions like evolution, growth, progress, development, revolution, adaptation etc. discarding one in preference to the other.

Though the concept of evolution was known to the generation preceding the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, the notion of social evolution was taken directly from the theories of biological evolution. Evolution in biological science means the developing of an organism.

It is a process by which a thing continuously adopts itself to its environment and manifests its own nature. Consequently it is a change which permeates the whole character of the object. Many social theorists from Herbert Spencer to Sumner applied this conception of ‘organic evolution’ in various ways to the explanation of social change.

The term ‘evolution’ is borrowed from biological sciences to Sociology. The term ‘organic evolution’ is replaced by ‘social evolution’ in sociology. Whereas the term ‘organic evolution’ is used to denote the evolution of organism, the expression of ‘social evolution is used to explain the evolution of human society.

It was hoped that the theory of social evolution would explain the origin and development of man. Anthropologists and Sociologists wanted to find a satisfactory and significant explanation of how our society evolved.

They were very much impressed by the idea of organic evolution which explain how one species evolves into another, and wanted to apply the same to the social world. Hence, the concept of social evolution is quite popular in sociological discussion.

Sociologists adopted the word ‘evolution’ to convey the sense of growth and change in social institutions. Social institutions are the result of evolution. They began to work to trace the origin of the ideas, institutions and of the developments.

The term ‘evolution’ is derived from the Latin word ‘evolvere’ which means to ‘develop’ or ‘to unfold’. It is equivalent to the Sanskrit word ‘Vikas’. Evolution literally means gradually ‘unfolding’ or ‘unrolling’. It indicates changes from ‘within’ and not from ‘without’. The concept of evolution applies more precisely to the internal growth of an organism.

Evolution means more than growth. The word ‘growth’ connotes a direction of change but only of quantitative character e.g., we say population grows, town grows etc. But evolution involves something more intrinsic; change not merely in size but also in structure.

According to Maclver and Page, “Evolution involves something more intrinsic, a change not merely in size but at least in structure also”.

Ogburn and Nimkoff write, “Evolution is merely a change in a given direction”.

Ginsberg says, “Evolution is defined as a process of change which results in the production of something new but revealing “an orderly continuity in transition”. That is to say, we have evolution when” the series of changes that occur during a period of time appear to be, not a mere succession of changes, but a ‘continuous process’, through which a clear ‘thread of identity runs’.

Evolution describes a series of interrelated changes in a system of some kind. It is a process in which hidden or latent characters of a thing reveal themselves. It is a principle of internal growth. It shows not merely what happens to a thing but also what happens within it. “What is latent becomes manifest in it and what is potential is made actual.”

Evolution is an order to change which unfolds the variety of aspects belonging to the nature of changing object. We cannot speak of evolution when an object or system is changed by forces acting upon it from without. The change must occur within the changing unity.

Characteristics of Social Evolution :

According to Spencer, “Evolution is the integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion during which matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity.” Society, according to his view, is also subject to a similar process of evolution; that is, changing from a state of ‘incoherent homogeneity’ to a state of ‘coherent heterogeneity.’

Evolution is, thus, a gradual growth or development from simple to complex existence. The laws of evolution which were initially fashioned after the findings of charters. Darwin, came to be known as social Darwinism during the nineteenth century.

Spencer’s point of view can best be illustrated by an example. In the beginning, the most primitive stage, every individual lived an individualistic life, trying to know and do things about himself alone.

Every man was more or less similar, in so far as his ignorance about organized social life was concerned. In this sense, the people were homogenous. At that stage, neither they were able to organize their social life, nor could they work together. There was no system; nothing definite, expect their incoherent or loose-group-formations.

Thus, they formed “an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity,” But gradually, their experiences, realizations and knowledge increased. They learnt to live and to work together. The task of social organisation was taken on, division of labour was elaborated; and each found a particular type of work which he could do best. All worked in an organized and definite way towards a definite goal. Thus, a state of “definite, coherent heterogeneity” was reached.

Herbert Spencer has prescribed four important principles of evolution. These principles are:

1. Social evolution is on cultural or human aspect of the law of change of cosmic evolution.

2. Hence, social evolution take place in the same way at all places and progress through some definite and inevitable stages.

3. Social evolution is gradual.

4. Social evolution is progressive.

In addition to this characteristics, other features of social evolution are clearly evident which are discussed below.

Evolution is a Process of Differentiation and Integration:

The concept of evolution as a process of differentiation cum-integration was first developed by the German Sociologists Von Baer and subsequently by Spencer and many others.

(i) In order to understand this statement, i.e. evolution takes place through differentiation and Integration; we have to study the history of a society over a long, period of time. Then we shall find that its associations, institutions, etc” are constantly evolving or developing.

In social evolution, new and ever newer circumstances and problems are constantly appearing. In order to cope with them, new associations and institutions are evolved. For example, a community in a town previously. When the town had been a small community, its management was the responsibility of a Panchayat or a town area committee.

Now that the town has become a big commercial centre, its management is in the hands of a dozer different committees. One of them looks after the educational facilities, another looks after the sanitation, a third is deputed to look after the octroi, while a fourth manages the markets and so on. In this way, this differentiation increases with the evolution of the town.

(ii) But without Integration, this differentiation cannot take one anywhere. Hence, synthesis along with differentiation is necessary. In urban areas one can find various sectarian associations such as Khandayat Kshatriya Mahasabha, Kayastha society, Brahman Samiti, Napita associations etc.

At the same time, one also can find institutions: ‘Arya Samaj’,” etc. which synthesize and compromise associations based on various caste and class distinctions. Today, while new nations are coming into being in the human society, equally strong efforts are being made to create a world society by compromising these nations.

(iii) By virtue of this double processes of differentiation and integration, the efficiency of the society is being constantly increased. Division of labour is the magic word of modern economic evolution. By an increase in the number of associations and institutions in society, work in various spheres is performed more successfully. And because of the process of synthesis, various spheres take advantage of each other’s efficiency also.

Maclver points it out in a very systematic manner. According to him, evolution or differentiation manifests itself in society by (a) a greater division of society by labour, so that thereby a more elaborate system of cooperation, because the energy of more individuals is concentrated on more specific tasks, a more intricate nexus of functional relationships, is sustained within the group; (b) an increase in the number and the variety of functional associations and institutions, so that each is more defined or more limited in the range or character of its service; and (c) a greater diversity and refinement in the instruments of social communication, perhaps above all in the medium of language.

Various sociologists have laid stress on one or another of these aspect of evolution. Thus, Emile Durkheim has insisted on the preeminent importance of the social division of labour as a criterion of social development. Other writers have taken the various aspects together and sought to show that society passes through a definite series of evolutionary stages.

Social Evolution does not always proceed by Differentiation:

Morris Ginsberg writes, “The notion that evolution is a movement from the simple to the complex can be and has been seriously disputed.” In every field where we find the forces of differentiation at work, there the opposite trends are also manifested. For example in the development of languages, where the process of differentiation has been stressed, we have many disconnecting facts.

The modern languages derived from Sanskrit Like Bengali, Gujarati, Telugu and Tamil cannot be compared in their structure with the richness and diversity of their origin. Here the process is not towards differentiation but towards simplification.

In the development of religion too, the transition from fusion to differentiation is difficult to see. On the whole we find that social evolution does not always proceed by differentiation.

However in spite of the various difficulties, the concept of evolution still retains its usefulness. Maclver has strongly supported the principle of social evolution. He has criticised the practice of believing social evolution to be imaginary. Social evolution is a reality. Maclver has given some arguments in favour of the reality of social evolution.

He emphasizes, if we open the pages of History, we find that in the beginning there was no differentiation of institutions within human society or the performance of diverse functions. But latter on, as culture and civilization progressed, differentiation increased and it is even now increasing. This historical fact is an evidence of the extent and element of reality in the principle of social evolution.

Social Evolution and Organic Evolution :

Though ‘social evolution’ is borrowed from the biological concept of ‘organic evolution’, still then these two terms are not one and the same. There are some basic differences between the two which are as follows:

Firstly, organic evolution implies the differentiation in the bodily structure, which is generally in the form of new organs to use for different purpose. But social evolution does not imply this. Man is the centre of social evolution.

He need not have to develop new organ to adjust himself with changed conditions of life. Because man has the capacity of inventing tools, making instruments and devising techniques to control the forces of nature and to adjust himself with the natural conditions. He can look before and after.

Secondly, in organic evolution, the transmission of qualities takes place through biological heredity, i.e. through ‘genes’. But social evolution takes place through ideas, discoveries, inventions and experiences. Here the changes are transmitted mostly through the mental ability and genius of man.

Thirdly, in case of organic evolution only the descending generation is affected by the structural modification, alterations. But in social evolution even the old as well as the new generations are affected by it. For example, invention of new techniques and devices is influencing the present as well as the future generations.

Lastly, the organic evolution is continuous. There can be no break in it. It is continuous because of the irresistible pressure within the organisation and of environment or natural forces. But such a continuity may not be observed in the case of social evolution. It is subject to disruption. It is an intermittent. It lacks continuity.

Social Change and Social Evolution :

Social change is an ever-present phenomenon everywhere. When we speak of social change, we suggest so far no law, no theory, no direction, even no continuity. Social change occurs in all societies and at all times. No society remains completely static. The term ‘social change’ itself is wholly neutral, implying nothing but differences that take place in human interactions and interrelations.

In explaining this concept of social change, modern sociologists from time to time used different words and expressions. Evolution is one of them. Many social theorists form Herbert Spencer to Sumner applied this conception of evolution in various ways to the interpretation of social change. But many modern theorists, particularly American, have abandoned the idea that social change takes place by evolutionary stages.

Evolution describes a series of interrelated changes in a system of some kind. It is a process in which hidden or latent characters of a thing reveal themselves. It shows not merely what happens to a thing but also what happens within it.

Evolution is an order of change which unfolds the variety of aspects belonging to the nature of changing object. We cannot speak of evolution when an object or system is changed by forces acting upon it from without.

The change must occur within the changing unity. Evolution is a process involving a changing adaptation of the object to its environment and a further manifestation of its own nature. Consequently, it is a change permeating the whole character of the object, a sequence in which the equilibrium of its entire structure undergoes modification.

According to Maclver, evolution is not mere change. It is an immanent process resulting in increased complexity and differentiation. He writes, “the Kernel of organic evolution is differentiation, a process in which latent or rudimentary characters take a distinct and variable form within the unity of the organism.”

Maclver further says, evolution or differentiation manifests itself in society by (a) a greater division of labour resulting in great specialization (b) an increase in the number and variety of functional associations, (c) a greater diversity and refinement in the means of social communication. “When these changes are proceeding, society is evolving”, concludes Maclver.

The concept of progress found notable expression in the writings of the French Philosophers such as Turgot, Condorcent and Fancis Bacon of the 18th century and has been a dynamic agent in the social activity of modern man. Sociologists such as Saint Simon, Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer were the earlier exponents of the idea of progress. According Comte, it was the intellectual elite who could bring about an era of progress.

Etymologically, the word progress means “moving forward.” But moving forward or backward, progress or regress are relative terms. If it be remarked that such and such country has progressed, no meaningful information can be extracted from such a statement unless the direction towards which progress has been made be known.

In this way, progress is not mere change. It is a change in particular direction. The word progress cannot be appended to change in every direction. For example, if the condition of agriculture in a particular country worsens and a famine results, it is undeniably a change, but it will not be called progress. Progress means moving forward in the direction of achievement of some aim.

Different thinkers have defined progress in different ways. The important definitions are as follows:

Maclver writes, “By progress we imply not merely direction, but direction towards some final goal, some destination determined ideally not simply by the objective consideration at work.

Lumely defines, “Progress is a change, but it is a change in a desired or approved direction, not in any direction.”

Ginsberg defines progress as “A development or evolution in a direction which satisfies rational criterion of value”.

According to Ogburn, “Progress is a movement towards an objective thought to be desirable by the general group for the visible future.

Burgess writes, “Any change or adoption to an existent environment that makes it easier for a person or group of persons or other organized from of life to live may be said to represent progress”.

Progress means an advance towards some ideally desirable end. Since progress means change for the better it definitely implies a value judgement of highly subjective character. For value, like taste, has no measuring rod.

A particular social change may seem to be progressive to one person to another it may seem retrogression, because they have different values. The concept of social progress is, therefore, subjective but it has reference to an objective condition.

Criteria of Progress :

It is difficult to explain the criteria of progress which are relative to their temporal context. Social values determine progress. Whether any change will be considered as progress or not depends upon the social values. Social values change with time and place. The criteria of progress change with the change of social values. Hence, it is difficult to formulate a universally acceptable criterion of progress. However, the following can be tentatively suggested.

Health and Longevity of Life:

Average length of life is one index of progress whether the world is growing better. But it does not necessarily follow from this that a longer life must be more pleasurable and better.

In the opinion of some persons, wealth or economic progress is a criterion of progress.

Population:

Some people are of the view that an increase in population is a sign of progress. But over-population cannot be a sign of progress.

Moral Conduct:

According to some thinkers, moral conduct is the criterion of progress.

Since life has many facets, it is not possible to formulate any one criterion of progress. But is stated that the integrated development of society is the criterion of progress. Integrated development comprehends all mental, physical and spiritual aspects including above criteria.

Nature of Progress :

By analysing above definitions, we find that progress is a change, a change for the better. When we speak of progress, we simply not merely direction, but direction towards some final goal. The nature of the progress depends upon two factors, the nature of the end and the distance of which we are from it.

The modern writers today speak of social progress though they do not have a single satisfactory explanation of the concept. In order to have a better understanding of the meaning of progress, we have to analyse the following attributes.

1. Progress is Dependent upon Social Values:

Progress dependent upon and is determined by social values. It means that progress does not have precisely the same meaning at all times and places, because values change from time to time. There is no object which can uniformly or eternally be considered valuable irrespective of time and place.

Due to this reason, Maclver and Page have written, “The concept of progress is a chameleon that take on the colour of the environment when we feel adjusted to that environment, and some contrasting colour when we feel maladjusted.

2. There is a Change in Progress:

Change is one of its essential attributes. The concept of progress presupposes the presence of change. Without change, there can be no progress.

3. In Progress the Desired End is Achieved:

The progress is not mere change. It is a change in a particular direction. Broadly speaking, progress means an advance towards some ideally desirable end. It always refers to the changes that leads to human happiness. Not all changes imply progress.

4. Progress is Communal:

Progress from its ethical point of view, may be personal but from the sociological point of view, is communal since sociology is that science of society. In it, the individual is taken into consideration only as a part of society. Only that change, whose influence can be felt on entire community or society for its betterment or welfare, can be called social progress.

5. Progress is Volitional:

Progress does not come about through inactivity. Desire and volition are needed for progress. Efforts have to be made and when these efforts are successful it is called progress. It is an uphill task. It must be remembered that every effort is not progressive.

6. Progress is Variable:

The concept of progress varies from society to society, place to place and from time to time. It does not remain constant in all times and of all places. That which is today considered as the symbol or progress may tomorrow be considered and treated as a sign of regress. For example, in India, free mixing of young boys and girls may be interpreted as an indication of regress, whereas the same may symbolise progress in the Western Countries.

7. Criteria of Progress are Variable:

As stated earlier criteria of progress are relative to their temporal context. Social values determine progress. But social values change with time and place. Therefore, criteria of progress vary from place to place. Further, different scholars have prescribed different criteria of progress. For example, health and longevity have been considered as criteria of progress by some, while other have taken economic security, moral conduct as the criteria of progress.

8. Progress does not have a Measuring Rod:

The term progress is very much subjective and value-loaded. It is not demonstrable with a degree of certainty. We cannot show it to others unless they first accept our evaluations. We may or may not agree that there is progress, but we cannot prove it. Progress is a reality which is immeasurable and undemonstrable. Anything that cannot be demonstrated and measured scientifically cannot be rejected socially. It is especially true in the case of progress.

To conclude, progress conveys the sense of something better and improved. The advancement in technology was opposed to contribute to progress. But, these developments did not carry the sense of progress. It was advancement only in a particular direction.

The comprehensiveness of progress was missing. The extremes of poverty and health, of ignorance and enlightenment had continued to coexist as ever before. Progress as conceived over the ages past, is now considered to be illusive. The end of progress, it has come to be accepted, cannot be determined.

The ‘progress’ in the West did not meet all its ends. It did not bring the fulfillment, that was taken to be its true aim. For this, the use of the term progress was considered inappropriate. The application of the term fell into disfavour. More so, the growing belief that sociology should be value-free also discouraged the use of this expression.

Social Change and Social Progress :

Change is the basic content of both evolution and progress. But the term change is wholly neutral, only suggesting variation in a phenomena over, a period of time. The moment the specifications like direction, desirability, and value-judgement are added to change, another terminology ‘progress’ becomes necessary to describe the process of change.

Progress is not mere change. It is a change in particular direction. It cannot be appended to change in every direction. The word progress means moving forward in the direction and achievement of some desired goal. It is certainly a change, a change for the better not for the worse. The concept of progress always involves and implies value judgement. It is not possible to speak of progress without reference to standards. Not all changes imply progress.

But social change is a generic term, an objective term describing one of the fundamental processes. There is no value-judgement attached to it. It is true that some changes are beneficial to mankind and some are harmful.

But social change is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. The study of social change involves no value-judgement, while the concept of social progress implies values judgement. Social progress means improvement, betterment, moving to a higher level from a lower level.

Social Evolution and Social Progress :

In the earlier theories of biological evolution, the concept of social evolution was intimately connected with social progress. For the social evolutionists of the nineteenth century from Auguste Comte to Herbert Spencer and Lester F. Ward, social evolution was, in effect, social progress. Modern sociologists, particularly Americans, do not hold this proposition.

They point out that evolution does not mean progress, because when a society is more evolved it does not necessarily follow that it is more progressive. If it would have been progressive, Maclver and Page remark that people in the more evolved society are better or better fitted to survive or more moral or more healthy than those we call primitive. Even if the opposite were true, it would not refute the fact that their society is more evolved.”

Social evolution should also be distinguished from social progress. Firstly L.T. Hobhouse says, evolution means a sort of growth while .social progress means the growth of social life in respect of those qualities to which human beings attach or can rationally attach value. The relation between the two is thus a ‘genus-species’ relation.

Social progress is only one among many possibilities of social evolution; any or every form of social evolution is not a form of social progress. For example, caste system in India is a product of social evolution. But it does not signify progress. Hobhouse concludes, “that it is good, the fact that society has evolved is no proof that it progressed.

Secondly, evolution is merely change in a given direction. It describes a series of interrelated changes in a system of some kind. It refers to an objective condition which is not evaluated as good or bad. On the contrary, progress means change in a direction determined ideally. In other words, it can be said, progress means change for the better not for the worse.

It implies a value-judgement. The evolutionary process may move in accordance with our notion of desirable change, but there is no logical necessity that it should. The concept of progress necessarily involves a concept of end. And the concept of end varies with the mentality and experience of the individual and the group.

The affirmation of evolution “depends on our perception of objective evidences, whereas the affirmation or denial of progress depends on our ideals.” It follows that evolution is a scientific concept and progress is an ethical concept. Evolution is a demonstrable reality; out the term progress is very much subjective and value-loaded and is not demonstrable with a degree of certainty.

While social evolution is clearly distinguished from social progress, we must not loose sight of their relationships. Ethical valuations or ideas (Progress) are socially determined and hence determine the objective phenomena (Evolution) of society. They have always been powerful in shaping and moving the world. In some manner they are active in every process of social change. “All social change has this double character.”

From the above analysis we find, though the above three concepts, social change, social evolution and social progress share many common reference points, they have different intellectual framework. They all articulate same consequential effects.

In all the three processes, one cause produces a number of effects, the effect and cause get intermixed to produce other new effects, again new connections between cause and effect are established and so on goes the process.

Factors of Social Change :

A sociological explanation of change refers not only to the structure that changes but also the factors that effect such a change. Social change has occurred in all societies and in all periods of time. We should, therefore, know what the factors are that produce change. Of course there is little consensus among the representatives of theoretical proposition on the sources.

Besides, the linear as well as the cyclical theorists paid little attention to the determinations of factors involved in social change. Morris Ginsberg has made a systematic analysis of the factors which have been invoked by different writers to explain social change.

Here, our analysis is confined to sociological implantation of the origins and causes of change. Cause will be defined here as set of related factors which, taken together, are both sufficient and necessary for the production of a certain effect.

Attempt has been made to take up each factors of social change by itself and find out the way in which it effects social change. These factors are treated independently, purely for purpose of understanding and we are not of the view that they can influence social change independent of other factors.

Technological Factor :

Technological factor constitute one important source of social change. Technology, an invention, is a great agent of social change. It either initiates or encourages social change. Technology alone holds the key to change. When the scientific knowledge is applied to the problems of life, it becomes technology. In order to satisfy his desires, to fulfill his needs and to make his life more comfortable, man builds civilisation.

The dawn of this new civilization is the single most explosive fact of our lifetimes. It is the central event, the key to the understanding of the years immediately ahead. We have already crossed the first wave (agricultural revolution). We are now the children of the next transformation i.e. the third wave.

We go forward to describe the full power and reach of this extraordinary change. Some speak of a “Looming Space Age”, “Information Age”, “Electronic Era”, or “Global ‘ Village”. Brezezinski has told us, we face a “Technetronic Age”. Sociologist Daniel Bell describes the coming of a “Post-Industrial Society”. Soviet futurists speak of the STR-‘The Scientific-Technological Revolution”. Alvin Toffler has written extensively about the arrival of a “Super Industrial Society”.

Technology is fast growing. Every technological advance makes it possible for us to attain certain results with less effort, at less cost and at less time. It also provides new opportunities and establishes new conditions of life. The social effects of technology are far-reaching.

In the words of W.F. Ogburn, “technology changes society by changing our environment to which we in turn adapt. This change is usually in the material environment and the adjustment that we make with these changes often modifies our customs and social institutions”.

Ogburn and Nimkoff have pointed that a single invention may have innumerable social effects. According to them, radio, for example, has influenced our entertainment, education, politics, sports, literature, knowledge, business, occupation and our modes of organisation. They have given a list consisting of 150 effects of radio in U.S.A.

The pace of change in the modern era is easily demonstrated by reference to rates of technological development. The technological revolution enabled human kind to shift from hunting and gathering to sedentary agriculture and later to develop civilizations.

Technological revolutions enabled societies to industrialize urbanize, specialize, bureaucratize, and take on characteristics that are considered central aspects of modern society. “Modern technology,” remarks the economic historian David Landes, “produces not only more, faster; it turns out objects that could not have been produced under any circumstances by the craft methods of yesterday.

Most important, modern technology has created things that could scarcely have been conceived in the pre-industrial era the camera, the motor car, the aeroplane, the whole array of electronic devices from the radio to the high speed computer, the nuclear power plant, and so on almost adinfinitum…. The result has been an enormous increase in the output and variety of goods and services, and this alone has changed man’s way of life more than anything since the discovery of fire…”

Every technological revolution has brought about increase in the world population. Development and advancement of agriculture resulted in the increase of population in the agricultural communities; rise of commerce gave birth to the populous towns, international trade and international contact and the industrial revolution set the human society on the new pedestal.

Technological changes have influenced attitudes, beliefs and traditions. The factory system and industrialization, urbanization and the rise of working class, fast transport and communication have demolished old prejudices, dispelled superstitions, weakened casteism, and has given rise to the class based society.

Ogborn even goes to the extent of suggesting that the starter in motor car had something to do with the emancipation of women in the America and Western Europe. Development in transport and communication has changed the outlook of the people.

Railways in India have played tremendous role in bringing about social mixing of the people. It has helped people to move out of their local environments and take up jobs in distant corners of the country. Movement of people from East to West and North to South has broken social and regional barriers.

There have come into existence new vocations and trades. People have begun to give up their traditional occupations and are taking to work in the factories and in the offices-commercial as well as Government. This has also made possible the vertical mobility.

A person can now aspire to take up an occupation with higher status than he could have ever thought of in the pre-technological days. Technology has brought about Green Revolution with abundance and variety for the rich.

The rapid changes of every modern society are inextricably interwoven or connected with and somehow dependent upon the development of new techniques, new inventions, new modes of production and new standards of living.

Technology thus is a great bliss. It has made living worthwhile for the conveniences and comfort it provides, and has created numerous vocations, trades and professions. While, giving individual his rightful place, it has made the collectivity supreme.

Technologies are changing and their social consequences are profound. Fundamental changes brought by technology in social structure are discussed as under:

1. Birth of Factory System:

The introduction of machines in the industry has replaced the system of individual production by the factory or mill system. It has led to the creation of huge factories which employ thousands of people and where most of the work is performed automatically.

2. Urbanisation:

The birth of gigantic factories led to urbanisation and big cities came into existence. Many labourers, who were out of employment in rural areas migrated to the sites to work and settled around it. As the cities grew, so did the community of ‘labourers and with it was felt the need for all civic amenities which are essential for society. Their needs were fulfilled by establishing market centers, schools, colleges, hospitals, and recreation clubs. The area further developed when new business came to it with the formation of large business houses.

3. Development of New Agricultural Techniques:

The introduction of machinery into the industry led to the development of new techniques in agriculture. Agricultural production was increased due to the use of new chemical manure. The quality was also improved by the use of superior seeds. All these factors resulted in increase of production. In India, the effect of technology is most apparent in this direction because India is preeminently an agricultural country.

4. Development of Means of Transportation and Communication:

With the development of technology, means of transportation and communication progressed at a surprising rate. These means led to the mutual exchanges between the various cultures. Newspapers, radios, televisions etc. helped to bring news from every corner of the world right into the household. The development of the car, rail, ship and aeroplane made transportation of commodities much easier. As a result national and international trade made unprecedented progress.

5. Evolution of New Classes:

Industrialisation and urbanisation gave birth to the emergence of new classes in modern society. Class struggle arises due to division of society into classes having opposite-interests.

6. New Conceptions and Movements:

The invention of mechanism has also culminated in the generation of new currents in the prevalent thinking. ‘Trade Union’ movements, ‘Lockouts’, ‘Strikes”, “Hartals’, ‘Processions’, ‘Pen down’ became the stocks-in-trade of those who want to promote class interest. These concepts and movements become regular features of economic activity.

The effects of technology on major social institution may be summed up in the following manner:

Technology has radically changed the family organisation and relation in several ways.

Firstly, small equalitarian nuclear family system based on love, equality, liberty and freedom is replacing the old, authoritarian joint family system. Due to invention of birth, control method, the size of family reduced.

Secondly, Industrialisation destroying the domestic system of production has brought women from home to the factories and office. The employment of women meant their independence from the bondage of man. If brought a change in their attitudes and ideas. It meant a new social life for women. It consequently affected every part of the family life.

Thirdly due to technology, marriage has lost its sanctity. It is now regarded as civil contract rather than a religious sacrament. Romantic marriage, inter-caste marriage and late marriages are the effects of technology. Instances of divorce, desertion, separation and broken families are increasing.

Lastly, though technology has elevated the status of women, it has also contributed to the stresses and strains in the relations between men and women at home. It has lessened the importance of family in the process of socialisation of its members.

Technology has effected wide range of changes in our religious life. Many religious practices and ceremonies which once marked the individual and social life, have now been abandoned by them. With the growth of scientific knowledge and modern education, the faith of the people in several old religious beliefs and activities have shaken.

Economic life:

The most striking change due to technological advance, is the change in economic organisation. Industry has been taken away from the household and new types of economic organisation like factories, stores, banks, joint stock companies, stock-exchanges, and corporation have been setup. It has given birth to capitalism with all its attendant evils.

Division of labour, specialization of function, differentiation and integration all the products of technology. Though it has brought in higher standard of living, still then by creating much more middle classes, it has caused economic depression, unemployment, poverty, industrial disputes and infectious diseases.

Effects on State:

Technology has affected the State in several ways. The functions of the State has been widened. A large number of functions of family, such as educative, recreation, health functions have been transferred to the State.

The idea of social welfare State is an offshoot of technology. Transportation and communication are leading to a shift of functions from local Government to the Central Government. The modern Government which rule through the bureaucracy have further impersonalised the human relations.

Social life:

Technological innovations have changed the whole gamut of social and cultural life. The technological conditions of the modern factory system tend to weaken the rigidity of the caste system and strengthen industrializations. It has changed the basis of social stratification from birth to wealth. Urbanization, a consequence of technological advance, produces greater emotional tension and mental strain, instability and economic insecurity.

There is masking of one’s true feelings. Socially, the urbanites are poor in the midst of plenty. “They feel lonely in the crowd”. On all sides, one is confronted with “human machines which possess motion but not sincerity, life but not emotion, heart but not feelings”. Technology has grown the sense of individualism. It has substituted the ‘handi work’ with ‘head work’.

It is clear from the above explanation that technology has profoundly altered our modes of life and also thought. It is capable of bringing about vast changes in society. But is should not be considered as a sole factor of social change. Man is the master as well as a servant of the machine. He has the ability to alter the circumstances which have been the creation of his own inventions or technology.

Cultural Factor of Social Change :

Among all the factors, cultural factor is the most important which works as a major cause of social change. Culture is not something static. It is always in flux. Culture is not merely responsive to changing techniques, but also it itself is a force directing social change.

Culture is the internal life forces of society. It creates itself and develops by itself. It is men who plan, strive and act. The social heritage is never a script that is followed slavishly by people. A culture gives cues and direction to social behaviour.

Technology and material inventions may influence social change but direction and degree of this depends upon the cultural situation as a whole. “Culture is the realm of final valuation”. Men interpret the whole world. He is the master as well as the servant of his own inventions or technology.

To employ Maclver’s simile, technological means may be represented by a ship which can set sail to various ports. The port we sail to remains a cultural choice. Without the ship we could not sail at all. According to the character of the ship we sail fast of ‘slow, take longer or shorter voyages.

Our lives are also accommodated to the conditions on ship board and our experiences vary accordingly. But the direction in which we travel is not predestinated by the design of the ship. The port to which we sail, the direction in which we travel, remains totally of a cultural choice.

It should be noted that technology alone cannot bring vast changes in society. In order to be effective “The technology must have favourable cultural support”. When the cultural factor responds to technological change, it also reacts on it so as to influence the direction and character of social change.

It may be noted that culture not only influences our relationship and values but also influences the direction and character of technological change. For example, different countries like Great Britain, Soviet Union, U.S.A. and India may adopt the same technology, but in so far as their prevalent outlook on life differs, they will apply it in different directions and to different ends.

The atomic energy can be used for munition of war and for production purposes. The industrial plant can turn out armaments or necessaries of life. Steel and iron can be used for building purposes and for warships. Fire can be used for constructive and destructive purposes.

For a better understanding of the relationship between culture and technology, let us analyse here the concept of “cultural lag”.

Cultural Lag:

The concept of ‘cultural lag’, has become a favourite one with sociologists, it is an expression that has a particular appeal in an age in which inventions discoveries and innovations of many kinds are constantly disturbing and threatening older ways of living. In this context, it will serve also to introduce the principle that cultural conditions are themselves important agencies in the process of social change.

The concept of ‘cultural lag’ was first explicitly formulated by W.F. Ogburn in his treaties entitled ‘Social Change’. Lag means crippled movement. Hence, ‘cultural lag’ means the phases of culture which fall behind other phases that keep on moving ahead.

Ogburn’s idea of ‘cultural lag’ is perhaps one of the most important concept influencing the fact of discussion regarding technology and social change. Ogburn distinguishes between “material” and ‘non-material’ culture.

By ‘material culture’ he means things which are ‘tangible’, visible, seen or touched like goods, tools, utensils, furniture, machine. But the ‘non-material’ culture includes things which cannot be touched or tangible such as family, religion, skill, talent. Government and education etc.

According to Ogburn, when changes occur in ‘material culture’, those in turn stimulate changes in ‘non-material’ culture, particularly in what he terms the ‘adaptive’ culture. According to Ogburn, material culture changes by a process which is different in pace from changes in non-material culture.

The larger the technological knowledge of a society, the greater the possibility of a new combinations and innovations. Thus, material culture tends to grow exponentially. Because society cannot develop methods of controlling and utilizing new technology before the technology is accepted and used. There exists a “cultural lag” in creating controls and altering social relationship related to new conditions brought about by new technology.

Cultural lag is due to man’s psychological dogmatism. He is wedded to certain ideologies regarding sex, education and religion. On account of his dogmatic beliefs and ideologies, he is not prepared to change his social institutions. The failure to adopt social institutions to the changes in the material culture leads to cultural lag.

But Maclver points out that “unfortunately it is often adopted without adequate analysis and consequently it has not been developed in a clear and effective manner. According to him, the distinction is not a workable one. Nor again should be assumed that, it is always the ‘material’ or that the main problem is one of adapting the ‘non-material’ to the ‘material’ culture.

Maclver also observes that the term ‘lag’ is not properly applicable to relations between technological factors and the cultural patterns or between the various components of the cultural pattern itself. He has used different words like, ‘technological lag’, ‘technological restraint’, for the resulting imbalance in the different parts of culture.

Kingsley Davis, in his ‘Human Society’ holds that the aspect of culture cannot be divided into material and non-material and that this distinction in no way helps us to understand the nature of technology. Other sociologists, Sutherland, Wood Ward and Maxwell, in their book ‘Introductory Sociology’ point out that Ogburn is guilty of over simplifying the processes of social change.

Social change is a complex phenomenon. The rate, speed and direction of social change is not the same everywhere. So it cannot be explained by simply saying that change first takes place in material culture and thereafter in non-material culture. Ogburn has taken an over simple materialistic view of society.

In spite of various shortcomings, Ogburn’s theory of cultural lag has been proved to be beneficial for the understanding of the cultural factor in bringing about social change. It has been acknowledged by all that there is an intimate connections between the technological advance and our cultural values.

Hence, we may note here that our culture, our thoughts, values, habits are the consequences of technological changes; the latter also is the consequences of changes of the former. Both technology and cultural factors are the two important sources of social change. The two are not only interdependent but also interactive. Man does not simply want a thing but he wants a thing which may also be beautiful and appealing to his senses.

Dowson and Gettys, in introduction to Sociology’, rightly remark, “Culture tends to give direction and momentum to social change to set limits beyond which social change cannot occur.

It is the culture which has kept the social relationship intact. It makes people think not of their own but also of the others. Any change in cultural valuation will have wider repercussion on the personality of the individual and the structure of the group. Every technological invention, innovation, new industrial civilization or new factor disturbs an old adjustment.

The disturbance created by mechanism was so great that it seemed to be the enemy of culture, as indeed all revolutions seem. The wealth-bringing machine brought also, ugliness, shoddiness, haste, standardization. It brought new hazards, new diseases, and industrial fatigue.

That was not the fault of the machines and power plants. It was due to the ruthlessness and greed of those who controlled these great inventions. But human values or cultural values reasserted themselves against economic exploitation. Culture began, at first very slowly, to redirect the new civilization. It made the new means of living at length more tractable to the uses of personality and new arts blossomed on the ruins of the old.

To conclude, social systems are directly or indirectly the creation of cultural values. So eminent sociologist Robert Bierstedt has rightly remarked, “What people think, in short, determines in every measure… what they do and what they want”. Thus, there a definite relation is a definite relation between changing beliefs and attitudes and changing social institutions. So Hobhouse says, there is “a broad correlation between the system of institutions and mentally behind them”.

Demographic Factor of Social Change:

The demographic factor plays the most decisive role in causing social change. The quantitative view of demography takes into account the factors that determine the population: its size, numbers, composition, density and the local distribution etc.

The population of every community is always changing both in numbers and in composition. The changes in population have a far-reaching effect on society. During the 19th century, the population of most countries of Western Europe fell down. During the same time also, the death rate of these countries declined. This double phenomenon is unprecedented in the history of man.

Population changes have occurred all through human history. It is due to various reasons such as migration, invasion, and war, pestilence, changing food supply and changing mores. There was depopulation and overpopulation in times past. The swift and steady decline of both the birth rate and death in the past 70 years or so witnesses to a great social transformation.

In a society where the size or number of female children is greater than the number of male children, we will find a different system of courtship, marriage and family disorganisation from that where the case is reverse. Women command less respect in that community where their numbers are more.

It has always been recognised that there exists a reciprocal relation between population and social structure. The social structure influences population changes and is affected by them. It is beyond doubt that economic conditions and population rates are interdependent. Increasing 254 Social Change interaction results from an increase in the size and density of population. Increase in population also leads to an increase of social differentiation and a division of labour.

With the changes in size, number and density of population, changes take place in composition. The most important reasons for the contemporary population explosion are the tremendous technological changes on the one hand and a most spectacular advance in controlling the diseases by science and preventive medicines on the other hand.

Advancement in science and technology is indirectly boosting the world population by delaying the death rate. For example, take the case of ‘Malaria’. This disease was responsible for the death of million of people in India and other countries.

But it has now been completely eliminated by destroying the malaria carrying mosquitoes with the use of pesticides. Surgery too has advanced so much today. The vital organs of human body such as kidney and heart can be transplanted or replaced when worn out.

The growth of population has given birth to a great variety of social problems such as unemployment, child labour, wars, competition and production of synthetic goods. It has led to urbanization with all its attendant evils.

Countries with growing population and relatively limited resources have an incentive to imperialism and to militarism. These attitudes in turn, encourage a further increase of population. Increase in population threatens the standards of living and thus inspires a change of attitude.

Due to unprecedented growth of population in the 19th century, the practice of birth control took a new development. This practice (use of contraceptive), in turn, had many repercussions on family relationships and even on attitudes towards marriage.

With a change in population, there is also a change in a pattern of ‘consumption’. Societies having large number of children are required to spend relatively large amounts of money on food and education. On the other hand, societies with large proportions of elderly people have to spend relatively more amount on medical care.

In some cases, population changes may initiate pressures to change political institutions. For example, changes in the age, sex or ethnic composition of a people of then complicates the political process of country.

Besides, there is a close relationship between the growth of population and the level of physical health and vitality of the people. Because there are many mouths to feed, none gets enough nutritious food to eat, as a result chronic malnutrition and associated diseases become prevalent.

These, induce physical incompetence, apathy and lack of enterprise. Due to these people’s low level of physical well-being, they are socially backward and unprogressive. They show their indifference to improve their material welfare. An underfed, disease-ridden people are lethargic people.

Moreover, if the growth of population is checked, it would mean a higher standard of living, the emancipation of women from child-bearing drudgery, better care for the young and consequently a better society.

Demographers have shown that variation in the density of population also affects nature of our social relationship. In a low population density area, the people are said to exhibit a greater degree of primary relationship whereas in the area of high density of population, the relationship between people is said to superficial and secondary. In the opinion of Worth, high density areas witness the growth of mental stress and loneliness of life.

The importance of demography as a factor of social change has been realised by various sociologists and economists. An eminent French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, went on to the extent of developing a new branch of sociology dealing with population which he called “Social Morphology” which not only analyses the size and quality of population but also examine how population affects the quality of social relationships and social groups.

Durkheim has pointed out that our modern societies are not only characterised by increasing division of labour but also specialisation of function. The increasing division of labour and specialization of function have a direct correlation with the increasing density of population. He stresses on the fact that in a simple society with comparatively lesser number of people, the necessity of complex division of labour is less felt.

This society, according to Durkheim, is based on “mechanical solidarity”. But as the groups grow in size and complexity with the increase in population, the “services of the experts” are more required. The society, according to him, moves towards “organic solidarity”. There is, so to say, a drift from mechanical to organic solidarity.

M. David Heer, in his book “Society and Population”, has developed a “theory of demographic transition”. The theory was popularised just after the end of World War-II. It has provided a comprehensive explanation of the effects of economic development both on fertility and mortality decline.

Schneidar and Dornbusch, in their book “Popular Religion”, have pointed that decline in mortality rate evokes several changes in social structure. They have stressed on the point that due to decline in mortality rate in USA since 1875, negative attitude towards religious beliefs have been cultivated by the people.

They also point out that in a society wherein children die before reaching the age of five, parents may not develop a strong emotional attachment to their children and also in a high mortality society, arranged marriages are common, but in a low mortality society love marriages become the dominant feature. Again when mortality rate is high, individual tends to have a weaker orientation towards the future and stronger orientation towards the present.

Thomas Robert Malthus, an English cleargyman, mathematician and economist, was one of the earliest demographers. In his work, “An Essay on the Principles of Population”, published in 1978, he mentioned that under normal conditions, population would grow by geometrical progression, whereas the means of subsistence would grow by arithmetical progression. The imbalance or lag or gap between the two would create a lot of problems for society.

That is why, Malthus has pleaded for two types of checks which can keep the population down. He spoke of hunger and disease as positive check, and late marriage and enforced celibacy as the preventive check.

From the above analysis, we find that demographic factor has been contributing to the great transformations in society’s socioeconomic and political structure throughout human history. For example, most countries in Asia where more than half world population is now living, is characterised by high birth rate. These countries in general and Indian society in particular, are passing through a critical period of great poverty, unemployment and moral degeneration.

The gap between the living standards of general masses of these countries and that of the developed countries is widening. The gap is cruelly frustrating the third world country’s hopes for development.

With the current rate of population increase, it is expected that the total requirements for future health, education, housing and many other welfare needs are bound to increase. This will certainly bring the drastic changes not only in the microstructures, but also in macrostructures of Indian society.

Related Articles:

• Difference between Social and Cultural Change
• Cultural Change: Main Factors and Causes of Cultural Change

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Social Change: Definition, Characteristics, Causes, Types, and Examples

Humans are social beings. We exist in a social world and observe norms, rules and traditions that are all social constructs. Therefore social change is a concept that is threaded to the very root of society. Similar to the Earth completing a strenuous rotation around the Sun every year, society undergoes social change. It shapes and shifts how we perceive the world and its social interactions. Comparing society from the 19th century to the current 21st will present itself with drastic changes. For starters, women’s rights was a concept a majority of men refused to believe in and blatant racism towards people of colour was an accepted part of one’s daily routine. Social change is what has brought about so many alterations to the functioning of society.

What does Social Change mean?

According to sociologists, social change is a constantly occurring phenomenon. It is the process through which social structures and institutions are reconstructed, undergoing a cultural transformation. Society is built upon certain value systems that maintain social order and shifts in the root of these value systems- human interaction- lead to the disruption of the maintained social order. Disruption is always acquainted with negativity, however, as society is constantly developing and innovating, change and disruption is not only inevitable but needed. Social change can result in positive or negative outcomes.

According to M. E Jones, social change occurs when social processes, social patterns, social interactions or social organisations encounter modifications from their everyday functioning. Marx, on the other hand, looked at social change as the consequence of class struggle- the conflict was the primary means for change. He believes that the economy is the most significant causing factor for change. Many sociologists have correlated the relationship between technology and social change. In earlier years, societies were largely nomadic and depended on manual human labour to hunt and gather for food on a daily basis. As humans evolved and built contraptions that eased the process of cultivation and agricultural production, societies began to claim land and mark territories. Lenski believed that these technological advancements are what caused societies to shift, and it is possible to observe how technological advancements affect the very thread of society to this day.

Theories of Change

Classical and early modernists focused their narratives on social change on the stability aspect rather than change. Change is planned and is introduced to bring stability to society. Modernists theorists, on the other hand, view social change as a result of changes in the environment and other external factors.  Symbolic interpretivists believe that social interaction creates social structures and leads to the alteration of existing and new structures. Postmodernists tend to reject the idea of describing social structures as definable entities and see social change as a response to the present discourse. 

Characteristics of Social Change

            Idrani (1998) and Anele (1999) observed and attributed certain characteristics to social change.

• As mentioned earlier, social change is a phenomenon tied to the very root of human society, therefore it is inevitable and unavoidable. Social change may take place without society being acutely aware of the process.
• Social change is not a concept tied down to one society, it is not unique to particular geographical locations or subsets of society but occurs across all societies. No society remains static and unchanging, micro and macro events take place to shift the way they function. Therefore it must be looked at as a universal phenomenon.

Multi-leveled

• As discussed above, change occurs both on a micro and macro level. Certain definitions of social change look at the concept to understand how social structures evolve and introduce new social institutions. However, social change takes place on all levels and is not restricted to evolutionary change.
• Especially in the present day, given how interwoven and connected one society is with another, social change is contagious in the sense that change in one society can inflict change in another.
• There is no fixed time duration during which social change occurs, its rate depends on this issue at hand and can be rapid or gradual [revolutionary or evolutionary].
• This is perhaps the most important characteristic of social change. Social change can be measured and detected based on scale, brevity and repetition.

There are various reasons why societies undergo social change. Change can be brought about due to technological developments, social institutions, social conflict or the environment. These factors can be viewed as the agents of social change. Technology has become an integral part of society ever since the late 19th century and human dependence on technological development is only growing. It is no surprise that technology can be a reason for social change. Technology can be argued to be the bridge that allows us to exist in such an interconnected world, it acted as the thrust for globalization. Without the internet and the introduction of cellular phones and digital devices, we would not have a hybrid global society.

Advancements in technology also led to the improvement of the medical and agricultural world, both of which have multitudes of benefits. High-tech medical equipment now makes it easier for doctors to treat critically ill patients and have also eased the process of childbirth,  greatly reducing the number of deaths during childbirth. The development of large agricultural fields and equipment have made it easier to grow to produce in bulk for commercial purposes. Food scientists are also finding ways to create hybrid fruits and vegetables which are packed with nutrients. The impact of technology extends towards culture as well. Different cultures come into contact with and influence each other. Globalisation is a key example of how technology has brought about cultural change.

However, it is important to observe how technology has created a digital divide and is furthering the inequalities faced by marginalised and underprivileged sections of society. Those with access to the internet and digital resources can arm themselves with information while the rest are left to their own devices or a lack of one.

Social institutions are organised systems within society that follow certain social rules and norms. Social change can affect social institutions just as the reverse- social institutions triggering social change- takes place. Industrialisation is an example of how social change affected social institutions. Previously the family, being a large unit, would take care of agriculture, education and so on. However, as industrialisation progressed, families broke into smaller units and social institutions such as schools and industries began to take up their roles.

Natural disasters can uproot societies and it takes a while to build them back to what it was before. These disasters also highlight the importance of environmental activism and urge individuals to show more care and support to the land they live in. Activists such as Greta Thunberg have immensely contributed to creating awareness of environmentalism. It has put large organisations and industries under the spotlight and expose how the present way of functioning is causing immense damage to the earth. It has also led to smaller changes such as switching from plastic bags to cloth bags and plastic straws to metal ones.

Social conflict is perhaps the most easily observable cause for social change and usually results in large-scale protests and public demonstrations. With the help of the internet, social change exists and can be executed in the digital world as well. Social conflict can occur due to class-based struggles, gender issues, racism and ethnic discrimination. It all highlights how the majority is in dominance and exploits and harasses the marginalised. Wars are major events that are discussed when talking about social conflicts in the past.

Types and examples of social change

This can be compartmentalised into two categories: evolutionary and revolutionary social change. Evolutionary social change refers to those changes that take place gradually and over a long period of time. Most often we do not recognise the change taking place because at that point in time it is not very significant or observable. For example, the shift from agrarian societies to industrial ones did not take place within a short period of time, it took gradual processes and time for society to completely shift to one that is based around industrial jobs. Even today, in the 21st century, there are still third-world countries and underdeveloped areas where industrialisation has not entirely hit. Another example of an evolutionary change would be regarding women’s rights. It took a long and arduous fight to bring women to where they are now in terms of politics, social and financial standing. We did not earn the right to vote and own property over a few months of protest. It was a slow and gradual process and although the steps taken at the time were dramatic and significant, it was similar to pushing an iron boulder up a hill as no immediate changes were being made. Similarly, the LGBTQ community have been fighting for trans and gay rights for a long time now and it is only recently that laws have been passed that allow queer individuals to exist and enjoy the same things as cishet individuals do.

            Revolutionary change, on the other hand, occurs like rapid-fire and its results can be viewed over a short period of time. These kinds of changes are more present today in the digital world because of how accessible news and platforms to share information are. The Arab Spring is an example of revolutionary change. It began in 2010 and the movement lasted till 2013. The Arab Spring is a series of anti-government protests, uprisings and demonstrations that fought and challenged authoritarian regimes. It began in Tunisia and spread to almost every Arab nation and it can be argued to have caused the most significant change in the middle east since it was decolonised. The #MeToo movement is another social movement that brought about a revolutionary change as it led to bills and laws being passed to be more stringent about the persecution of harassers on-site. Similarly, the BLM caused an international uproar and demanded those who were guilty of committing such treacherous acts of racism be punished.

            Change can manifest as a positive or negative reaction depending on the context. As mentioned earlier, technological advancements have brought about immense development but at the same time, has created a vast digital divide. It is important to look at social change from a holistic perspective and understand how social change can occur at a micro-and macro-level simultaneously. Change is inevitable so it would be futile to halt the process. Moreover, with how fast-paced the 21st century is, change is required. This ensures that social institutions and structures are kept in check and help with the growth of society and all its people.

Also Read: Social Roles and Examples

Prathyusha Madhu

Prathyusha Madhu is a student at FLAME University, currently pursuing Psychology and Sociology. Her interests lie in poetry and music.

• Campus Safety
• (866) 825-5426

What is Social Change & Why is it Important?

Social change is best analyzed through the lens of history. If you look at your own lifetime, you can probably recognize prominent moments of social change just by thinking about how different the world is today from 10, 20, or even 50 years ago.

What sparks this social change?

It could be caused by scientists gaining a deeper understanding of the environment and our effect on it. It could be caused by judicial transformations within the government. Or they could be caused by the people themselves—people who want to see ways of life change for the better.

Our perspectives and worldviews expand with time, and even if laws don't reflect certain shifts of mindsets immediately, the world around us changes, offering a new lens to view established social patterns and cultural norms. When we challenge preconceived notions we reshape our interpersonal relationships and interactions-and that's what defines social change.

Explore your future with our advanced programs

What Is Social Change: A Definition

Sociologists describe social change as the shift in human interactions that transform the existing cultural and social institutions. These shifts usually occur gradually, developing over time. People are stronger when they come together, not when they’re divided, so the collective energy that builds to propel societal changes is incredibly powerful.

8 Examples of Social Change

Social change exists in many different forms. Some changes are mental, while others are reflected in the legal system. Some alter individual lifestyle choices and others have life-changing impact on a large group of people. Modern society would not be where it is today in terms of human rights but for the community members who challenged social inequality and led the social change movements of our past.

Let’s identify the examples of social change. Here are 8 examples of noteworthy social changes that have occurred over the last 50 years, as reported by the global analytics firm  Gallup .

#1 Decreasing Religiosity

During the 1950s and 60s, Americans’ attachment to religion was high. But during the Woodstock era, where involvement in the Vietnam War was highly controversial, and a counterculture movement of peace, love, and understanding was thriving, people began to question their belief systems—especially younger generations.

As people questioned established institutions like the government, other things that were widely accepted as part of life were also being reconsidered. Between 1965 and 1978, religious importance fell from 70% to 52%. The generation of young adults who distanced themselves from religion then raised their kids in a similar way, keeping religion important to only around half of the American population.

#2 Growing Support for Marijuana Legalization

Beginning in the 1970s, legalization of marijuana began to gain support, skyrocketing drastically in the late 2000s. In particular, medical marijuana bridged the gap between previously less supportive groups on the matter, according to studies from organizations like Third Way .

Groups that were historically less supportive of legalization, like Republicans, women, and people of color, saw the ways medical marijuana proved to be beneficial to those with serious illnesses and allowed themselves to form new opinions. Even among those in active opposition to recreational marijuana, a majority support its medical use, proving that thinking beyond yourself and your individual needs serves as a catalyst for massive social change.

#3 Normalizing Interracial Marriage

When interracial marriage became legal in all US states in the late 1960s, a mere 20% of Americans approved. As more couples married outside of their race, widespread acceptance began to grow, with the first majority approval was recorded in 1997. Since then, approval has continued to grow, with the last recorded figures nearly a decade ago coming in at 87%.

#4 Expanding Mindsets on LGBTQ+ Issues

For decades, the American opinion on same-sex marriage shifted regularly. After years of opinions rising and falling, there has been a steady rise since 2006, when approval ratings passed the majority and never fell again, paving the way for the legalization of gay marriage and support for future LGBTQ+ rights movements.

#5 Allowing Women the Freedom of Choice

In the landmark Roe v. Wade case in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects a women’s right to have an abortion—a polarizing issue that is still widely debated today. While the road to women’s reproductive rights has ongoing turbulence, the majority of Americans continue to believe that women should have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to having a child.

Another development in women’s personal freedoms is the gradual normalization of women in the workforce. As a level playing field developed for women and job opportunities became available, more women started to realize that they would prefer a job outside the home as opposed to working full-time as a homemaker. 

In the 21st-century, a slight majority of women continue to prefer to have a job beyond taking care of their home and family.

#6 Decreasing Family Size

Sociopolitical movements in the 1960s and 70s, such as gender equality, destigmatizing sex before marriage, and prioritizing reproductive rights started the trend towards smaller family size. Global concerns about population growth, global warming, and increased cost of living were also influencing Americans’ opinions on whether or not a large family was even feasible.

In recent years, most Americans thought the ideal family size was two children—a number many people settled on because it’s the replacement rate, meaning you and your partner would not be contributing to population growth.

#7 Supporting a Black Man as President

If someone were to ask themselves “what is social change?” in 2009, it would likely be the success of electing President Barack Obama. While the election of Obama was certainly not an indication that racism no longer existed and equality had been achieved, it was still a feat that would’ve been impossible 50 years earlier prior to the civil rights movement.

#8 Advocating for a Woman as President

In a similar vein, Americans were less likely to vote for a woman for president. It wasn’t until the 70s that a significant majority of Americans said they would consider a candidate who was a woman. In the 2016 election, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, proving that Americans have faith in women’s leadership.

What Is Positive Social Change?

While positive social change seems inherently different than typical social change—even implying the existence of negative social change—adding the word “positive” simply means that people’s lives are being improved as a result.

The organization Africa Education & Leadership Initiative (ELI) brings up three important factors that they use to define positive social change:

• Positive social change results in the betterment of society, improving human and social conditions.
• These changes can occur at many levels, including for individuals, families and friends, communities, organizations, and local, state, or federal government.
• The driving forces behind positive social change are ideas and actions with real-world implications.

What Causes Positive Social Change?

Positive social change can stem from a number of things, such as:

• Dissatisfaction with current institutions – One social change example of this type is the Black Lives Matter movement, which was born out of America's longstanding police brutality problem, and the bias and corruption in our legal system that prevents perpetrators of violence from being held accountable.
• Technological innovation – Since we’ve entered the Information Age, questions of privacy, surveillance, and artificial intelligence have come into the forefront of our society.
• Economic changes – People protest for economic support, whether that’s about the wealth inequality between the richest percentage and the poorest, minimum wage that doesn’t provide a livable income, or demand for economic assistance in tumultuous times.

However, when it comes to vehicles of positive social change, as in obtaining the tools to better the world around you, new experiences and education are largely responsible—and can even be interconnected. Social scientists believe that support for social change movements is higher in populations that are more educated and exposed to new experiences. 

How Do Experience and Education Aid Social Change?

While lived experiences may not be formal education, it’s a form of hands-on learning that teaches us the tools to care about one another, cultivating a more curious and compassionate community through:

• Gaining knowledge of other cultures
• Participating in intercultural exchange
• Seeing new ways of life
• Learning social interaction and how to communicate with different personalities
• Considering other belief systems and ways of life
• Self-reflecting on your own beliefs and where they come from

Formal education works in a similar way, providing social relationship, lessons and teaching skills that encourage the following:

• Relating to different people and building friendships
• Identifying problems and coming up with your own solutions
• Exercising self-control, both verbally and physically
• Accepting that actions have consequences
• Gaining a sense of responsibility and civic duty
• Practicing thoughtful leadership
• Asking questions about things you don’t understand
• Thinking about the best ways to speak and listen

Learning to be caring and inquisitive builds the desire to be an agent of change, and in turn, positively impacts the world around you.

Becoming an Agent of Social Change

Education systems around the world, whether it's a public elementary school or a private university, inherently ask you to think outside of yourself and ultimately bring positive change. These institutions question how you can serve your community, and how your community fits into society-and if your society needs to change to serve your community, what tools you'll need to make that dream a reality.

At Alliant International University , you can learn new skills that will help you become an agent of social movement and change, by gaining unique experiences and participating in award-winning academic programs.

Alliant offers master’s degrees, doctorates, and specialized certificates, credentials, and continuing education programs. With online and in-person schooling options, you can study what you want when you want. Equip yourself with the tools you need to shape your world by starting at Alliant.

• Gallup. 10 Major Social Changes in the Years Since Woodstock. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/265490/major-social-changes-year…
• Third Way. America’s Marijuana Evolution. https://www.thirdway.org/report/americas-marijuana-evolution
• Africa ELI. Education and Positive Social Change. https://africaeli.org/education-and-positive-social-change/  

David Stewart

Dean, California School of Professional Psychology

David G. Stewart, Ph.D., ABPP, is a board-certified clinical child and adolescent psychologist and Dean of the California School of...

Other Categories

University announcements, featured news, nursing and health sciences, start on your path to succeed on purpose, request information.

• 1 Current Select Interests
• 2 Provide Information

You might also like

Cswe accreditation & standards at alliant international university, lifting up the next generation of female leaders.

“I'm of most value and in service when I use my superpowers of understanding the challenges that women face in the workplace.” Dr...

What to Do When a Client Shuts Down in Therapy

If dialogue is the bedrock of quality therapy, what can a therapist do when their client turns reticent or even silent in a...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Toward a Psychology of Social Change: A Typology of Social Change

Millions of people worldwide are affected by dramatic social change (DSC). While sociological theory aims to understand its precipitants, the psychological consequences remain poorly understood. A large-scale literature review pointed to the desperate need for a typology of social change that might guide theory and research toward a better understanding of the psychology of social change. Over 5,000 abstracts from peer-reviewed articles were assessed from sociological and psychological publications. Based on stringent inclusion criteria, a final 325 articles were used to construct a novel, multi-level typology designed to conceptualize and categorize social change in terms of its psychological threat to psychological well-being. The typology of social change includes four social contexts: Stability, Inertia, Incremental Social Change and, finally, DSC. Four characteristics of DSC were further identified: the pace of social change, rupture to the social structure, rupture to the normative structure, and the level of threat to one's cultural identity. A theoretical model that links the characteristics of social change together and with the social contexts is also suggested. The typology of social change as well as our theoretical proposition may serve as a foundation for future investigations and increase our understanding of the psychologically adaptive mechanisms used in the wake of DSC.

“Change— extremely rapid social change —is the most important fact of life today” (Nolan and Lenski, 2011 , p. xiii).

Zoia is a lively 75-year-old Baboushka . Her eventful life has seen her experience some less-than-welcome adventures, but she has always managed to adapt to unfamiliar circumstances. After completing her studies in Moscow, she was, like many other young educated Russians, deported by USSR authorities to another state. Her destination was Frunze (later renamed Bishkek), a land in Central Asia warmer than hers and made slightly cooler by its unfamiliarity. Despite the diversity of Frunze, with ethnic Kyrgyz, Ukrainians, and other Slavic groups forming sizeable minorities, the Russian population remained a majority. During the Soviet era, Zoia was told that she lived in one of the most powerful countries in the world, where crime rates were low and the population enjoyed decent education and food supply, as well as the opportunity to save money for retirement.

The diversity of ethnicities eventually bred great tension, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s deeply affected Zoia's life. At the age of 54, she learned that her country was in ruins, that her rights as a Russian were diminished and that her language was widely frowned upon within the newly formed Kyrgyz Republic, Kyrgyzstan. Meanwhile, the disorganized authority allowed for an explosion in crime rates and increasing scarcity of resources. Zoia lost all of her life savings. The money she earned was no longer sufficient to cover basic necessities. Despite her position as a chief engineer, Zoia was forced to work a second job selling newspapers at the corner of her street just to make ends meet.

Although Zoia's story may seem uniquely dramatic, it is only one among over one billion (Sun and Ryder, 2016 ). Social change is indiscriminately pervasive and global—restricted to neither developing nor western worlds (e.g., Ponsioen, 1962 ; Smith, 1973 ; Chirot and Merton, 1986 ; Zuck, 1997 ; Sztompka, 1998 ; Fukuyama, 1999 ; Weinstein, 2010 ; Nolan and Lenski, 2011 ; Greenfield, 2016 ). Dramatic social change (DSC) is the new normal and can be witnessed presently across a multitude of contexts from political and economic upheaval, to desperate mass migration, and from natural or human disasters to technological advances.

Social change has always been a field of great interest for the social sciences, especially among sociologists since it seems that “all sociology is about change” (Sztompka, 1993 , p.xiii; see also Sztompka, 2004 ). Many sociology texts have entire sections devoted to social change (e.g., Bauman, 2003 ; Latour, 2005 ; Hewitt et al., 2008 ; Giddens et al., 2011 ) all aimed at addressing one main question: What leads to social change ? Many sociological theories have been suggested to explain the different “macro” processes associated with the onset of revolutions, social movements, or important technological changes. A “macro” theory focuses on the structural factors or defining events that contribute to DSC and are useful when considering how social changes are brought upon an entire group, community, institution, nation, or indeed society as a whole. The macro approach, however, is seriously limited when it comes to “micro” processes, which focus on the equally important question of the consequences of social change, or, in other words, how individual group members are impacted by social change (e.g., Rogers, 2003 ). Thus, the exclusive research focus on macro processes has left unanswered the pivotal question: What are the psychological consequences of social change?

Given the potentially dire consequences of DSC, it is surprising that psychologists have neglected it as a topic of rigorous academic pursuit, particularly given the current reality of vast globalization and massive immigration. To date, research focusing on the impact of social change on the well-being of individuals has not been clearly established (Kim, 2008 ; Liu et al., 2014 ). Moreover, the adaptation mechanisms that people develop when coping with such contexts remain largely unknown (Pinquart and Silbereisen, 2004 ).

The goal of the present paper is to argue that psychology needs to focus on the psychology of social change (de la Sablonnière et al., 2013 ; de la Sablonnière and Usborne, 2014 ). I argue that the bridge between the “macro” processes of social change and the “micro” processes of its psychological impacts have yet to be built. I suggest that social scientists must first focus on conceptualizing social change in a manner that includes both macro and micro processes in order to understand individuals' adaptation to social change. Thus, as the first step in moving toward a psychology of social change, I target what is considered the most difficult challenge: conceptualizing social change.

First and foremost, conceptualizing social change requires untangling the complexity of the topic by formulating a typology of social change (see Table ​ Table1). 1 ). To that end, a large-scale meta-review that assembled original perspectives, theories and definitions of social change within both the sociological and psychological literature was performed. The typology of social change that emerged distinguishes four separate social contexts associated with social change: stability, inertia, incremental social change, and DSC. DSC, because of its frequency in today's world, and because it is threatening to people, requires special attention. Thus, the proposed typology of social change drills deeper and articulates four necessary characteristics for a change or an event to be labeled as “dramatic social change”: rapid pace of change, rupture in social structure, rupture in normative structure, and threat to cultural identity. Finally, I come full circle by proposing a theoretical model that links together the four characteristics of DSC within the proposed typology of social change (see Figure ​ Figure1). 1 ). In sum, the typology of social change I am suggesting can be useful to create a theoretical consensus among researchers about what social change is that perhaps will allow for a coordinated, evidence based strategy to address the psychology of social change.

The typology of social change .

Proposed theoretical model .

Social change in sociology and psychology

Today, the field of sociology is at the forefront of social change theory and research, with a particular focus upon the factors that constitute and are prerequisites to social change. Within the sociological literature, three main theories have been championed for their attempt to explain social change: Evolutionary Theory, Conflict Theory , and Functionalist Theory . Each theory is characterized by key descriptive interpretations in Table ​ Table2 2 where a global overview of the conceptualization of social change is offered 1 .

Theories of social change in sociology .

Despite the first appearance of “social change” in the psychological literature more than 70 years ago, only a few isolated psychologists have focused on social change per se and even fewer have offered a clear definition or conceptualization of the concept. The first paper that defined social change was published in the Academy of Political and Social Science and was entitled Psychology of Social Change . Social change was defined as “always a slow and gradual process” (Marquis, 1947 , p. 75). From that point in time to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, there have been very few attempts to reintroduce social change into the field of psychology (e.g., Pizer and Travers, 1975 ; Schneiderman, 1988 ). However, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, there has been a small surge of research on social change in psychology. For example, several edited books (e.g., Thomas and Veno, 1992 ; Breakwell and Lyons, 1996 ; Crockett and Silbereisen, 2000 ) and special issues of journals (Silbereisen and Tomasik, 2010 ; Blackwood et al., 2013 ) have focused exclusively on social change and on people's reactions to it. For clarity purposes, Table ​ Table3 3 attempts to summarize the various theories or perspectives in different subfields of cultural and social psychology while Table ​ Table4 4 attempts to do so in subfields of psychology.

Theories and perspectives addressing social change in social psychology .

Theories addressing social change in subfields of psychology .

Limitations of current research and conceptualization of social change in sociology and psychology

As indicated in the summary tables, both contemporary and traditional theorists in sociology and psychology have addressed social change through a variety of macro sociological or societal lenses, and equally from a plethora of micro, psychological, or individual perspectives. Theory and research thus far has demonstrated that social change is a complex entity (e.g., McGrath, 1983 ; Buchanan et al., 2005 ; Subašić et al., 2012 ) that can be conceptualized in many diverging (and confusing) ways. The challenge associated with defining social change may well be to explain why it is an understudied phenomenon (de la Sablonnière et al., 2013 ) and highlight the challenge of moving forward in studying its psychological impact on ordinary people. The typology of social change presented here offers an initial attempt at clarifying the meaning of social change from a psychological perspective. That is, I focus on an individualistic perspective, but attempt to address the role that macro processes play in terms of our more micro or psychological focus. Here, I discuss three main issues that point to the necessity to properly conceptualize DSC.

First, and most importantly, the conceptualization and understanding of social change does not reach a consensus within the scientific literature (e.g., Coughlin and Khinduka, 1976 ). Furthermore, few scientists define precisely what they mean when using the concept (e.g., Saran, 1963 ). For example, when social change is studied from a social identity theory perspective (Tajfel and Turner, 1986 ), or a sociological conflict theory perspective, social change is conceptualized almost exclusively in the context of collective action (Krznaric, 2007 ). In light of this, collective action is defined as a means for group members to achieve an improved social position for their group in the social hierarchy (Taylor and McKirnan, 1984 ; Batel and Castro, 2015 ; de Lemus and Stroebe, 2015 ). In contrast, cultural psychology and developmental psychology conceptualize social change in a broader manner (e.g., societal transformations such as the fall of the Soviet Union; immigration) where change is not limited to the context of intergroup conflict (Pinquart and Silbereisen, 2004 ; Sun and Ryder, 2016 ). The fact that there is divergence in conceptualizing social change is preventing coordinated research on social change, because not all types of social change are considered. With some theories (e.g., relative deprivation theory, social identity theory, evolutionary theory, conflict theory), social change is conceived mostly as an autonomously controlled and unidirectional process toward group change; these conceptualizations do not account for social changes that are outside of human control, such as natural disasters (e.g., Coughlin and Khinduka, 1976 ). Equating social change with collective action (see Stroebe et al., 2015 ), for example, neglects uncontrollable social transformations such as socio-political reforms and natural disasters over which individuals or groups exert no control. Indeed, the majority of individuals who experience DSC have little control over such events. Since previous classifications can only explain some instances of social change, a theory that would clarify the characteristics required in conceptualizing DSC for all types of change has become a necessity.

The second issue that points to the need for a typology of social change is that not all social contexts associated with social change (i.e., stability and inertia) were considered in previous scientific literature. Most theoretical and empirical work on social change in both sociology and psychology has focused on either incremental social change or DSC (e.g., Andersson et al., 2014 ; Bernstrøm and Kjekshus, 2015 ). However, in order to have a complete theory or typology of social change, it is also necessary to take into account social contexts where there is no social change, contexts of either stability or inertia (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). Knowing about incremental social change, inertia and stability, as well as how they relate to DSC is psychologically critical. A clear definition of the four social contexts of social change can facilitate finding solutions for the population to not only the consequences associated with DSC, but also the considerable and potentially unique challenges associated with each of these social contexts (see Abrams and Vasiljevic, 2014 ). For example, a society in a state of inertia may be misconceived as a society in a state of DSC if no clear understanding of each social context is achieved. In inertia, there might be less hope for reverting to a healthy society and consequently less long-term goals that are developed, whereas a time of DSC, such as a political revolution, may provide some hope for the future and some possibilities for some concrete long-term goals. Although the main focus of our paper is DSC, the full spectrum of social contexts associated with social change is presented. A more comprehensive theory of social change capable of accounting for stability, inertia as well as incremental and DSC is required to fully understand the psychological processes and ramifications of social change. Moreover, it is important to define stability, inertia, and incremental social change because they serve as a base for comparison or contrast to DSC. As Calhoun notes: “To understand social change, thus, it is necessary also to understand what produces social continuity” (Calhoun, 2000 , p. 2642).

Finally, the third issue that pushes me to develop a typology of social change is that, mainly in sociology, a specific event that can be characterized as social change can be interpreted in light of different theories of social change. Let us take the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan as an example. Evolutionary theorists may argue that this revolution followed the natural evolution of Kyrgyz society. On the other hand, functionalist theorists may argue that there was disequilibrium in Kyrgyzstan at the time of the revolution. However, it would be beneficial to conceptualize social change the same way in order to be able to assess its impact on individuals. What is needed is a conceptualization of social change that can be interpreted in light of all the theories and processes that have been developed thus far. When an in-depth analysis of the literature is performed, the essential characteristics that define social change across theories may be ascertained. For example, one of the characteristics that was identified in conceptualizing DSC was the rapid pace of social change. The rapid vs. slow pace of social change is important, for instance, to distinguish a DSC from an incremental social change where transformations in the social structure take place without major disruptions. Whether one conceptualizes social change from a functionalist theory, a social identity theory, or a developmental theory perspective, most researchers from these distinctive fields point to the pace of change as one pivotal and essential element that characterizes DSC. Thus, when I base the typology of social change upon such characteristics, garnered from previous research in both sociology and psychology, an all-encompassing conceptualization of social change may be obtained, and later used to guide empirical research independently of the diverging theoretical perspectives.

My observations on the limitations of sociology and psychology should not detract from the insightful contributions these disciplines have made to our understanding of social change. Indeed, these social scientists have tapped into very important issues. For example, although collective action is not the only type of social change, the research on this topic has successfully identified factors that lead individuals and groups to be dissatisfied with their conditions and engage in collective action. However, as Sampson ( 1989 ) pointed out: “we have not gone far enough in connecting our theories of the person with social change, in particular, with major historic transformation in the social world” (p. 417). Since our contemporary social world is characterized by social change (Weinstein, 2010 ), like Sampson ( 1989 ), I argue that “a psychology for tomorrow is a psychology that begins actively to chart out a theory of the person that is no longer rooted in the liberal individualistic assumptions, but is reframed in terms more suitable to resolving the issues of a global era” (p. 431).

In sum, social change needs to be clearly examined because future research is limited without an all-inclusive typology of social change; one that can bridge the epistemological differences between theories from various fields of research and diverging theoretical perspectives. What is needed is a clear conceptualization of social change that considers, and includes, the different characteristics that compose DSC and that were suggested by researchers from all these diverging areas and theoretical orientations.

Constructing a typology of social change: the characteristics of DSC

Two separate databases from sociology and psychology were targeted to collate relevant peer-reviewed publications: Sociology Abstracts and PsycInfo. Including the year 2016, a total of 5,676 abstracts were carefully analyzed (90% inter-judge reliability; Table ​ Table5). 5 ). Two inclusion criteria were used to determine if a manuscript was relevant to our typology of social change. First, the selected abstract, and then the articles, needed to a) focus on social change by including a relevant original definition or providing an original perspective on the concept (originality), or b) focus on one's perspective of social change at either the individual or group level (perceptions).

Number of abstracts and articles that satisfied the specified inclusion criteria .

When reviewing the literature, I had one main goal: selecting and identifying the necessary characteristics of DSC that could either be present or not in other social contexts (i.e., stability, inertia, and incremental social change). Scientists refer to the characteristics in two different ways: (1) formally, when defining or describing DSC, incremental social change, stability, or inertia, and (2) informally, when introducing their research on social change 2 . I made sure that the included articles sufficiently addressed one or more of the four selected characteristics (i.e., rapid pace of change, rupture in social structure, rupture in normative structure, and threat to cultural identity, see Table ​ Table6). 6 ). These four characteristics were chosen after a first reading of each of the articles (up to October 2013). They emerged most consistently and were singled out more often for their importance. From prior knowledge, I anticipated that “pace of change” and “social structure” would surface. The other two emerged naturally. From prior knowledge, I also expected the term “valence of change” (i.e., negative change) to emerge (e.g., Slone et al., 2002 ; de la Sablonnière and Tougas, 2008 ; de la Sablonnière et al., 2009c ; Kim, 2008 ). However, that characteristic did not appear in a significant number of papers. The fact that some authors report “positive” change as having negative consequences (e.g., Prislin and Christensen, 2005 ; Bruscella, 2015 ) and “negative” change as having positive consequence (e.g., Yakushko, 2008 ; Abrams and Vasiljevic, 2014 ) may explain why the valence did not emerge as an important characteristic of DSC.

Characteristics of dramatic social change .

To conceptualize an event as DSC, all four characteristics must be present. For example, if an event is affecting only the normative structure in a gradual manner, it would not be possible to label that event as DSC. As for the other three social contexts (stability, inertia, and incremental social change), each has its own unique configuration of characteristics (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ) 3 .

The pace of change

The first characteristic that emerged regards the pace , which could either be slow or rapid, and is defined as the speed at which an event impacts a collectivity . When defining social change, researchers from both sociology and psychology distinguish two types of social change based on the pace of change: incremental (e.g., first-order change, beta change, decline, gradual, small-scale) and dramatic (e.g., second-order, gamma, abrupt, collapse, large-scale).

Theories of social change have explicitly and/or implicitly acknowledged the pace of social change as a central determining factor toward its characterization. For example, in one of the earliest versions of their seminal book, Lenski and Lenski ( 1974 ) state: “The most striking feature of contemporary life is the revolutionary pace of social change. Never before have things changed so fast for so much of mankind” (Lenski and Lenski, 1974 , p. 3, see also Fried, 1964 ; Rudel and Hooper, 2005 ). In their new edition entitled Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology , Nolan and Lenski ( 2011 ) describe how slowly human evolution has progressed for thousands of years until about 100 years ago, when humans began to evolve at an accelerated pace. Similarly, Weinstein ( 2010 ) suggests that for the last few decades, there has been “rapid and accelerating rates of change in human relations, from the interpersonal to the international level” (p. xvii).

It is worthwhile to note that a few key authors refer to pace when distinguishing different types of social change. For example, in organizational psychology, Nadler and Tushman ( 1995 ) distinguish slow “incremental” change from fast “discontinuous” change, where the latter would be characterized as DSC in the typology of social change. According to these authors, incremental changes are intended to continually improve the fit among the components of an organization. These changes can either be small or large; nonetheless, there is a succession of manageable changes and adaptation processes. In contrast, discontinuous changes are often linked to major changes in the global scope of the industry and involve a complete break with the past as well as a major reconstruction of almost all elements of the organization. These changes are more traumatic, painful, and demanding as individuals are required to acquire a whole new set of behaviors and discard old patterns. These dramatic changes are not made to improve the fit, but to construct a new collectivity, be it a nation-state, institution or sub-group of the larger collectivity. Newman ( 2000 ) also distinguishes between first-order change and second-order change in the context of organizations. According to him, a first-order change, which is equivalent to incremental social change, “is most likely during times of relative environmental stability and is likely to take place over extended periods of time” (Newman, 2000 , p.604). In other words, this type of change occurs slowly and allows the organization and its members to adapt to the changes gradually. However, a second-order change, or DSC, is radical, and transforms the core of the organization (Newman, 2000 ). In this case, the change is so sudden that it does not necessarily allow individuals to adapt to the process (Buchanan et al., 2005 ). Similarly, Rogers ( 2003 ) defines social change as abrupt and arises when the entire system is modified and jeopardized because changes are too fast for the system to adjust. In his book, Diamond ( 2005 ) contrasts “decline”—where minor ups and downs do not restructure the society—with “collapse”—an extreme form of several milder types of decline—which make it a DSC. An example of collapse is when most of the inhabitants of a population vanish as a result of ecological disasters, starvation, war, or disease. Examples of this are genocides such as Rwanda's which claimed around 800,000 lives, destroyed much of the country's infrastructure and displaced four million people (Des Forges, 1999 ; Zorbas, 2004 ; Pham et al., 2004 ; Staub et al., 2005 ; Schaal and Elbert, 2006 ; Prunier, 2010 ; Yanagizawa-Drott, 2014 ), the Armenian Massacres, which saw the systematic extermination of about 1.5 million minority Armenians in Turkey (Dadrian, 1989 , 1998 ) or Cambodia's genocide, which involved the death of almost two million people through the Khmer Rouge's policies of relocation, mass executions, torture, forced labor, malnutrition, and disease (Hannum, 1989 ). All these events led to an inordinate number of deaths and population movements in a short, restricted period of time.

To be considered dramatic , a social change needs to be quick and must involve a “break with the past” (Nadler and Tushman, 1995 ; see also Armenakis et al., 1986 ). The example most often used in the literature is the breakdown of the communist system in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (e.g., Kollontai, 1999 ; Pinquart et al., 2009 ; Round and Williams, 2010 ; Walker and Stephenson, 2010 ; Chen, 2015 ). For example, when Pinquart et al. ( 2004 , p. 341) introduced their research on social change, they made a distinction between “gradual” change, such as ideological change in many Western societies, and “abrupt social change,” which represents a form of social change that may be spurred by a sudden, dramatic transformation of economic, political, and social institutions.

Rupture in the social structure

The second characteristic of DSC that emerges from my review regards a rupture in the social structure of a collectivity or a group. Social structure is a term that has several different uses in the sociological literature and this is, in part, because of the lack of agreement on how the term social structure should be defined (Porpora, 1989 ; López and Scott, 2000 ). One main dispute pits the dualism of “action” (or agency) vs. “structure” in mainstream sociological work (for a discussion see López and Scott, 2000 ). Consequently, many of the definitions describe behaviors rather than the role of social institutions (e.g., Cortina et al., 2012 ; Tanner and Jackson, 2012 ; Wilson, 2012 ). For example, Tanner and Jackson ( 2012 ) define social structure as “the formation of groups via connections among individuals” (p. 260), which focuses on meso-level interactions among individuals. Similarly, Macionis et al. ( 2008 ) define social structure as “any relatively stable pattern of social behavior” (p. 13).

The social structure being discussed in the present paper refers to macro-level elements of society such as institutions that facilitate and structure collective interactions, roles or behaviors. Thus, directly inspired from the most prominent definitions of social structure in the literature (Marx, 1859/1970 ; Giddens, 1979 ; Porpora, 1989 ; López and Scott, 2000 ; Stinchcombe, 2000 ), social structure is defined here as a system of socio-economic stratification, social institutions, organizations, national policies and laws that help structure the norms, roles, behaviors, and values of community members 4 .

In both sociology and psychology, a rupture in the social structure is at the heart of definitions of social change. For example, for Breakwell and Lyons ( 1996 ), changes involve the disintegration of previous national and international order and sets in motion a process of re-definition and re-evaluation of societal norms, belief systems, and power structures. While the communal sense of continuity and permanence is challenged, social change often represents a period of massive transformations in political, social, and economic structures (e.g., Goodwin, 1998 ; Kim and Ng, 2008 ; Chen, 2012 ). This conceptualization is similar to the definition inspired by sociologists and provided by Silbereisen and Tomasik ( 2010 , p. 243) where “social change is understood as a more or less rapid and comprehensive change of societal structures and institutions, including changes to the economic, technological, and cultural frameworks of a society (Calhoun, 1992 )” or to Kohn's definition of radical social change: “we refer not to the pace of change but to the nature of the change—the transformation of one political and economic system into a quite different system” (Kohn et al., 1997 , p. 615).

When research focuses on collective action, social structure is placed at the root of their definition. For example, “Breakdown Theories” in sociology argue that social movements result from the disruption or breakdown of previously integrative social structures. This theory regards collective action as a form of social imbalance that results from the improper functioning of social institutions (Tilly et al., 1975 ). Macionis et al. ( 2008 ) also suggest that, “revolutionary social movements attempt to target the whole collectivity by radically changing social institutions” (p. 452). Put differently, for social movements and collective action to occur, social institutions—consequently, the social structure of society—needs to be altered. In other words, social change “is the sudden shifting of power from group to group” (Schrickel, 1945 , p. 188). To many authors, DSC involves a rupture in the social structure (e.g., Prilleltensky, 1990 ) where people need to “negotiate their way through or around social structures” (May, 2011 , p. 367).

Rupture in the normative structure

The third characteristic of DSC that emerged from the literature is the rupture in the normative structure of society. While reading on the subject, I noticed an important distinction between social structure and normative structure. As mentioned in the previous section, that distinction pointed to a duality that is also observed by theorists in sociology who attempt to define social structure (e.g., Giddens, 1979 ; Mayhew, 1980 ; Porpora, 1989 ; López and Scott, 2000 ). Although both the social and normative structures refer to the functioning of a society, they each point to two different aspects of communities and groups. As discussed earlier, the social structure is associated with macro processes such as social institutions (e.g., Government), whereas the normative structure is related to micro processes as they principally refer to community members' habitual behaviors and norms.

Based on the work of Taylor and de la Sablonnière ( 2013 , 2014 ), the normative structure is defined here as the behaviors of most community members whose aim is achieving collective goals . In other terms, when the normative structure is clear, people know what to do and when to engage in specific behaviors in order to meet the overarching goals of the collectivity. The definition of normative structure also takes its inspiration from an array of different domains in the scientific literature. Mainly, it comes from the definitions of social change that most often involve a change in behaviors and habits that are disrupted with the event of a dramatic and rapid social change. For example, Bishop ( 1998 , p. 406) clearly states that social change in its transformational form refers to “the ability of a group to behave differently, even to creating brand-new elements, within the same social identity.” This definition concurs with definitions of many more authors, such as Delanty's ( 2012 ) concept of “normative culture” or May's (2011), where the mundane “ordinary” activities take a central place in social change.

Research and theories on social change have put normative structure as one of its central tenants. For example, Tomasik et al. ( 2010 ), argue that social change involves “changes of the macro-context that disturb habits, interrupt routines, or require novel behaviors relevant for a successful mastery” (p. 247). These authors also assert that when a gradual social change occurs, “old options of thinking and behaving are usually still available whereas abrupt social change is often associated with an immediate blocking of old options” (Pinquart and Silbereisen, 2004 , p. 295). Therefore, in the latter case, it will be necessary to develop new ways of doing things.

Jerneić and Šverko ( 2001 ) argue that “major political and socioeconomic changes may strongly influence people's life role priorities, which are otherwise relatively stable behavioral dispositions” (p. 46). In fact, the normative structure of a society is comprised not only of norms and behaviors, but also of roles that people have in their everyday lives. When a DSC occurs, these normative elements of people's lives are all greatly affected to the point where they need to be redefined. Similarly, McDade and Worthman ( 2004 ) refer to “socialization ambiguity,” a state present in the context of DSC where “inconsistent messages or conflicting expectations regarding appropriate beliefs and social behavior during the course of socialization may be a substantial source of stress for the developing individual” (p. 52; see also Arnett, 1995 ; Tonkens, 2012 ).

This rupture in the normative structure of society is present not only when radical changes such as natural disasters occur, but also when social change is the result of collective actions within a society. Subašić et al. ( 2012 ) acknowledge that “what we do is evidently shaped by social norms, by institutional possibilities, and institutional constraints. But equally, we can act—act together that is—to alter norms, institutions, and even whole social systems” (p. 66). Therefore, when members of a society come together and engage in collective actions, an important aspect of society they aim to change deals with the norms and normative structure.

The importance of the normative component involved in DSC is in accordance with the Normative Theory of Social Change, developed by Taylor et al. (Taylor and de la Sablonnière, 2013 , 2014 ; see also de la Sablonnière et al., 2009b ). According to their theory, any group—whether it be at the collective, community or country level—functions along the basic 80-20 principle in times of stability. According to this principle, most of the citizens in a functioning society (i.e., 80% of them) will exhibit normative behaviors that agree with the normative structure of the society in order to accomplish collective goals such as achieving a healthy society, and by extension, personal goals such as maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It is the 80% that provide social support, when necessary, to the 20% of citizens who do not function successfully in the society. In theory, as long as there is a decent majority of people who conform to the normative structure, a society should function relatively smoothly. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Sometimes, when a society is confronted with DSC, its normative structure is ruptured which may lead to societal dysfunction or important disruptions in the “usual” behavior of group members. In such a situation, the amount of group members exhibiting behaviors that are in agreement with the collective goals of the group will be lower than usual. Therefore, it is possible that instead of having 80% of group members acting according to the normative rules of the society, only 30 or 40 % of individuals will follow these rules. In this case, it becomes very difficult for people to restore the functional equilibrium of the normative structure as only a few group members are in a position to provide the necessary social support for the entire society to function properly (Taylor and de la Sablonnière, 2014 ). What is suggested here is consistent with the work of Albert and Sabini ( 1974 ). These authors refer to the importance of a supportive environment, or social support, which has a sufficient presence in “slow change,” but not when the context is one of rapid change.

Threat to cultural identity

The fourth characteristic of social change is threats to the cultural identity of a group. This characteristic is a difficult one to label since different authors use different terms to describe a threat to cultural identity (i.e., lack of clarity, identity conflict, identity crisis, lowered identification, identity confusion). As opposed to terms such as identity conflict, identity crisis, lack of identity clarity and identity change, “threat to cultural identity” was chosen for its capacity to suggest a potential modification in identity. To be considered DSC, the cultural identity in its current form must somehow be jeopardized, challenged, or lowered. Values and beliefs are, per se , questioned and the individual may sense a general lack of clarity and feel threatened to the core of his group identity, value system, or beliefs.

Many scientists have defined and researched collective and/or cultural identity. Recently, Ashmore et al. ( 2004 ) have defined collective identity as “first and foremost a statement about categorical membership. A collective identity is one that is shared with a group of others who have (or are believed to have) some characteristic(s) in common” (p. 81). This definition is similar to the one from Taylor ( 1997 ), in which cultural identity is referred to as the beliefs about shared rules and behaviors (Taylor, 1997 , 2002 ; Usborne and de la Sablonnière, 2014 ).

When a social change occurs, it threatens the cultural identity of all community members. In the present paper, inspired from previous work on cultural identity, I define threat to cultural identity as a serious threat to identification and to the clarity of the shared beliefs, values, attitudes, and behavioral scripts associated with one's group . Throughout the literature I reviewed, cultural identity threat was manifested according to three main themes. The first theme that stood out is that threats to identity are associated with a loss of identity or an identity change (e.g., subtractive identification pattern; de la Sablonnière et al., 2016 ). Some authors directly mention the threat to cultural identity within the context of major social change (e.g., Vaughan, 1986 ; Smelser and Swedberg, 1994 ; Sztompka, 2000 ; Wyn and White, 2000 ; Van Binh, 2002 ; Terry and Jimmieson, 2003 ). For example, in his paper on how cultures change as a function of mass immigration Moghaddam ( 2012 ) argues that globalization results in sudden contact among different groups of people from different countries. This form of sudden contact has often resulted in the extinction of many cultures and languages such as Indigenous peoples around the world. Therefore, globalization makes people feel that their collective identity is threatened. Specifically, they experience a loss in many components of their cultural identity including their values and their language (see also Van Binh, 2002 ). The process described by Moghaddam is similar to the one proposed by Lapuz ( 1976 ) who argues that when social change occurs rapidly, people's beliefs and values are threatened since the old guidelines are no longer available. One consequence of this threat is that people become confused as values and beliefs contribute to the emotional security and psychological survival of individuals (Lapuz, 1976 ; Varnum, 2008 ). This is in agreement with Albert's ( 1977 ) proposition: “Rapid change constitutes a major threat to self-identity” (p. 499). Similarly, in their book entitled Changing European Identities , Breakwell and Lyons ( 1996 ) discuss the mechanisms associated with change in identities in the context of the development of the European Union and refer to a loss of national identity. This change in cultural identity is similar to what Wall and Louchakova ( 2002 ) describe as a “shift in the cultural collective consciousness” (p.253). This consists of a change in the American self and the emergence of new selves, more independent and alive in the context of change (see also Neves and Caetano, 2009 ; May, 2011 ).

The second theme is associated with the lack of identity clarity in the event of DSC. This lack of clarity is due to uncertainties or inconsistencies in the definition of one's identity. A clear cultural identity is defined as “the extent to which beliefs about one's group are clearly and confidently defined” (Usborne and Taylor, 2010 , p. 883; see also Taylor, 2002 ). It has been theorized and demonstrated that an unclear cultural identity can result in lower self-esteem (Usborne and Taylor, 2010 ). Thus, if the entire collective is experiencing an unclear cultural identity, it may affect people's ability to function effectively in their society. Similarly, Macionis et al. ( 2008 ) refer to inconsistencies in the context of socialization in times of important change. People try to seek out new roles, try new “selves” (Macionis et al., 2008 , p.461). They need to adapt to the inconsistent model their societies are projecting, which leads to “socialization ambiguity” (McDade and Worthman, 2004 , p. 49). Because social change brings uncertainty in society, it can affect many aspects of individuals' lives such as family relations (Noak et al., 2001 ), and aspects associated with the self such as “emotions, values, perceptions, identity” (Wall and Louchakova, 2002 , p. 266).

Finally, as a third theme, authors refer to conflicting identities within the context of dramatic contextual change. For example, Becker conducted a study to find out how rapid social change, such as introducing television in a community that had never owned televisions before, would impact body images of girls and women in that community (Becker, 2004 ). She found that television caused confusion and conflicts about ideal body images, and consequently “reshap[ed] [their] personal and cultural identities” (Becker, 2004 , p. 551). In some cases, it even led to eating disorders (Becker, 2004 ), which has a direct link with the way people evaluate and perceive themselves. In other words, this DSC altered their identity. In fact, severe contextual changes can challenge the meaning of identity and threaten its existence (Ethier and Deaux, 1994 ; Macek et al., 2013 ). Similarly, Hoffman and Medlock-Klyukovski ( 2004 ) argue that contemporary organizations are “typically marked by conflicting interests and contradictory demands on individuals” (p. 389). This is similar to Chen ( 2012 ) who refers to the need for a transformation and the need to create new cultural norms and values when confronted to the context of social change (Chen, 2012 ).

The typology of social change

In order to properly conceptualize DSC and other social contexts associated with the state of a collectivity, I suggest a typology of social change comprised of four different social contexts: “stability,” “inertia,” “incremental social change,” and “DSC” (see Table ​ Table1 1 for definitions). These social contexts are consistent with the theoretical stance of a large number of sociologists (e.g., Durkheim, 1893/1967 , 1897/1967 ; Watzlawick et al., 1974 ; Rocher, 1992 ; Fukuyama, 1999 ; Rogers, 2003 ; May, 2011 ; Nolan and Lenski, 2011 ), psychologists (e.g., Katz, 1974 ; Moghaddam, 2002 ; Pinquart and Silbereisen, 2004 ; Goodwin, 2006 ; de la Sablonnière et al., 2009a ) and scientists in the field of organizational behavior (e.g., Golembiewski et al., 1976 ; Tushman and Romanelli, 1985 ; Armenakis et al., 1986 ; Nadler and Tushman, 1995 ; Thompson and Hunt, 1996 ).

As many different concepts surround each of the four social contexts, it was necessary to choose a meaningful label for each. For “stability” and “inertia,” the choice was relatively easy because these two labels are commonly used and applied consistently. The term “status quo” was also considered rather than “stability” (e.g., Prilleltensky, 1990 ; Diekman and Goodfriend, 2007 ; Mucchi-Faina et al., 2010 ). However, because there could also be “status quo” in the context of inertia (e.g., Subašić et al., 2008 ), the term “stability” was preferred.

When it came to “incremental” and “dramatic” social change, the decision was more arduous as authors from different research fields use different labels. For example, instead of referring to “DSC,” Golembiewski et al. ( 1976 ) refers to “gamma changes”; Nadler and Tushman ( 1995 ), to “discontinuous change.” Others refer to “second-order change” (Watzlawick et al., 1974 ; Bartunek and Moch, 1987 ; Bate, 1994 ; Newman, 2000 ), to “abrupt” (e.g., Back, 1971 ; Pinquart and Silbereisen, 2004 ) or even to “rapid” change (e.g., Becker, 2004 ; McDade and Worthman, 2004 ). The term “dramatic” social change was chosen for its ability to clearly and distinctively define the situation confronting ordinary people. In a similar fashion, the term “incremental” social change was preferred over the labels: “first-order change,” “beta change,” and “continuous change.”

When there is stability , the actual state of a society is maintained and the majority of group members are actively attempting to attain society's goals. As Weinstein ( 2010 ) describes it, it is a state in which “the established order appears to be operating effectively, and disturbing influences from within or from other societies are insignificant” (p. 9; see also Bess ( 2015 ) where no change is equated with stability). Indeed, none of the four characteristic of social change are present. For example, the social and normative structures fluctuate little, and changes do not affect what is defined as normal behavior in a community (Harmon et al., 2015 ). Indeed, personal change, such as bereavement or divorce, still occurs for some members of society. However, in the event of a personal change, the social or normative structures are not disrupted, mainly because the collective social support system remains functional and people can rely on that support in case they experience changes in their individual lives. This is also consistent with the findings of Albert and Sabini ( 1974 ) who argue that changes occurring in a supportive environment or in a peripheral element of society are perceived as less disruptive than those occurring in a non-supportive environment because the strain upon society is attenuated.

Consistent with previous research, stability can be defined as a situation where an event, regardless of its pace, does not affect the equilibrium of a society's social and normative structures nor the cultural identity of group members. The event, may, however, impact an isolated number of individuals . An example that might clarify this definition of stability is the event of an election. Although many people can get excited and seem to be affected by this event, an election does not necessarily bring about a rupture in a society, even if it involves a change of political party. The core elements of society remain stable and citizens resume their activities without feeling their lives have been overly disrupted by the election and its outcome. If, for instance, supporters of the defeated party feel sad and hopeless about the defeat, plenty of other citizens will be available to help them cope since most of them will not be affected by the change of government. However, in a different context, the event of an election may trigger DSC; for example, when it leads to a social revolution.

In contrast with stability, a context where there is inertia involves a situation that does affect a large number of people, if not most of the people composing a society. Inertia is defined as a situation where an event, regardless of its pace, does not either reinstate the equilibrium of a society's social and normative structures or clarify the cultural identity of group members .

In times of inertia, if a “positive” event occurs, there is no sustainability to maintain its positive impact. Here, the example of Belarus is used, a country where the population has been in a state of inertia since the fall of the Soviet Union. Lukashenko has been the president of the country since 1994. Under his autocratic rule, Belarus is known as the last dictatorship in Europe. Many Belarusians are longing for a more democratic and open society, yet the country remains in inertia. Buchanan et al. ( 2005 ) describe a situation of inertia as an “absence of appropriate activity, a lack of capability, a failure to pay attention to signals, and thus as an impediment rather than a desired condition” (p. 190). Inertia is seen as an undesirable situation where constructive change is not possible because the organization (or the group) does not have the capacity (e.g., lack of resources or will) to carry out the needed change. These authors also argue that when a change is implemented, its sustainability requires managers and staff (or community members) to share the same objectives. Uncertainty about the future must be minimal.

Accordingly, one can assume that the criteria underpinning sustainability in the event of a change are already absent in a society that has stagnated due to inertia. Therefore, inertia in a society such as Belarus constitutes a context where the population is uncertain about the future and does not share the same long-term goals as its government. There is a desire for positive social change, but the actual structure of the society makes it difficult for any change to be implemented and be sustained. Indeed, for a positive change to be maintained, it must have the support of individuals in power since they have the appropriate resources to address society's problems. Unsurprisingly, sustainability of such a change is threatened by an autocratic style of governing (Buchanan et al., 2005 ).

In sum, inertia differs from stability. In the case of inertia, most members of society desire a change from the actual state of their group, but are unable to properly sustain change due to a lack of collective social support and an unclear cultural identity. In contrast, in the case of “stability,” the society functions in an efficient manner when meeting the collective goals.

Incremental social change

Incremental social change is defined as a situation where a slow event leads to a gradual but profound societal transformation and slowly changes the social and/or the normative structure or changes/threatens the cultural identity of group members . The slow pace is necessary for incremental social change to occur. Moreover, at least one of the other three characteristics needs to occur. In their recent paper, Abrams and Vasiljevic ( 2014 ) speak of “growth,” which could represent one form of incremental social change that involves “wider acceptance of shared values and tolerance of different values” and of “recession” where “disidentification” with current groups can occur (p. 328).

One of the most cited examples of incremental social change is technological innovation (e.g., Rieger, 2003 ; Weinstein, 2010 ; May, 2011 ; Hansen et al., 2012 ). Often, there is no social structural rupture associated with the wide use of technology and normative structure as well as social support remain intact. Given its incremental nature, this type of social change does not instantly produce conflict between old and new behaviors. For instance, when television was introduced, people bought it without knowing the consequences of the implementation of this new technology in their life (Becker, 2004 ; Macionis et al., 2008 ; Weinstein, 2010 ). Today, in retrospect, we know that buying a television set entailed a plethora of new behaviors that altered our society and our way of living. Indeed, some changes in society seem to be a “by-product of our pursuit of other goals and interests” (Subašić et al., 2012 , p. 62). The long time span that is typical for incremental social change makes its outcomes unpredictable and unintentional. For instance, as Weinstein states (Weinstein, 2010 ), “It would be impossible to assess exactly what role electronic telecommunication has played in our global revolution, in part because its effects continue to reverberate and magnify as you read this” (p. 4).

The cell phone is a particularly good example of incremental social change. When it came onto the buyer's market, only a few exclusive people possessed one. However, over the years, it became increasingly normative to have a cell phone and, today, it is almost inconceivable not to have one. Furthermore, when cell phones were first marketed, they were used mainly for business rather than for social purposes, which is the current primary use (Aoki and Downes, 2003 ). In the same vein, other technological changes, such as the emergence of personal computers (Kiesler et al., 1984 ; Robinson et al., 1997 ), Internet (DiMaggio et al., 2001 ; Brignall III and Van Valey, 2005 ), and social media (Robinson et al., 1997 ; O'Keeffe and Clarke-Pearson, 2011 ; Oh et al., 2015 ) will, in the future, be recognized as key events in the historical transformation of social structures and social norms. Such technology does not represent a DSC, but a social change nonetheless as it has modified the way people interact with one another in an incremental manner. As the change occurs for a relatively long period of time, there is consistency in the pattern of change, which allows social structures to adapt and, thus, to remain intact (Nadler and Tushman, 1995 ). Individuals experiencing incremental social change are therefore able to adapt, given that the collective social support is not altered. For example, there is support for people that have yet to possess a cell phone; if they want to buy one, but do not understand how it functions, there are plenty of people that can help them adapt to this new technology. Even if technological change is conceptualized here as an incremental change, it is possible that technology is used to provoke a DSC, for example by instigating an important social revolution (Rodriguez, 2013 ).

Despite technology being the most adequate example, other incremental changes can be observed in other aspects of society such as in medicine. Indeed, advancement in medicine such as effective birth control (Goldin and Katz, 2002 ) was also the cause of a profound incremental social change. The example of contraception is crucial as the pill deeply affected gender roles in society by empowering women by giving them the capacity to control their sexuality. The pill had not only direct positive effects on women's career investments, but also on the opportunity of attending school longer. The pill forever changed women's involvement in our societies and the repercussions of this incremental social change still echo to us through struggles for gender equality, but also in the form of women actively involved in every level of the modern workplace, including higher managements and governmental position. In other words, the gradual nature of incremental social change makes it a profound change in society that neither disturbs the social structure nor the collective social support system.

Dramatic social change

DSC has been defined as “profound societal transformations that produce a complete rupture in the equilibrium of social structures because their adaptive capacities are surpassed” (de la Sablonnière et al., 2009a , p. 325). Although this definition is based on previous sociological work (Parsons, 1964 ; Rocher, 1992 ), it is adapted here according to the four characteristic of DSC. Specifically, I suggest that DSC be defined as a situation where a rapid event leads to a profound societal transformation and produces a rupture in the equilibrium of the social and normative structures and changes/threatens the cultural identity of group members .

As with incremental change, DSC induces fundamental transformations in society. However, the shift occurs at a much more rapid pace, provoking a break with the past. Some authors have highlighted this sense of discontinuity by referring to DSC as the disintegration of a previous social order or as the break in a frame of reference (Golembiewski et al., 1976 ; Nadler and Tushman, 1995 ; Breakwell and Lyons, 1996 ). They also use terms such as the “construction of something new,” a “reconceptualization,” or a “re-definition.” Indeed, the breakdown of a social structure conveys the need for the reconstruction of core elements in a society. Accordingly, DSC can be conceptualized as a complete rupture in the social structure that marks the end of one period and the beginning of another one, or where a type of society is transformed into another (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985 ; Kohn et al., 2000 ; Weinstein, 2010 ). Other researchers, such as Rogers ( 2003 ), also see rapid social change as intertwined with the social structure. More specifically, Rogers ( 2003 ) states that rapid social change can threaten social structure by surpassing the adaptive capacities of individuals. Unsurprisingly, DSC is the most disruptive type of change not only for the social structure but also for the majority of society members experiencing it, i.e., the normative structure as well as cultural identities are challenged. As DSC entails a re-definition of values, norms and relations, individuals can no longer rely on their habits and routine; they need to learn new skills and new definitions and more challengingly, unlearn the old ways of doing things (Nadler and Tushman, 1995 ; Tomasik et al., 2010 ). Consequently, DSC is described as a painful and confusing experience for individuals (Hinkle, 1952 ; Lapuz, 1976 ; Nadler and Tushman, 1995 ; Kohn et al., 2000 ; Wall and Louchakova, 2002 ; Rioufol, 2004 ; Hegmon et al., 2008 ).

A good example of DSC is the breakdown of the Soviet Union. If I return to Zoia's example, it is clear that all the people in Kyrgyzstan and in the Former Soviet Union were affected by the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Zoia is not the only one who lost all her savings: the vast majority of people lost their savings within a matter of days. In terms of social support, whom could she have relied on if all of her friends were also in the same situation? Regarding to the fall of the former Soviet Union, Goodwin ( 2006 ) argues that older people were inclined to receive less social support in part because the majority of the population, including family members, were struggling with several jobs just to provide themselves with basic needs. Furthermore, elderly citizens could not even rely on formal social services because the collapse of the former Soviet Union caused a decline in formal state support, which left them no time to rebuild their retirement income. This illustrates the rupture in the structure of society that can be found when a DSC occurs as well as the effect on the majority of ordinary group members who cannot rely on collective social support.

Coming full circle: theoretical implications

Heraclitus, an ancient Greek philosopher, is credited for saying that “the only thing constant is change.” Gradually or within an instant, civilizations, societies, communities or organizations that often seem immutable face multiple DSCs. Social scientists agree that social changes are not only intensifying but also defining today's world. In fact, Weinstein ( 2010 ) has underscored that “rapid change, both peaceful and violent, is a fact of life that virtually everyone on Earth today has come to expect, if not unconditionally accept” (p. 3).

For the present paper, my aim was to initiate a conversation about the psychology of social change. Thus, I briefly reviewed the major perspectives of social change in both sociology and psychology. Research conducted in both fields and their subfields have remained in distinct silos with no effort made toward aggregating their findings. This has unfortunately resulted in the absence of an encompassing approach in the current literature of social change: social change has never been integrated into a single perspective that would define or contextualize DSC within the spectrum of different social contexts. More importantly, social change has not been conceptualized so that micro processes, macro processes, and the important relations between them are addressed. As a result, the typology of social change introduces different social contexts (e.g., stability) that can serve as a basis of comparison for DSC. Based on my review of the literature, I suggest four necessary characteristics of DSC (Table ​ (Table6 6 ).

The present paper then offers a first step toward unifying the variety of theories of social change which are currently isolated from each other. Indeed, our approach aims at addressing the challenge raised by Sun and Ryder ( 2016 ) concerning our need for “a more nuanced understanding of rapid sociocultural change combined with sophisticated research methods designed to address change in a multilevel way” (p. 9). The typology of social change I am suggesting is an emerging concept; thus, I invite debate with the hope that the views presented here will stimulate others to contribute to a needed understanding of DSC within an individual perspective. More importantly, based on such a typology of social change, theoretical models could be suggested as they might offer a guide to understanding the consequences of social change. For instance, such theoretical models could answer these three questions: Are the different social contexts associated with one-another? What makes a society move from one social context to another (e.g., from stability to DSC)? What is the role of the different characteristics of DSC? So far, answers to the three questions raised above were left lingering and the different characteristics of DSC were not arranged in a sequential way nor were they identified as key movers of one state of society to another. In Figure ​ Figure1, 1 , I offer a theoretical model that integrates the social contexts and the characteristics of DSC as a first step toward a psychology of social change.

As seen in Figure ​ Figure1, 1 , neither a slow nor a fast pace event will influence the status quo in both stability and inertia. There will therefore be no break with the past and so no rupture in the social and normative structures. Thus, in these two social contexts, if an event were to occur rapidly, the current situation of a group or society would remain unaffected by it; that is why pace is not the only characteristic important to define DSC. For example, if a plane crashes, which is a rapidly occurring dramatic event, it does not necessarily affect an entire community. Also, in a state of stability, when a fast—or slow—event takes place, because the normative and the social structures are unaffected, there is no direct threat to the group's cultural identity. Similarly, when an event occurs in a state of inertia, there is no additional threat to the society's cultural identity, because the normative and social structure are unaffected.

In contrast, in a state of incremental social change, slow-occurring events, if profound enough, will gradually change the social and normative structures, as well as threaten or change cultural identity. For a DSC to occur, a fast event needs to take place. If that event has enough impact—therefore not in a state of stability or inertia—, it will rupture the social structure and the normative structures. As shown by many different DSC contexts, there are three possible scenarios when it comes to the rupture of these two structures: (1) the social structure ruptures first, which later leads to the rupture of the normative structure (e.g., Zhang and Hwang, 2007 ), (2) the normative structure ruptures first, which later leads to the rupture of the social structure (e.g., Centola and Baronchelli, 2015 ), or (3) both the social and normative structures rupture simultaneously and influence each other.

An example of the first scenario would be the latest presidential elections in the United States. The recent proclamation of Donald Trump as president carries the potential for political transformations as well as changes in the United States' economic structure (rupture to social structure). The leadership of Trump's administration can carry major structural change that would then lead to a rupture of the normative structure. At this point, there are indications that this new governance (social structure) may very well affect the normative structure. Some members of the population have become more “open” to expressing their reluctance to have more immigrants come to the USA, which could eventually lead to a rupture in normative structure where different ethnic groups overtly fight each other within America. A second example was the loss of the French Canadians to the English Canadians at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759. This battle was a pivotal moment in the 7 Years' War and gave power to the British troops (Veyssière, 2013 ). The result of the battle culminated in the French losing most of their economical structural powers to the English and the start of a decline of education. Consequently, the French mentality and behaviors were modified. The norms had to be adapted to new rules and to the loss of economic power (Veyssière, 2013 ).

The normative structure can rupture before the social structure in situations such as the African-American Civil Rights Movement in the United-States, the Fall of Apartheid in South Africa, or the Quiet Revolution in Québec. If in the past African-Americans were afflicted by a sense of resignation, leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks gave them the will they needed to fight for a better future for themselves. This rupture in the normative structure led to the African-American Civil Rights Movement which, in turn, brought about changes to the social structure (e.g., School desegregation). This movement against racial inequality, segregation and discrimination instigated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned any type of segregation based on race, color, religion or sex, as well as other changes in federal legislation.

The breakdown of the Soviet Union is an example that can be used to illustrate a simultaneous rupture of the social and normative structures. This event caused major transformations in the economic, political, and social structures (rupture to social structure). Simultaneously, a large proportion of the population found themselves in a great economic crisis, which led to disruptions in their usual behaviors and habits, such as working multiple jobs instead of just one (rupture of normative structures).

When the normative and the social structures are ruptured (regardless of the order in which this occurs), cultural identity will be threatened. There will be a global sense of confusion, ambiguity, and lack of clarity that might motivate individual group members to change their identification with their group.

Depending on society's and the individual's abilities to cope, there are two possible outcomes: stability or inertia. If the society in which DSC has taken place is able to develop coping and adaptation mechanisms—both at the individual and societal levels—stability might be restored. Stability would then be achieved when the social and normative structures however different are brought back to functionality and when cultural identity is clear and no longer under threat. In contrast, if the society and individuals are not able to develop coping mechanisms, society might enter a state of inertia. In inertia, even though a society in a state of inertia is no longer going through major social changes, the need or desire for change still lingers (Sloutsky and Searle-White, 1993 ). This can be due to a DSC that did not, in the end, really change the way a collectivity is ruled or how its citizens are treated (Moghaddam and Crystal, 1997 ; Moghaddam and Lvina, 2002 ).

Consequences of DSC

Knowing about the range of different social contexts such as stability, inertia, incremental change, and DSC as well as the specific characteristics of DSC, has the potential to guide researchers in terms of assessing DSC and its impact on the psychological well-being of ordinary group members. Specifically, after establishing a clear typology of social change, including potential theoretical models, it is now possible to move on to the second step of the psychology of social change. In this second step, we need to address whether and how different coping mechanisms determine (mediate, moderate) the influence of DSC on psychological well-being. This question goes hand in hand with the work of Norris et al. ( 2002 ) who reviewed 160 studies involving natural disasters, mass violence, and technological disasters. They concluded from more than 60,000 participants that such events have negative repercussions on participants' lives. In most of the research they report, social support, economic status, and age were the identified factors that may be associated with a better adaptation to social change. Although diverse factors were suggested, the research they reported was “atheoretical and little of it is programmatic” (Norris et al., 2002 , p. 249). In accordance with Norris et al. ( 2002 ), I argue that the mediators or moderators involved in adaptation mechanisms should become the focus of future studies. The four characteristics I have identified have the potential to become pivotal in meeting this objective. In sum, the link between social change and well-being is still unclear (e.g., Liu et al., 2014 ; Sun and Ryder, 2016 ). Such an investigation could eventually guide us in designing concrete interventions to help people adapt to the challenges of DSC (Rogers, 2003 ; Vago, 2004 ).

The concept of resilience emerges from the literature as potentially useful for understanding people's coping mechanisms. Resilience is defined as the act of bouncing back in the face of adversity (Bonanno, 2004 ). For the specific example of DSC, resilient individuals would be those who have been able to maintain their normal functioning and adapt themselves to adverse situations (Masten, 2001 ; Curtis and Cicchetti, 2003 ; Luthar, 2003 ; Masten and Powell, 2003 ). Research has shown that a significant number of people are able to adapt to challenging personal situations (e.g., Bonanno, 2004 ). However, resilience has mostly been studied within the context of personal changes such as the death of a loved one or a personal trauma (Bonanno, 2004 ). Similar to a personal change, this variation in reactions may be due to individual differences in resilience. This highlights the need to consider this variable within the psychology of social change. More concretely, the literature on resilience may prove to be important when linking people's perceptions of the characteristic of DSC to the various paths of recovery (e.g., resilience, recovery, chronic distress, and delayed reactions; Bonanno, 2004 ).

While most research on resilience focuses on “personal events,” there is, however, another type of resilience known as “collective resilience” or “community resilience” (e.g., Landau and Saul, 2004 ; Kirmayer et al., 2011 ) which may be more relevant in the context of DSC as the concept hints that the majority of society is affected by the change. To illustrate collective resilience, let us consider the case where the normative structure of a society is dissolved and its cultural identity is threatened. Individuals in this situation would no longer have guidelines and values to individually cope with DSC. Moreover, every individual affected by the change would be in the same negative situation. Consequently, individuals might need to find ways to collectively adapt to the transformations. The processes associated with resilience may thus differ in situations of personal vs. social change. I therefore believe it is important to explore whether the adaptation mechanisms are the same in a context of DSC where social support is not readily available.

Conducting research on social change

In order to speak of a real psychology of social change, we must be able to actually study social change and its consequences. The use of a mix of methodologies that would include large correlational or longitudinal surveys conducted in the field as well as laboratory experiments (de la Sablonnière et al., 2013 ; see also Liu and Bernardo, 2014 ; Sun and Ryder, 2016 ) might prove to be the only way to truly study social change and its consequences. On the one hand, correlational designs conducted in the field are necessary to capture people's firsthand experience with DSC. They are however limited by their design that prevents claims of causality. They are also known to be demanding in terms of both human and financial resources, and may well be dangerous at times for researchers. Moreover, they require an intimate knowledge of the culture such as the language as well as contacts within the community to facilitate the research and collaboration process.

On the other hand, laboratory experiments are necessary to establish the controlled conditions needed to understand associations between the characteristics of social change and the consequences. Laboratory experiments, however, are difficult to design, because it is a challenge to reproduce the actual characteristics of social change in the laboratory which limits their ecological validity (de la Sablonnière et al., 2013 ). Indeed, social change typically entails various elements such as historical processes, a collective perspective, and associated cultural elements (Moghaddam and Crystal, 1997 ) which must be taken into consideration in order to replicate their impact in an artificial setting. For example, the impact of the Tohoku tsunami in Japan or the Syrian conflict cannot be recreated in their entirety in a laboratory; nor can all the characteristic of social change be taken into consideration in a laboratory study designed to assess the impact(s) of social change. However, if an array of studies using different characteristic of DSC were to be conducted (or a combination of multiple characteristic), the convergence of the results would make us able to better understand and thereby predict the impact of DSC on individuals and communities. At the very least in a laboratory, researchers can expose participants to imagined changes through a scenario or a video that would include, in the experimental condition, one or more of the four characteristics of DSC (Pelletier-Dumas et al., submitted). If the scientific community accepts that experimental studies will not exactly mirror DSC, but instead test some of the characteristics in a large number of experiments, there is potential for laboratory experiments to bring an important contribution that would eventually allow a generalization to the real world (for examples see Betsch et al., 2015 ; Caldwell et al., 2016 ; Pelletier-Dumas et al., submitted).

The difficulties of conducting research on social change are, however, amplified by the challenge of obtaining ethical consent in a manner that allows for timely research. In terms of experimental manipulations of DSC, obtaining the ethical board's consent can be tedious. Indeed, according to some authors (Kelman, 1967 ; Bok, 1999 ; Clarke, 1999 ; Herrera, 1999 ; Pittenger, 2002 ) deceiving participants is difficult to justify ethically. This objection on the use of deception can undermine any attempt to seriously study DSC, as deception can be a valuable methodological asset (Bortolotti and Mameli, 2006 ), especially with such an elusive subject. Furthermore, research on new grounds require new techniques and methods on which ethicists can put limits, to ensure that they do not cause harm to participants (Root Wolpe, 2006 ). As with any new technology, methods focused on inducing dramatic-like changes can be perceived as having unsuspected risks.

In order to truly understand the interplay between individuals and their context, social psychological theories must take into account that we live in a constantly changing world. Unfortunately, although social psychology was rooted in understanding social change, most modern psychological theories refrain from addressing a “true” psychology of social change and prefer relegating social change to the field of sociology.

Through increasing the focus on social change, we could combine, on the one hand, sociology's emphasis on the importance of social change with, on the other hand, psychology's emphasis on the importance of complex individual processes. As a result, my theoretical proposal aims at bringing together sociology, where social change is central, and psychology, where rigorous scientific methods allow us to study the psychological processes of individuals living in changing social contexts.

In general, more research on the concept of social change is needed so that we can help predict, prevent, and minimize the negative impact of social change. If psychologists and sociologists work together to move toward developing a psychology of social change, perhaps we could come to better understand and help people, like Zoia, who lost almost everything they had, consequently improving the quality of millions of lives experiencing DSC.

Author contributions

RdlS thought and developed the ideas, as well as wrote the article as sole author. Research assistants were paid to find and read the abstracts of all articles reviewed in this manuscript.

This research was founded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and by a grant from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC).

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

RdlS Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal. I wish to thank all my colleagues and the members of the Social Change and Identity Lab for their comments and help. They have heard me talk about social change for the last 10 years and have never stopped encouraging me to pursue these ideas. I am also grateful to all the “Baboushkas” and the people I have met in contexts of DSC. These people continue to inspire me every day. I am grateful to the editor and the three evaluators for their insightful comments. I would also like to thank Matthew Davidson, Saltanat Sadykova, Lily Trudeau-Guévin, Alexie Gendron, Jérémie Dupuis, Raphaël Froment, and Donald M. Taylor for their help during different steps of the preparation of this manuscript. Finally, I want to thank Nada Kadhim who was patient enough to coordinate the material and the team—including me—at all stages.

1 Key sociology readings, such as Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology (Nolan and Lenski, 2011 ), The Sociology of Social Change (Sztompka, 1993 ), and Social Change (Weinstein, 2010 ), offer an in-depth description of these theories that were beyond the scope of the present review.

2 For space limitation, all methodological details and steps I encountered are not discussed here, but are available upon request to the author.

3 The term “social change” must be distinguished from the term “event.” An event may or may not be considered as social change. An event has the potential to bring social change (Sewell, 1996 ), be it incremental or dramatic. However, an event is not always tied to social change as it may represent a form of “happening” that does not influence the course of history (Nisbet, 1972 ). In sum, an event is an intrusion or “disturbances, however mild, of the normal” (p. 26). In contrast to social change, with the event, the disruption of the normal might only be temporary and not significant in time.

4 Defining social structure represents a challenge that goes beyond the scope of the present paper. From my understanding of the literature, there are as many conceptions of social structure as there are scientists working on that concept. The most important issue that demonstrates how hard it is to define social structure is the fact that one of the most prominent sociologists, Giddens ( 1979 ), refers to a “duality of structure” when defining social structure (structure vs. agency). On the one hand, social structure represents institutions or more specifically “collective rules and resources that structure behavior” (Porpora, 1989 , p. 195). Here, scientists refer to “groups, institutions, laws, population characteristics, and set of social relations that form the environment of the organization” (Stinchcombe, 2000 , p. 142), or to “Lawlike regularities that govern the behavior of social facts” (Porpora, 1989 , p. 195). On the other hand, social structure represents “the underlying regularities or patterns in how people behave and in their relationships with one another” (i.e., agency; Giddens et al., 2011 , p. 3). Here, the definitions often described normative behaviors or the roles of individuals rather than the role played by social institutions (e.g., Cortina et al., 2012 ; Homans, 1951 ; Mayhew, 1980 ; Tanner and Jackson, 2012 ; Wilson, 2012 ).

This duality lunched a debate in sociology that was reflected not only in Gidden's work but also in others sociologists that have devoted their writings to defining social structure (e.g., Parsons, 1964 ; Mayhew, 1980 ). For example, Porpora ( 1989 ) reports four principal ways of conceptualizing social structure that reflect either of these conceptions. More recently, expending on the work of Bourdieu ( 1975 ) and of Goffman ( 1983 ), López and Scott ( 2000 ) proposed that there is another aspect of social structure that must also be considered in addition to the institutional and relational structures: the embodied structure described as the “habits and skills that are inscribed in human bodies and minds” (p. 4).

To add to that complexity, some researchers (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979 , 1994 ; for other “system views” see for example Marx, 1859/1970 ; Habermas, 1987 ) describe the possible “systems” that are, like Russian dolls, embedded in each other. These systems include the ecological environments “conceived as a set of nested structures” (Bronfenbrenner, 1994 , p. 39): the microsystems, the mesosystems, the exosystems, the macrosystems, and the chronosystems. This “ecological model” illustrates the complexity of social structure as a sociological term.

Because of the lack of clarity, or maybe because the definition of social structure points to different aspects of the social structure, scientists often avoid defining social structure in their papers, and thereby contribute to the general confusion. Not that the other aspects or levels of social structure are not important (e.g., meso, micro), but the social structure being discussed in the present paper refers exclusively to macro-level elements of society such as institutions and other environmental factors that help facilitate and structure collective interactions, norms, roles, and behaviors.

• Abrams D., Vasiljevic M. (2014). How does macroeconomic change affect social identity (and vice versa?): insights from the European context . Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 14 , 311–338. 10.1111/asap.12052 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albert S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory . Psychol. Rev. 84 , 485–503. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.6.485 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albert S., Sabini J. (1974). Attributions about systems in slow vs. rapid change . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1 , 91–93. 10.1177/014616727400100131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amiot C., de la Sablonnière R., Terry D., Smith J. (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: toward a cognitive-developmental model . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11 , 364–388. 10.1177/1088868307304091 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andersson C., Törnberg A., Törnberg P. (2014). An evolutionary developmental approach to cultural evolution . Curr. Anthropol. 55 , 154–174. 10.1086/675692 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aoki K., Downes E. J. (2003). An analysis of young people's use of and attitudes toward cell phones . Telematics Inform. 20 , 349–364. 10.1016/S0736-5853(03)00018-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Armenakis A. A., Buckley M. R., Bedeian A. G. (1986). Survey research measurement issues in evaluating change: a laboratory investigation . Appl. Psychol. Meas. 10 , 147–157. 10.1177/014662168601000204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnett J. J. (1995). Adolescents' uses of media for self-socialization . J. Youth Adolesc. 24 , 519–533. 10.1007/BF01537054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashmore R. D., Deaux K., McLaughlin-Volpe T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: articulation and significance of multidimensionality . Psychol. Bull. 130 , 80–114. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Back K. W. (1971). Biological models of social change . Am. Sociol. Rev. 36 , 660–667. 10.2307/2093596 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartunek J. M., Moch M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: a cognitive approach . J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 23 , 483–500. 10.1177/002188638702300404 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bate S. P. (1994). Strategies for Cultural Change . Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. [ Google Scholar ]
• Batel S., Castro P. (2015). Collective action and social change: examining the role of representation in the communication between protesters and third-party members . J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25 , 249–263. 10.1002/casp.2214 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauman Z. (2003). Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds . Cambridge: Polity Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker A. E. (2004). Television, disordered eating, and young women in Fiji: negotiating body image and identity during rapid social change . Cult. Med. Psychiatry 28 , 533–559. 10.1007/s11013-004-1067-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benet-Martínez V., Haritatos J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): components and psychosocial antecedents . J. Pers. 73 , 1015–1050. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstrøm V. H., Kjekshus L. E. (2015). Effect of organisational change type and frequency on long-term sickness absence in hospitals . J. Nurs. Manag. 23 , 813–822. 10.1111/jonm.12218 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry J. W. (2005). Acculturation: living successfully in two cultures . Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 29 , 697–712. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bess K. D. (2015). The impact of everyday experiences on planned organizational change: applying schematic change theory to the study of narratives in community-based organizations . J. Community Psychol. 43 , 739–759. 10.1002/jcop.21757 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Betsch T., Lindow S., Engel C., Ulshöfer C., Kleber J. (2015). Has the world changed? My neighbor might know: effects of social context on routine deviation . J. Behav. Decis. Making 28 , 50–66. 10.1002/bdm.1828 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bishop P. (1998). Social change and future practice . Am. Behav. Sci. 42 , 406–412. 10.1177/0002764298042003011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackwood L., Livingstone A. G., Leach C. W. (2013). Regarding societal change . J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 1 , 105–111. 10.5964/jspp.v1i1.282 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bok S. (1999). Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life . New York, NY: Vintage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonanno G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Am. Psychol. 59 , 20–28. 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bortolotti L., Mameli M. (2006). Deception in psychology: mora; costs and benefits of unsought self-knowledge . Account. Res. 13 , 259–275. 10.1080/08989620600848561 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourdieu P. (1975). Structures sociales et structures de perception du monde social [Social structures and structures of perception of the social world] . Actes Rech. Sci. Soc. 1 , 18–20. 10.3406/arss.1975.3507 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breakwell G. M. (1986). Coping with Threatened Identities . London: Methuen. [ Google Scholar ]
• Breakwell G. M., Lyons E. (1996). Changing European Identities: Social Psychological Analyses of Social Change . Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brignall III T. W., Van Valey T. V. (2005). The impact of Internet communications on social interaction . Sociol. Spectr. 25 , 335–348. 10.1080/02732170590925882 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1994). Ecological models of human development , in International Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd Edn ., Vol. 3 , eds Husén T., Postlethwaite T. N. (Oxford: Elsevier; ), 1643–1647. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruscella J. (2015). Holiday greeting rituals as expressions of ambivalence and indifference toward social change . West. J. Commun. 79 , 116–132. 10.1080/10570314.2014.943427 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchanan D., Fitzgerald L., Ketley D., Gollop R., Jones J. L., Lamont S. S., et al. (2005). No going back: a review of the literature on sustaining organizational change . Int. J. Manag. Rev. 7 , 189–205. 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00111.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burke W. W., Litwin G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change . J. Manag. 18 , 523–545. 10.1177/014920639201800306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caldwell C. A., Atkinson M., Renner E. (2016). Experimental approaches to studying cumulative cultural evolution . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25 , 191–195. 10.1177/0963721416641049 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calhoun C. (1992). Social change , in Encyclopedia of Sociology , Vol. 4 , eds Borgatta E. F., Montgomery R. J. V. (New York, NY: MacMillan; ), 1807–1812. [ Google Scholar ]
• Calhoun C. (2000). Social change , in Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd Edn ., Vol. 4 , eds Borgatta E. F., Montgomery R. J. V. (New York, NY: MacMillan; ), 2641–2649. [ Google Scholar ]
• Centola D., Baronchelli A. (2015). The spontaneous emergence of conventions: an experimental study of structural evolution . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 , 1989–1994. 10.1073/pnas.1418838112 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X. (2012). Human development in the context of social change: introduction . Child Dev. Perspect. 6 , 321–325. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00259.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X. (2015). Exploring the implications of social change for human development: perspectives, issues and future directions . Int. J. Psychol. 50 , 56–59. 10.1002/ijop.12128 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chirot D., Merton R. M. (1986). Social Change in the Modern Era . San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke S. (1999). Justifying deception in social science research . J. Appl. Philos. 16 , 151–166. 10.1111/1468-5930.00117 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Comte A. I. (1853/1929). Système de Politique Positive [System of Positive Polity], Vol. 3 . Paris: Carilian-Goeury et Dalmont. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cortina L. M., Curtin N., Stewart A. J. (2012). Where is social structure in personality research? A feminist analysis of publication trends . Psychol. Women Q. 36 , 259–273. 10.1177/0361684312448056 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coughlin B. J., Khinduka S. K. (1976). Social change and social action . J. Sociol. Soc. Welf. 3 , 322–331. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crockett L. J., Silbereisen R. K. (Eds.). (2000). Negotiating Adolescence in Times of Social Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis W. J., Cicchetti D. (2003). Moving research on resilience into the 21st century: theoretical and methodological considerations in examining the biological contributors to resilience . Dev. Psychopathol. 15 , 773–810. 10.1017/S0954579403000373 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dadrian V. N. (1989). Genocide as a problem of national and international law: the World War I Armenian case and its contemporary legal ramifications . Yale J. Int. Law 12 , 223–326. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dadrian V. N. (1998). The historical and legal interconnections between the Armenian genocide and the Jewish Holocaust: from impunity to retributive justice . Yale J. Int. Law 23 , 503–560. [ Google Scholar ]
• de la Sablonnière R., Amiot C. E., Cárdenas D., Sadykova N., Gorborukova G. L., Huberdeau M.-E. (2016). Testing the subtractive pattern of cultural identification . Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 46 , 441–454. 10.1002/ejsp.2178 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de la Sablonnière R., Tougas F. (2008). Relative deprivation and social identity in times of dramatic social change: the case of nurses . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38 , 2293–2314. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00392.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de la Sablonnière R., Usborne E. (2014). Toward a social psychology of social change: insights from Identity Process Theory , in Identity Process Theory: Identity, Social Action and Social Change , eds Jaspal R., Breakwell G. M. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 203–221. [ Google Scholar ]
• de la Sablonnière R., Auger É., Sadykova N., Taylor D. M. (2010). When the “we” impacts how “I” feel about myself: effect of temporal collective relative deprivation on personal well-being in the context of dramatic social change in Kyrgyzstan . Eur. Psychol. 15 , 271–282. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000062 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de la Sablonnière R., French Bourgeois L., Najih M. (2013). Dramatic social change: a social psychological perspective . J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 1 , 253–272. 10.5964/jspp.v1i1.14 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de la Sablonnière R., Taylor D. M., Sadykova N. (2009b). Challenges of applying a student-centered approach to learning in the context of education in Kyrgyzstan . Int. J. Educ. Dev. 29 , 628–634. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de la Sablonnière R., Taylor D. M., Perozzo C., Sadykova N. (2009a). Reconceptualizing relative deprivation in the context of dramatic social change: the challenge confronting the people of Kyrgyzstan . Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39 , 325–345. 10.1002/ejsp.519 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de la Sablonnière R., Tougas F., Lortie-Lussier M. (2009c). Dramatic social change in Russia and Mongolia: connecting relative deprivation to social identity . J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 40 , 327–348. 10.1177/0022022108330986 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Lemus S., Stroebe K. (2015). Achieving social change: a matter of all for one? J. Soc. Issues 71 , 441–452. 10.1111/josi.12122 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delanty G. (2012). A cosmopolitan approach to the explanation of social change: social mechanisms, processes, modernity . Sociol. Rev. 60 , 333–354. 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02076.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Des Forges A. (1999). Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda . New York, NY: Human Rights Watch; Available online at: https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/r/rwanda/rwanda993.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed . New York, NY: Penguin Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diekman A. B., Goodfriend W. (2007). The good and bad of social change: ambivalence toward activist groups . Soc. Justice Res. 20 , 401–417. 10.1007/s11211-007-0050-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DiMaggio P., Hargittai E., Neuman W. R., Robinson J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet . Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27 , 307–336. 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.307 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durkheim É. (1893/1967). De la Division du Travail Social [The Division of Labor in Society] . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durkheim É. (1897/1967). Le Suicide: Étude de Sociologie [Suicide: A Study in Sociology]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ethier K. A., Deaux K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: maintaining identification and responding to threat . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67 , 243–251. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.243 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldman M. W., Laland K. N. (1996). Gene-culture coevolutionary theory . Trends Ecol. Evol. 11 , 453–457. 10.1016/0169-5347(96)10052-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fried M. (1964). Effects of social change on mental health . Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 34 , 3–28. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1964.tb02187.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fukuyama F. (1999). The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order . New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giddens A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giddens A., Duneier M., Appelbaum R. P., Carr D. (2011). Introduction to Sociology, 8th Edn . New York, NY: Norton Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goffman E. (1983). The interaction order . Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 , 1–17. 10.2307/2095141 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldin C., Katz L. F. (2002). The power of the pill: oral contraceptives and women's career and marriage decisions . J. Polit. Econ. 110 , 730–770. 10.1086/340778 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Golembiewski R. T., Billingsley K., Yeager S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: types of change generated by OD designs . J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 12 , 133–157. 10.1177/002188637601200201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin R. (2006). Age and social support perception in Eastern Europe: social change and support in four rapidly changing countries . Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 45 , 799–815. 10.1348/014466605X72144 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin R. B. (1998). Personal relationships and social change: the ‘Realpolitik’ of cross-cultural research in transient cultures . J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 15 , 227–247. 10.1177/0265407598152006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenfield P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: shifting pathways of human development . Dev. Psychol. 45 , 401–418. 10.1037/a0014726 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenfield P. M. (2016). Social change, cultural evolution, and human development . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 8 , 84–92. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Habermas H. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, 3rd Edn., Vol. 2 . Transl. by McCarthy T. A. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hannum H. (1989). International law and Cambodian genocide: the sounds of silence . Hum. Rights Q. 11 , 82–138. 10.2307/761936 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen N., Postmes T., van der Vinne N., van Thiel W. (2012). Information and communication technology and cultural change . Soc. Psychol. 43 , 222–231. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harmon D. J., Green S. E., Goodnight G. T. (2015). A model of rhetorical legitimation: the structure of communication and cognition underlying institutional maintenance and change . Acad. Manag. Rev. 40 , 76–95. 10.5465/amr.2013.0310 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hegmon M., Peeples M. A., Kinzig A. P., Kulow S., Meegan C. M., Nelson M. C. (2008). Social transformation and its human costs in the prehispanic U.S . Southwest. Am. Anthropol. 110 , 313–324. 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2008.00041.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrera C. (1999). Two arguments for covert methods in social research . Br. J. Sociol. 50 , 331–343. 10.1080/000713199358770 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hewitt W. E., White J., Teevan J. J. (2008). Introduction to Sociology: A Canadian Focus, 8th Edn . Toronto, ON: Pearson Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinkle G. J. (1952). The “four wishes” in Thomas' theory of social change . Soc. Res. 19 , 464–484. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffman M. F., Medlock-Klyukovski A. (2004). “Our creator who art in heaven”: paradox, ritual, and cultural transformation . West. J. Commun. 68 , 389–410. 10.1080/10570310409374810 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Homans C. G. (1951). The Human Group . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jerneić Ž., Šverko B. (2001). Life-role changes in times of socioeconomic transition . Rev. Psychol. 8 , 41–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jost J. T., Banaji M. R., Nosek B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo . Polit. Psychol. 25 , 881–919. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanter R. M. (1991). Transcending business boundaries: 12,000 world managers view change . Harv. Bus. Rev. 69 , 151–164. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz D. (1974). Factors affecting social change: a social-psychological interpretation . J. Soc. Issues 30 , 159–180. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00732.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelman H. (1967). Humans use of human subjects: the problem of deception in social psychological experiments . Psychol. Bull. 67 , 1–11. 10.1037/h0024072 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiesler S., Siegel J., McGuire T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication . Am. Psychol. 39 , 1123–1134. 10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J. (2008). Perception of social change and psychological well-being: a study focusing on social change in Korea between 1997 and 2000 . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38 , 2821–2858. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00415.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J., Ng S. H. (2008). Perceptions of social changes and social identity: study focusing on Hong Kong society after reunification . Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 11 , 232–240. 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.00262.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirmayer L. J., Dandeneau S., Marshall E., Phillips M. K., Williamson K. J. (2011). Rethinking resilience from indigenous perspectives . Can. J. Psychiatry 56 , 84–91. 10.1177/070674371105600203 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn M. L., Slomczynski K. M., Janicka K., Khmelko V., Mach B. W., Paniotto V., et al. (1997). Social structure and personality under conditions of radical social change: a comparative analysis of Poland and Ukraine . Am. Sociol. Rev. 62 , 614–638. 10.2307/2657430 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn M. L., Zaborowski W., Janicka K., Mach B. W., Khmelko V., Slomczynski K. M., et al. (2000). Complexity of activities and personality under conditions of radical social change: a comparative analysis of Poland and Ukraine . Soc. Psychol. Q. 63 , 187–207. 10.2307/2695868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kollontai V. (1999). Social transformations in Russia . Int. Soc. Sci. J. 51 , 103–121. 10.1111/1468-2451.00180 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krznaric R. (2007). How Change Happens: Interdisciplinary Perspectives for Human Development . Oxford: Oxfam. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laland K. N., Odling-Smee J., Feldman M. W. (2000). Niche construction, biological evolution, and cultural change . Behav. Brain Sci. 23 , 131–175. 10.1017/S0140525X00002417 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landau J., Saul J. (2004). Facilitating family and community resilience in response to major disaster , in Living Beyond Loss, 2nd Edn. , eds Walsh F., McGoldrick M. (New York, NY: Norton; ), 285–309. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lapuz L. V. (1976). Culture change and psychological stress . Am. J. Psychoanal. 36 , 171–176. 10.1007/BF01248367 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Latour B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenski G. E., Lenski J. (1974). Human Societies . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu H., Li S., Xiao Q., Feldman M. W. (2014). Social support and psychological well-being under social change in urban and rural China . Soc. Indic. Res. 119 , 979–996. 10.1007/s11205-013-0534-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu J. H., Bernardo A. B. I. (2014). Social psychology for social change: foundations for and introduction to a program of action-oriented research . J. Pacific Rim Psychol. 8 , 29–34. 10.1017/prp.2014.4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• López J., Scott J. (2000). Social Structure . Maidenhead: Open University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luthar S. S. (2003). Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the Context of Childhood Adversities . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macek P., Ježek S., Vazsonyi A. T. (2013). Adolescents during and after times of social change: the case of the Czech Republic . J. Early Adolesc. 33 , 1029–1047. 10.1177/0272431613507758 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macionis J. J., Jansson M., Benoit C. M. (2008). Society: The Basics, 4th Edn. Toronto, ON: Pearson Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marquis D. G. (1947). Psychology of social change . Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 249 , 75–80. 10.1177/000271624724900110 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marx K. (1859/1970). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy . New York, NY: International Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marx K., Engels F. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist Party, Vol. 1 . Moscow: Progress Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Masten A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development . Am. Psychol. 56 , 227–238. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Masten A. S., Powell J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice , in Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the Context of Childhood Adversities , ed Luthar S. S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 1–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• May V. (2011). Self, belonging and social change . Sociology 45 , 363–378. 10.1177/0038038511399624 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayhew B. H. (1980). Structuralism versus individualism: part 1, shadowboxing in the dark . Soc. Forces 59 , 335–375. 10.2307/2578025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDade T. W., Worthman C. M. (2004). Socialization ambiguity in Samoan adolescents: a model for human development and stress in the context of culture change . J. Res. Adolesc. 14 , 49–72. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.01401003.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGrath J. E. (1983). Looking ahead by looking backwards: some recurrent themes about social change . J. Soc. Issues 39 , 225–239. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1983.tb00186.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer J., Allen N. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application . New York, NY: Sage publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moghaddam F. M. (2002). The Individual and Society: A Cultural Integration . New York, NY: Worth. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moghaddam F. M. (2012). The omnicultural imperative . Cult. Psychol. 18 , 304–330. 10.1177/1354067X12446230 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moghaddam F. M., Crystal D. S. (1997). Revolutions, samurai, and reductions: the paradoxes of change and continuity in Iran and Japan . Polit. Psychol. 18 , 355–384. 10.1111/0162-895X.00061 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moghaddam F. M., Lvina E. (2002). Toward a psychology of societal change and stability: the case of human rights and duties . Int. J. Group Tens. 31 , 31–51. 10.1023/A:1014212700468 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mucchi-Faina A., Pacilli M. G., Pagliaro S. (2010). Minority influence, social change, and social stability . Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 4 , 1111–1123. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00314.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler D. A., Tushman M. L. (1995). Types of organizational change: from incremental improvement to discontinuous transformation , in Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation , eds Nadler D. A., Shaw R. B., Walton A. E. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 14–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neves P., Caetano A. (2009). Commitment to change: contributions to trust in the supervisor and work outcomes . Group Organ. Manag. 34 , 623–644. 10.1177/1059601109350980 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman K. L. (2000). Organizational transformation during institutional upheaval . Acad. Manag. Rev. 25 , 602–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nisbet R. A. (1972). Social Change . New York, NY: Harper and Row. [ Google Scholar ]
• Noak P., Kracke B., Wild E., Hofer M. (2001). Subjective experiences of social change in East and West Germany: analyses of the perceptions of adolescents and their parents . Am. Behav. Sci. 44 , 1798–1817. 10.1177/00027640121958168 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nolan P., Lenski G. E. (2011). Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology, 11th Edn . Boulder, CO: Paradigm. [ Google Scholar ]
• Norris F. H., Friedman M. J., Watson P. J., Byrne C. M., Diaz E., Kaniasty K. (2002). 60,000 disaster victims speak: part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981-2001 . Psychiatry 65 , 207–239. 10.1521/psyc.65.3.207.20173 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Keeffe G. S., Clarke-Pearson K. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adult, and families . Am. Acad. Pediatr. 127 , 800–806. 10.1542/peds.2011-0054 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oh O., Eom C., Rao H. R. (2015). Role of social media in social change: an analysis of collective sense making during the 2011 Egypt revolution . Inform. Syst. Res. 26 , 210–223. 10.1287/isre.2015.0565 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pareto V. (1901/1968). The Rise and Fall of Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology . Towota, NJ: Bedminster Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parson T. (1951). The Social Structure of Social Action . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons T. (1964). Essays in Sociological Theory . New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pham P. N., Weinstein H. M., Longman T. (2004). Trauma and PTSD symptoms in Rwanda . J. Am. Med. Assoc. 292 , 602–612. 10.1001/jama.292.5.602 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinquart M., Silbereisen R. K. (2004). Human development in times of social change: theoretical considerations and research needs . Int. J. Behav. Dev. 28 , 289–298. 10.1080/01650250344000406 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinquart M., Silbereisen R. K., Juang L. P. (2004). Moderating effects of adolescents' self-efficacy beliefs on psychological responses to social change . J. Adolesc. Res. 19 , 340–359. 10.1177/0743558403258851 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinquart M., Silbereisen R. K., Körner A. (2009). Perceived work-related demands associated with social change, control strategies, and psychological well-being: do associations vary by regional economic conditions? Evidence from Germany . Eur. Psychol. 14 , 207–219. 10.1027/1016-9040.14.3.207 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pittenger D. J. (2002). Deception in research: distinctions and solutions from the perspective of utilitarianism . Ethics Behav. 12 , 117–142. 10.1207/S15327019EB1202_1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pizer S. A., Travers J. R. (1975). Psychology and Social Change . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponsioen J. A. (1962). The Analysis of Social Change Reconsidered: A Sociological Study . The Hague: Mouton. [ Google Scholar ]
• Porpora D. V. (1989). Four concepts of social structure . J. Theory Soc. Behav. 19 , 195–211. 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00144.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prilleltensky I. (1990). Enhancing the social ethics of psychology: toward a psychology at the service of social change . Can. Psychol. 31 , 310–319. 10.1037/h0078954 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prislin R., Christensen P. N. (2005). Social change in the aftermath of successful minority influence . Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 16 , 43–73. 10.1080/10463280440000071 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prunier G. (2010). Africa's World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe . Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reichers A. E., John P. W., James T. A. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change . Acad. Manag. Exec. 11 , 48–59. 10.5465/ame.1997.9707100659 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rieger J. (2003). A retrospective visual study of social change: the pulp-logging industry in an Upper Peninsula Michigan county . Vis. Stud. 18 , 157–178. 10.1080/14725860310001632010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rioufol V. (2004). Approaches to social change in social forums: snapshots of recompositions in progress . Int. Soc. Sci. J. 56 , 551–563. 10.1111/j.0020-8701.2004.00516.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson J. P., Barth K., Kohut A. (1997). Social impact research: personal computers, mass media, and use of time . Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 15 , 65–82. 10.1177/089443939701500107 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocher G. (1992). Introduction à la Sociologie Générale [General Introduction to Sociology] . Montréal, QC: Éditions Hurtubise. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez S. (2013). Making sense of social change: observing collective action in networked cultures . Sociol. Compass 7 , 1053–1064. 10.1111/soc4.12088 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edn . New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Root Wolpe P. (2006). Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics . Cell 125 , 1023–1025. 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Round J., Williams C. (2010). Coping with the social costs of “transition”: everyday life in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine . Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 17 , 183–196. 10.1177/0969776409356158 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rudel T. K., Hooper L. (2005). Is the pace of social change accelerating? Latecomers, common languages, and rapid historical declines in fertility . Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 46 , 275–296. 10.1177/0020715205059204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Runciman W. G. (1966). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century England . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson E. E. (1989). The challenge of social change for psychology: globalization and psychology's theory of the person . Am. Psychol. 44 , 914–921. 10.1037/0003-066X.44.6.914 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanzgiri J., Gottlieb J. Z. (1992). Philosophic and pragmatic influences on the practice of organization development, 1950-2000 . Organiz. Dyn. 21 , 57–69. 10.1016/0090-2616(92)90064-T [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saran A. K. (1963). The Marxian theory of social change . Inquiry 6 , 70–128. 10.1080/00201746308601368 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaal S., Elbert T. (2006). Ten years after the genocide: trauma confrontation and posttraumatic stress in Rwandan adolescents . J. Trauma Stress 19 , 95–105. 10.1002/jts.20104 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneiderman L. (1988). The Psychology of Social Change . Ann Arbor, MI: Human Sciences Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrickel H. G. (1945). Group conflict and social reform . J. Soc. Psychol. 21 , 187–196. 10.1080/00224545.1945.9714165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell W. H. (1996). Three temporalities: toward an eventful sociology , in The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences , ed McDonald T. J. (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; ), 245–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidanius J., Pratto F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silbereisen R. K., Tomasik M. J. (2010). Human behavior in response to social change: a guide to the special section . Eur. Psychol. 15 , 243–245. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000059 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slone M., Kaminer D., Durrheim K. (2002). Appraisal of sociopolitical change among South African youth: the relation to psychological maladjustment . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32 , 318–341. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00218.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sloutsky V. M., Searle-White J. (1993). Psychological responses of Russians to rapid social change in the former USSR . Polit. Psychol. 14 , 511–526. 10.2307/3791710 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smelser N. J., Swedberg R. (1994). The sociological perspective on the economy , in The Handbook of Economic Sociology , eds Smelser N. J., Swedberg R. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; ), 3–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith A. D. (1973). The Concept of Social Change: A Critique of the Functionalist Theory of Social Change . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer H. (1898). The Principles of Sociology , Vol. 1 New York, NY: Appleton and Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staub E., Pearlman L. A., Gubin A., Hagengimana A. (2005). Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: an intervention and its experimental evaluation in Rwanda . J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 24 , 297–334. 10.1521/jscp.24.3.297.65617 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steele C. M., Spencer S. J., Aronson J. (2002). Contending with group image: the psychology of stereotype and social identity threat . Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 34 , 379–440. 10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stinchcombe A. L. (2000). Social structure and organizations , in Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic Management (Advances in Strategic Management) , Vol. 17 , eds Baum J., Dobbin F. (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; ), 229–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stroebe K., Wang K., Wright S. C. (2015). Broadening perspectives on achieving social change . J. Soc. Issues 71 , 633–645. 10.1111/josi.12132 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Subašić E., Reynolds K. J., Turner J. C. (2008). The political solidarity model of social change: dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 12 , 330–352. 10.1177/1088868308323223 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Subašić E., Reynolds K. J., Reicher S. D., Klandermans B. (2012). Where to from here for the psychology of social change? Future directions for theory and practice . Polit. Psychol. 33 , 61–74. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00864.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun J., Ryder A. G. (2016). The Chinese experience of rapid modernization: sociocultural changes, psychological consequences? Front. Psychol. 7 :477. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00477 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sztompka P. (1993). The Sociology of Social Change . Oxford: Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sztompka P. (1998). Devenir social, néo-modernisation et importance de la culture: quelques implications de la révolution anticommuniste pour la théorie du changement social [To become social, neo-modernization and importance of culture: a few implications of the anticommunist revolution for social change theory] . Sociol. Soc. 30 , 85–94. 10.7202/001781ar [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sztompka P. (2000). Cultural trauma: the other face of social change . Eur. J. Soc. Theory 3 , 449–466. 10.1177/136843100003004004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sztompka P. (2004). The trauma of social change: a case of postcommunist societies , in Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity , eds Alexander J. C., Eyerman R., Giesen B., Smelser N. J., Sztompka P. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; ), 155–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel H., Turner J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour , in Psychology of Intergroup Relations , eds Worchel S., Austin W. G. (Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall; ), 7–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanner C. J., Jackson A. L. (2012). Social structure emerges via the interaction between local ecology and individual behaviour . J. Anim. Ecol. 81 , 260–267. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01879.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor D. M. (1997). The quest for collective identity: the plight of disadvantaged ethnic minorities . Can. Psychol. 38 , 174–190. 10.1037/0708-5591.38.3.174 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor D. M. (2002). The Quest for Identity: From Minority Groups to Generation Xers . Westport, CT: Greenwood. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor D. M., de la Sablonnière R. (2013). Why interventions in dysfunctional communities fail: the need for a truly collective approach . Can. Psychol. 54 , 22–29. 10.1037/a0031124 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor D. M., de la Sablonnière R. (2014). Towards Constructive Change in Aboriginal Communities: A Social Psychology Perspective . Montréal, QC: McGill-Queen's Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor D. M., McKirnan D. J. (1984). Theoretical contributions: a five-stage model of intergroup relations . Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 23 , 291–300. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00644.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Terry D. J., Jimmieson N. L. (2003). A stress and coping approach to organisational change: evidence from three field studies . Aust. Psychol. 38 , 92–101. 10.1080/00050060310001707097 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas D. R., Veno A. (1992). Psychology and Social Change: Creating an International Agenda . Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson R. C., Hunt J. G. (1996). Inside the black box of alpha, beta, and gamma change: using a cognitive-processing model to assess attitude structure . Acad. Manag. Rev. 21 , 655–690. 10.2307/258998 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tilly C., Tilly L. A., Tilly R. H. (1975). The Rebellious Century: 1830-1930 . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomasik M. J., Silbereisen R. K., Pinquart M. (2010). Individuals negotiating demands of social and economic change: a control-theoretical approach . Eur. Psychol. 15 , 246–259. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000064 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tonkens E. (2012). Working with Arlie Hochschild: connecting feelings to social change . Soc. Polit. 19 , 194–218. 10.1093/sp/jxs003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tushman M. L., Romanelli E. (1985). Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation . Res. Organ. Behav. 7 , 171–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Usborne E., de la Sablonnière R. (2014). Understanding my culture means understanding myself: the function of cultural identity clarity for personal identity clarity and personal psychological well-being . J. Theory Soc. Behav. 44 , 436–458. 10.1111/jtsb.12061 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Usborne E., Taylor D. M. (2010). The role of cultural identity clarity for self-concept clarity, self-esteem, and subjective well-being . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36 , 883–897. 10.1177/0146167210372215 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vago S. (2004). Social Change, 5th Edn . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Binh T. (2002). Social and cultural changes in Vietnam with the new market economy . Nat. Soc. Thought 15 , 335–346. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varnum M. E. W. (2008). Rapid adaptation to social change in Central Europe: changes in locus of control, attribution, subjective well-being, self-direction, and trust . Sociológia 40 , 215–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughan G. M. (1986). Social change and racial identity: issues in the use of picture and doll measures . Aust. J. Psychol. 38 , 359–370. 10.1080/00049538608259022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Veyssière L. (2013). La Nouvelle-France en Héritage [New France in Heritage] . Paris: Armand Colin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker C., Stephenson S. (2010). Youth and social change in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union . J. Youth Stud. 13 , 521–532. 10.1080/13676261.2010.487522 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wall K., Louchakova O. (2002). Evolution of consciousness in response to terrorist attacks: towards a transpersonal theory of cultural transformation . Humanist. Psychol. 30 , 252–273. 10.1080/08873267.2002.9977040 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watzlawick P., Weakland J. H., Fisch R. (1974). Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution . New York, NY: Norton. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstein J. (2010). Social Change, 3rd Edn . Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson W. J. (2012). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass, and Public Policy . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wyn J., White R. (2000). Negotiating social change: the paradox of youth . Youth Soc. 32 , 165–183. 10.1177/0044118X00032002002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yakushko O. (2008). The impact of social and political changes on survivors of political persecutions in rural Russia and Ukraine . Polit. Psychol. 29 , 119–130. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00615.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yanagizawa-Drott D. (2014). Propaganda and conflict: evidence from the Rwandan genocide . Q. J. Econ. 129 , 1947–1994. 10.1093/qje/qju020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang X., Hwang S.-S. (2007). The micro consequences of macro-level social transition: how did Russians survive in the 1990s? Soc. Indic. Res. 82 , 337–360. 10.1007/s11205-006-9037-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zorbas E. (2004). Reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda . Afr. J. Legal Stud. 1 , 29–52. 10.1163/221097312X13397499735904 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuck A. M. (1997). Introduction . Am. Behav. Sci. 40 , 257–258. 10.1177/0002764297040003002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Online Students

For All Online Programs

International Students

On Campus, need or have Visa

Campus Students

For All Campus Programs

What is Social Change and Why Should We Care?

Social change is a concept many of us take for granted or don't really even understand. No society has ever remained the same. Change is always happening. We accept change as inevitable, and it is, end of story, right? Well, not exactly.

Sociologists define social change as changes in human interactions and relationships that transform cultural and social institutions. These changes occur over time and often have profound and long-term consequences for society. Well-known examples of such change have resulted from social movements in workers’ rights, civil rights, women's rights and LGBTQIA+ rights, to name just a few. Relationships have changed, institutions have changed, and cultural norms have changed as a result of these social change movements. That's pretty heady stuff. Don't you think?

What interests me, and what I hope interests you, is our collective power to influence social change.

What is the Main Purpose of Social Change?

While we accept that change is constant, we do not have to accept that we are powerless in its wake. It is the extent to which we care about the direction of social change that we can try to shape it and help to create the kind of "change we wish to see in the world." Whether or not Gandhi actually uttered these words doesn't matter. What matters is that the phrase begs the question, what kind of change do we wish to see in the world?

One person’s opinion about what is good or positive social change might well be another person’s idea of bad or negative social change. For example, those who believe in a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term fight fervently for that right and believe wholeheartedly that it is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor, while those who oppose abortion believe firmly in the righteousness of their cause, too, and have built a movement that can claim victory in the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Institutions have changed, cultural and political norms have changed, and personal relationships have changed as a result of the collective power of people determined to make what they believe to be positive social change. Not all agree, but there can be no denying that it has been an activist movement powered by citizens working together to make change.

As executive director of the 50-year-old nonprofit, Global Citizens Circle  (GCC), I think every day about the question of what kind of change I want to see in the world as I work to carry forward the mission of the organization to foster constructive change in our communities, our nation and our world.

I imagine that our partner and host institution, Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), also thinks about this question on a daily basis as it seeks to "transform the lives of students." And surely, our Belfast-based partner, The Social Change Initiative (SCI), thinks about it as it strives "to improve the effectiveness of activism for progressive social change."

We, all three institutions, care and understand that we can influence social change for the better. We may exercise our power to influence change in different ways. GCC does it through discussion among people of diverse opinions and backgrounds. SNHU does it by offering affordable and innovative educational social science degree programs  online and similar campus majors, and now even in refugee camps in Kenya, Lebanon, Malawi, Rwanda and South Africa. SCI exercises its influence by bringing together social activists and philanthropists around the world.

These are lofty goals to be sure, and they demand our constant attention and unrestricted imagination to envision a better world. You may think that's great, but wonder why you should care, why you should take time out of your incredibly busy schedule to take action and more importantly, how you can even go about helping to create positive social change.

I'd like to suggest that it's not that hard if we begin at the most basic level, that of relationship building.

Find Your Program

Change begins with how and when we interact with others.

When we listen respectfully to others who have different opinions and life experiences than our own, we take the first step in listening; we accept that there are myriad perspectives and points of view on most issues of concern.

If we truly want to be a participant in real change, we cannot stop at acceptance. We must have conversations that push and pull, that ask us to give and take. And if we are willing to do that, we can find those points of agreement and come together on them. We needn't concede those points that define our values but find ways to work together towards positive change that reflects our shared values. It is the art of principled compromise that has the power to create a more lasting change.

We are living in turbulent times, though one could argue that has always been true. The increasing polarization of populations throughout the world that hear “the truth” from entirely different media sources is something new, making the art of principled compromise more difficult. The level of incivility in political dialogue has risen throughout the world, and it’s as if we’ve collectively forgotten our shared humanity.

We can surely claim that technology is to blame, and it is, but it has also fueled positive social change movements when used to bring people together for the betterment of a society. A non-political example of this is the Ice Bucket Challenge that brought millions together to learn about and support the research for a cure of the devastating disease of ALS.

Global Citizens Circle has for five decades brought together diverse groups of people for challenging discussions on issues ranging from conflict resolution and reconciliation to education reform and economic equality. We've seen Catholics and Protestants from Northern Ireland sit down together and discuss their shared hope for peace. We've hosted South African exiles who were once labeled "terrorists" in their own country and who later became leaders of that country. At our discussion circles, we've seated powerful businesspeople next to the homeless and disenfranchised, and activists next to academics, and we have borne witness to the change that has occurred.

Through the pandemic, we gathered people globally online and brought the same principles and values of respect and dignity to dialogue on difficult issues such as racial justice after the murder of George Floyd, the hard realities of police reform and youth vulnerability and resilience in times of conflict.

Have these programs spurred social change? They have in ways we don’t always see; but with intentional nurturing of connections made during these programs, we plant the seeds.

Building Relationships to Foster Constructive Social Change

The conversation topics were often difficult, but listening and learning from others was not. Change begins this way. We must nurture civil discourse and work with intentionality to bring together people with different perspectives.

Convening gatherings of people, educating students in classrooms and online, and supporting activists who put themselves in the forefront of advocating for social change are how Global Citizens Circle, Southern New Hampshire University and The Social Change Initiative use their influence and power to direct change toward a more equitable and inclusive society.

Ultimately, however, it is not the programs that each of our organizations offer that create lasting change, but it is the relationships of trust and respect that do. That takes time and a sustained willingness to be open to the possibility that we might learn something from those with whom we disagree.

Building those kinds of relationships, even when, no, especially when, it seems impossible, is the key to cultivating constructive social change. So, take the lead, start now and stay at it.

Explore more content like this article

SNHU Spotlight: Tamica Matos, BA in Human Services Grad

What Do Sociologists Do? The Surprising Paths You Can Take

​What Can You Do with an Anthropology Degree?​

About southern new hampshire university.

SNHU is a nonprofit, accredited university with a mission to make high-quality education more accessible and affordable for everyone.

Founded in 1932, and online since 1995, we’ve helped countless students reach their goals with flexible, career-focused programs . Our 300-acre campus in Manchester, NH is home to over 3,000 students, and we serve over 135,000 students online. Visit our about SNHU  page to learn more about our mission, accreditations, leadership team, national recognitions and awards.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

20.2 Sources of Social Change

Learning objectives.

• Describe the major sources of social change.
• Explain cultural lag and provide an example.

We have seen that social change stems from natural forces and also from the intentional acts of groups of people. This section further examines these sources of social change.

Population Growth and Composition

Much of the discussion so far has talked about population growth as a major source of social change as societies evolved from older to modern times. Yet even in modern societies, changes in the size and composition of the population can have important effects for other aspects of a society, as Chapter 19 “Population and Urbanization” emphasized. As just one example, the number of school-aged children reached a high point in the late 1990s as the children of the post–World War II baby boom entered their school years. This swelling of the school-aged population had at least three important consequences. First, new schools had to be built, modular classrooms and other structures had to be added to existing schools, and more teachers and other school personnel had to be hired (Leonard, 1998). Second, school boards and municipalities had to borrow dollars and/or raise taxes to pay for all of these expenses. Third, the construction industry, building supply centers, and other businesses profited from the building of new schools and related activities. The growth of this segment of our population thus had profound implications for many aspects of U.S. society even though it was unplanned and “natural.”

Culture and Technology

Culture and technology are other sources of social change. Changes in culture can change technology; changes in technology can transform culture; and changes in both can alter other aspects of society (Crowley & Heyer, 2011).

Two examples from either end of the 20th century illustrate the complex relationship among culture, technology, and society. At the beginning of the century, the car was still a new invention, and automobiles slowly but surely grew in number, diversity, speed, and power. The car altered the social and physical landscape of the United States and other industrial nations as few other inventions have. Roads and highways were built; pollution increased; families began living farther from each other and from their workplaces; tens of thousands of people started dying annually in car accidents. These are just a few of the effects the invention of the car had, but they illustrate how changes in technology can affect so many other aspects of society.

At the end of the 20th century came the personal computer, whose development has also had an enormous impact that will not be fully understood for some years to come. Anyone old enough, such as many of your oldest professors, to remember having to type long manuscripts on a manual typewriter will easily attest to the difference computers have made for many aspects of our work lives. E-mail, the Internet, and smartphones have enabled instant communication and make the world a very small place, and tens of millions of people now use Facebook and other social media. A generation ago, students studying abroad or people working in the Peace Corps overseas would send a letter back home, and it would take up to 2 weeks or more to arrive. It would take another week or 2 for them to hear back from their parents. Now even in poor parts of the world, access to computers and smartphones lets us communicate instantly with people across the planet.

As the world becomes a smaller place, it becomes possible for different cultures to have more contact with each other. This contact, too, leads to social change to the extent that one culture adopts some of the norms, values, and other aspects of another culture. Anyone visiting a poor nation and seeing Coke, Pepsi, and other popular U.S. products in vending machines and stores in various cities will have a culture shock that reminds us instantly of the influence of one culture on another. For better or worse, this impact means that the world’s diverse cultures are increasingly giving way to a more uniform global culture .

This process has been happening for more than a century. The rise of newspapers, the development of trains and railroads, and the invention of the telegraph, telephone, and, later, radio and television allowed cultures in different parts of the world to communicate with each other in ways not previously possible. Affordable jet transportation, cell phones, the Internet, and other modern technology have taken such communication a gigantic step further.

As mentioned earlier, many observers fear that the world is becoming Westernized as Coke, Pepsi, McDonald’s, and other products and companies invade other cultures. Others say that Westernization is a good thing, because these products, but especially more important ones like refrigerators and computers, do make people’s lives easier and therefore better. Still other observers say the impact of Westernization has been exaggerated. Both within the United States and across the world, these observers say, many cultures continue to thrive, and people continue to hold on to their ethnic identities.

Cultural Lag

An important aspect of social change is cultural lag, a term popularized by sociologist William F. Ogburn (1922/1966). When there is a change in one aspect of society or culture, this change often leads to and even forces a change in another aspect of society or culture. However, often some time lapses before the latter change occurs. Cultural lag refers to this delay between the initial social change and the resulting social change.

Discussions of examples of cultural lag often feature a technological change as the initial change. Ogburn (1922/1966) cited one such example from the decades after the American Civil War: the rise of the machine age. The development of factories during the Industrial Revolution meant that work became much more dangerous than before. More industrial accidents occurred, but injured workers were unable to receive adequate financial compensation because the existing law of negligence allowed them to sue only the person—a fellow worker—whose negligence caused the injury. However, negligent workers were typically very poor themselves and thus unable to provide meaningful compensation if they were sued. This meant that injured workers in effect could receive no money for their injuries.

Over time, the sheer number of industrial accidents and rising labor protest movement pressured lawmakers to help injured workers receive financial assistance. Some states began to allow workers to sue the companies whose dangerous workplaces were responsible for their injuries, and juries awarded these workers huge sums of money. Fearing these jury awards, in the early 1900s the manufacturing industry finally developed the process now called workers’ compensation , which involves fairly automatic payments for workplace injuries without the necessity of lawsuits (Barkan, 2009). The delay of several decades between the rise of factories and industrial accidents and the eventual establishment of workers’ compensation is a fine example of cultural lag.

A more recent example of cultural lag involves changes in child custody law brought about by changes in reproductive technology. Developments in reproductive technology have allowed same-sex couples to have children conceived from a donated egg and/or donated sperm. If a same-sex couple later breaks up, it is not yet clear who should win custody of the couple’s child or children because traditional custody law is based on the premise of a divorce of a married heterosexual couple who are both the biological parents of their children. Yet custody law is slowly evolving to recognize the parental rights of same-sex couples. Some cases from California are illustrative.

In 2005, the California Supreme Court issued rulings in several cases involving lesbian parents who ended their relationship. In determining custody and visitation rights and child support obligations, the court decided that the couples should be treated under the law as if they had been heterosexual parents, and it decided on behalf of the partners who were seeking custody/visitation rights and child support. More generally, the court granted same-sex parents all the legal rights and responsibilities of heterosexual parents. The change in marital law that is slowly occurring because of changes in reproductive technology is another example of cultural lag. As the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said of the California cases, “Same-sex couples are now able to procreate and have children, and the law has to catch up with that reality” (Paulson & Wood, 2005, p. 1).

The Natural Environment

Changes in the natural environment can also lead to changes in a society itself. We see the clearest evidence of this when a major hurricane, an earthquake, or another natural disaster strikes. Three recent disasters illustrate this phenomenon. In April 2010, an oil rig operated by BP, an international oil and energy company, exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, creating what many observers called the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history; its effects on the ocean, marine animals, and the economies of states and cities affected by the oil spill will be felt for decades to come. In January 2010, a devastating earthquake struck Haiti and killed more than 250,000 people, or about 2.5% of that nation’s population. A month later, an even stronger earthquake hit Chile. Although this earthquake killed only hundreds (it was relatively far from Chile’s large cities and the Chilean buildings were sturdily built), it still caused massive damage to the nation’s infrastructure. The effects of these natural disasters on the economy and society of each of these two countries will certainly also be felt for many years to come.

As is evident in this photo taken in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake that devastated Haiti, changes in the natural environment can lead to profound changes in a society. Environmental changes are one of the many sources of social change.

United Nations Development Programme – Haiti Earthquake – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Slower changes in the environment can also have a large social impact. As noted earlier, one of the negative effects of industrialization has been the increase in pollution of our air, water, and ground. With estimates of the number of U.S. deaths from air pollution ranging from a low of 10,000 to a high of 60,000 (Reiman & Leighton, 2010), pollution certainly has an important impact on our society. Climate change, a larger environmental problem, has also been relatively slow in arriving but threatens the whole planet in ways that climate change researchers have already documented and will no doubt be examining for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond (Schneider, Rosencranz, Mastrandrea, & Kuntz-Duriseti, 2010). Chapter 20 “Social Change and the Environment” , Section 20.3 “Society and the Environment” and Section 20.4 “Understanding the Environment” examine the environment at greater length.

Social Conflict: War and Protest

Change also results from social conflict, including wars, ethnic conflict, efforts by social movements to change society, and efforts by their opponents to maintain the status quo. The immediate impact that wars have on societies is obvious, as the deaths of countless numbers of soldiers and civilians over the ages have affected not only the lives of their loved ones but also the course of whole nations. To take just one of many examples, the defeat of Germany in World War I led to a worsening economy during the next decade that in turn helped fuel the rise of Hitler.

One of the many sad truisms of war is that its impact on a society is greatest when the war takes place within the society’s boundaries. For example, the Iraq war that began in 2003 involved two countries more than any others, the United States and Iraq. Because it took place in Iraq, many more Iraqis than Americans died or were wounded, and the war certainly affected Iraqi society—its infrastructure, economy, natural resources, and so forth—far more than it affected American society. Most Americans continued to live their normal lives, whereas most Iraqis had to struggle to survive the many ravages of war.

Historians and political scientists have studied the effect of war on politics and the economy. War can change a nation’s political and economic structures in obvious ways, as when the winning nation forces a new political system and leadership on the losing nation. Other political and economic changes brought by war are subtler. World War I provides an interesting example of such changes. Before the war, violent labor strikes were common in Britain and other European nations. When the war began, a sort of truce developed between management and labor, as workers wanted to appear patriotic by supporting the war effort and hoped that they would win important labor rights for doing so. However, the truce soon dissolved after prices began to rise and wages did not. Labor-management conflict resumed and became very intense by the end of the war.

This conflict in turn forced European political and business leaders to grant several concessions to labor, which thus achieved gains, however limited, in political and economic power. Labor’s participation in the war effort helped it win these concessions. As a historian summarized this connection,

By the end of the war, labor’s wartime mobilization and participation had increased its relative power within European societies. As a result, and despite the fact that endeavors to reward labor for its wartime cooperation were, in general, provisional, partial, and half-hearted, it was nonetheless the case that labor achieved some real gains. (Halperin, 2004, p. 155)

Other types of nonobvious social changes have resulted from various wars. For example, the deaths of so many soldiers during the American Civil War left many wives and mothers without their family’s major breadwinner. Their poverty forced many of these women to turn to prostitution to earn an income, resulting in a rise in prostitution after the war (Marks, 1990). Some 80 years later, the involvement of many African Americans in the U.S. armed forces during World War II helped begin the racial desegregation of the military. This change is widely credited with helping spur the hopes of African Americans in the South that racial desegregation would someday occur in their hometowns (McKeeby, 2008).

Social movements have also been major forces for social change. Despite African American involvement in World War II, racial segregation in the South ended only after thousands of African Americans, often putting their lives on the line for their cause, engaged in sit-ins, marches, and massive demonstrations during the 1950s and 1960s. The Southern civil rights movement is just one of the many social movements that have changed American history, and we return to these movements in Chapter 21 “Collective Behavior and Social Movements” .

Key Takeaways

• Major sources of social change include population growth and composition, culture and technology, the natural environment, and social conflict.
• Cultural lag refers to a delayed change in one sector of society in response to a change in another sector of society.

For Your Review

• Write a brief essay in which you comment on the advantages and disadvantages of cell phones for social relationships.
• The text states that courts are beginning to grant same-sex couples the same parental rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples have. Do you believe that this is a positive development or a negative development? Explain your answer.

Barkan, S. E. (2009). Law and society: An introduction . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Crowley, D., & Heyer, P. (2011). Communication in history: Technology, culture, society (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Halperin, S. (2004). War and social change in modern Europe: The great transformation revisited . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Leonard, J. (1998, September 25). Crowding puts crunch on classrooms. The Los Angeles Times , p. B1.

Marks, P. (1990). Bicycles, bangs, and bloomers: The new woman in the popular press . Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

McKeeby, D. (2008, February 25). End of U.S. military segregation set stage for rights movement. Retrieved from http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/February/20080225120859liameruoy0.9820215.html .

Ogburn, W. F. (1966). Social change with respect to cultural and original nature . New York, NY: Dell. (Original work published1922).

Paulson, A., & Wood, D. B. (2005, August 25). California court affirms gay parenting. The Christian Science Monitor , p. 1.

Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2010). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., Mastrandrea, M. D., & Kuntz-Duriseti, K. (Eds.). (2010). Climate change science and policy . Washington, DC: Island Press.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

104 Social Change Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on social change, 🌶️ hot social change essay topics, 👍 good social change research topics & essay examples, 🎓 most interesting social change research titles, ❓ questions about social change.

• The Impact of Social Change on the Education System
• Social Change in the 21st Century
• Social Change and Its Impact on Environment
• Social Exchange Theory in Organizations and Workplaces
• Feminism and Social Change. Feminist Movement
• “The Family: Diversity, Inequality, and Social Change” by Philip Cohen
• Aspects of Social Change
• Social Issue: Climate Change The topic of climate change was chosen to learn more in the modern sense about the phenomenon that most people have heard about for decades.
• Interpersonal Communication: Social Exchange Theory The general aim of social exchange theory is to describe how humans share ideas or secrets within the realm of established relations.
• Social Change: The Nurse’s Role in Global Healthcare To advocate for the global perspective on the issue of the opioid crisis and the need to change the current standards for opioid prescription.
• Social Changes Caused by World War II This essay examines the most common social changes stemming from World War II and the reasons behind their occurrence.
• “Development and Social Change” by P. McMichael The contemporary globalization-related discourse revolves around the question of whether the benefits of the world becoming ‘flat’ overweight side effects.
• Social Change Theory and Social Media Contemporary social change theory is an appropriate framework for talking about social media, but now social media dictate their rules to social theories.
• The Role of Technology in Social Change In modern times, activism has changed due to the advent of the Internet because it has become much easier to share and spread information.
• Distance Learning and Social Change Distance learning can be defined as a form of education where learners can learn wherever they are through the use of technology.
• Social Changes After the Coronavirus Pandemic The global coronavirus pandemic is rapidly changing the economic, behavioural, and social aspects of people’s lives.
• Does a Hashtag Create a Real Social Change? The hashtag #BlackLivesMatter has flooded the Internet in the past few weeks. It has developed into the motto and the slogan of the same name movement.
• Media for Social Change: Producers, Viewers, Content Media for social change may be used to create an environment where people can engage in the public realm, mediate disagreements, and encourage civil debate.
• Social Change and Advocacy Comparison This paper considers the differences between social change and advocacy, discusses their implications, proposes some actions that may assist the Indian Creek Foundation.
• Social Entrepreneurship Initiatives Change the World From housing access and food inequality to climate change, social entrepreneurship initiatives embark on a journey to facilitate the struggle of the people.
• Social Challenges of Climate Change Climate change is among the most pressing global issues, and it is not easy to find a solution that will work for everyone.
• Parenthood as a Cause of Social Status Change Although men and women accept parenting differently, there are some factors, such as culture or agents of socialization, that shape this process.
• Youth Life and Social Changes in Developed Countries This essay analyzes social changes affecting young people in developed countries in the social, political, economic and cultural spheres.
• Social Exchange Theory and Abortion Legalization While the risk of having financial issues influences individuals, they will be more likely to refuse to give birth to a child because of the possible losses in the future.
• Social Changes in Iraq This essay will look into the possible social changes in the Iraqi culture and what might have triggered such changes, outline some of the noted effects of the shift.
• Role, Conflict, Social Exchange Theories in Nursing Role theory, conflict theory, and social exchange theory should be discussed in the case of the nurse that is regularly challenged to prove her self-worth and skills.
• Social Change and Social Norms Social change refers to the transformations which occur in society, institutions, cultures, and social functions.
• MacDonaldization and Marx’s Social Change Model McDonaldization is the take-up of the characteristics of a fast-food place by the society through rationalization of traditional ideologies, modes of management and thinking.
• The Industrial Revolution: Culture, Work and Social Change The industrial revolution was a change of various individuals’ life situation that occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries due to the interest to expand the technologies of industries.
• Social Change, Leadership and Advocacy The paper studies concepts of social change, advocacy, and leadership comparing similarities and differences as they all focus on innovation, shifts, and collaboration.
• Social Change and Crime Rate Trends According to Cohen and Felson, structural changes in daily routine activities have a direct influence on the frequency of crime occurrence.
• Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change The role of social marketing image in the spheres of business and social life functioning is presented through promotion of strategic marketing planning process.
• Families, Gender Relations and Social Change in Brazil The distinct corporate, economic, and lifestyle changes have unmistakably been the result of women taking part in the social and political movement.
• Social Change Through Technological Innovation As people interact in various ways technology has been utilized to enhance aspects of human life and social contacts.
• Socialist Feminist Theories, Solutions and Changes Regarding the important issues in feminism, it is necessary to examine the issues of dualistic typification, beauty ideals, and the beauty industry in the context of feminism.
• Post-Industrial Society: Durkheim’s Social Change Model Durkheim argues that religion is the foundation of thought and being a permanent aspect of humanity it’s the basis of all other social dealings.
• Social Changes Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-2019 pandemic has affected all areas of society, and from the experience gained, people should draw the appropriate conclusions in order to avoid this in the future.
• Race and Ethnicity Social Movement and Change The key issues of race and ethnicity include three major sociological perspectives: functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.
• Longitudinal Study and Social Change The text describes a longitudinal study that examines the relationship between students’ socio-economic status and the hours spent playing video games on a typical school day.
• Aspects of Media and Social Change It is social media that is the tool that will help current groups fighting to improve the life of society to achieve political, economic, and civilizational goals.
• Aging: Social, Emotional, Cognitive, and Biological Changes Aging is an inevitable process that all people must be ready to face as they move from one stage of life. The process is gradual but can be catalyzed by external factors.
• Population, Social Movements, and Social Change In various ways, the worldwide spread of social media is already influencing how individuals pursue and define social change.
• The Case for Funding Black-Led Social Change “The Case for Funding Black-led Social Change” focuses on eliminating racism and provides invaluable insights on why sufficient funding for black-led social change is essential.
• Social Media and Pursuit of Social Change The global expansion of social media will motivate and energize people into calling for social change due to the platforms’ communicative and mobilizing power.
• Social Change Project on Religious Persecution This paper aims to provide a final report on the development and outcomes of the Social Change Project to address the religious persecution problem.
• CBPR Vital for Social Change The assigned case study provides a model for the application of the CBPR approach in improving food security in Bayview Hunters Point Community.
• Analysis of “Tweeting Social Change” Article by Guo & Saxton Guo & Saxton’s article “Tweeting social change” explores how nonprofits organizations utilize social media platforms to pursue their goals and accomplish their mission.
• Treasure Trove or Trash: The Internet and Its Ability to Enact Social Change Today the internet has continued to develop as a collaborative tool in which people are able to continuously submit and improve on the wealth of human knowledge.
• Healthcare Research and Social Change Relationship Explaining the relationship between research and social change is complicated given that any project is intended to cover a limited space.
• Culture Dynamics: Social Changes and Role of Migration Social changes are intrinsically interwoven into the cultural ones, which is why the role of migration has to be considered when exploring culture dynamics.
• Climate and Social Change in Global Warming Crisis People in the community should be encouraged to change their behaviors and make better personal choices to mitigate the global warming crisis.
• Satire Usage in Film as a Tool for Social Change Satire is a corrective form of humor but it can take different forms. The five films analyzed in this essay are all satires but belong in various sub-categories.
• Social Change: Electoral Reform in the United States Since the 1800s, the Electoral College method of electing a president has been a highly effective election tool that has helped to keep order and sanity.
• “What Goes Around Comes Around”: On the Nature of Social Exchange Social theories can be defined as analytical frameworks or paradigms that are used to understand and interpret social phenomena.
• Social Insecurity, Changes, Risks and Communication This work teaches the topic of technology and society and its major concepts and research, such as social insecurity and adaptation to social changes, risks, and communication.
• Men and Women in Leadership and Social Change A study conducted to evaluate the effect of gender on leadership showed a negligible difference between the styles favored by men and women.
• Mohandas Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt as Social Change Agents Gandhi’s struggle against human social injustices started in South Africa. Eleanor Roosevelt is mostly known for her accomplishments in fighting for human rights.
• “Muslims and Social Change in the Atlantic Beach” by Sean Foley Sean Foley in his work tries to bring out the impact of the Muslim in transforming and shaping social and political reform in the Atlantic beach.
• Should Social Norms Change at the Brink of the New Era? Living in a world without any social, political or moral restrictions can hardly seem possible, because the humankind needs certain boundaries which will define the meaning of good and evil.
• Chinese Contemporary Art and Social Change
• Economic and Social Change in Indonesia
• What Are the Biggest Social Change Issues in Cambodia?
• Economic, Political, and Social Change Effect on American Revolution
• The Momentous Social Change in America From 1955 to 1975
• Hoover vs. Roosevelt: Promoting Social Change
• Social Neuroscience and Its Relationship to Social Psychology and Social Change
• African National Congress’s Impact on Social Change
• The Need for Social Change Regarding Animal Abuse
• Education for Social Change: From Theory to Practice
• The Social and Political Implications of Cognitive Psychology and Social Change
• Transition and Social Change in the Romanian Rural Area
• The Relationship Between Religion and Social Change
• Education and Its Impact on Social Change
• The Consumerism, Industrialization, and Social Change During the 18th Century in Britain
• Globalization and Social Change: Gender-specific Effects of Trade Liberalization in Indonesia
• The Different Factors Affecting the Social Change in Indian Cultures
• Cultural and Social Change in the 1960s
• Feminist Pedagogy and Organizing for Social Change
• How Did the American Revolution Lead to Social Changes?
• Are Media Technologies Causes or Consequences of Social Change?
• Does Disaster Bring Positive Social Change?
• How Are Social Change and Changes in Knowledge Linked?
• Does Music Cause Social Change?
• How Can Minority Groups Achieve Social Change?
• What Is Social Change and Why Take It Seriously?
• How Can Organizations and Communities Both Influence Social Change and Affect People’s Behavior?
• Why Is Social Change Important?
• How Did the War Create Social Change?
• What Are the Main Characteristics of Social Change?
• How Does Education Facilitate Social Change?
• Is Social Change Positive or Negative?
• How Does Social Change Affect Individuals and Society?
• What Are the Main Theories of Social Change?
• How Does Social Change Occur?
• What Are the Challenges of Social Change?
• How Does the Internet Affect Social Change?
• What Are the Processes of Social Change?
• How Far Did Alexander III Bring Political and Social Change to Russia?
• Does Social Change Impact the Education System?
• How Has Social Change Impacted Society?
• What Is the Best Way to Cause Social Change?
• How Can Social Media Promote Social Change?
• What Is Social Change According to Karl Marx?
• How Many Stages Are There in Social Change?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, June 5). 104 Social Change Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/social-change-essay-topics/

"104 Social Change Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 5 June 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/social-change-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '104 Social Change Essay Topics'. 5 June.

1. StudyCorgi . "104 Social Change Essay Topics." June 5, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/social-change-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "104 Social Change Essay Topics." June 5, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/social-change-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "104 Social Change Essay Topics." June 5, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/social-change-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Social Change were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on December 28, 2023 .

School Life Balance , Tips for Online Students

What Is Social Change And Why Take It Seriously?

Updated: February 28, 2024

Published: May 27, 2020

Have you ever wondered, “What is social change?” You’ve probably heard of the term thrown around before, or maybe you even learned about it briefly in school. Social change may have several definitions and it is very complex. Yet, as humans living in this world, understanding social change and how it has played a role in our lives historically, will allow us to spur social change now and in the future.

What Is Social Change And Why Should We Care?

Social change can be defined as the way in which human interactions, relationships, behavior patterns, and cultural norms change over time. These changes ultimately transform cultural and social institutions, concepts, and rules, which will inevitably impact society for the long-haul. These changes and transformations are not necessarily good or bad, but they are profound. On the surface, we may not notice social change; it can take years — even centuries — of action to cause one change.

As students and members of a rapidly changing society, it’s important to look back on social changes of the past and how they’ve influenced us now. For instance, at one point, women were not able to study at university. Today, both men and women, of all races, religions, nationalities, and creeds, can study — even online and tuition-free, like at University of the People . This is why social change is important. Without social change, we cannot progress as a society.

Change Begins From Interactions With Others

Change begins with how and when we interact with others and is usually inspired by ideological, political, and economic movements. Social change usually starts at the bottom and works its way up, first to society on a mass scale, and eventually, lawmakers and people in power.

But, sometimes, it can move from the top down, like when a new leader comes into office. This means that we will have to listen to the opinions of others and have what could be difficult conversations in order to make a change. It’s about listening to another person’s perspective on a given issue, even if you don’t necessarily agree. It’s also about being persistent and fighting for what you believe in, even if it’s not easy.

The Ever-Changing Social Order

Theoretically, the next process in social change is understanding the changing social order, which is one of the broadest ways of looking at social change. It’s important to recognize that while social change is an ongoing phenomenon in society, there are two types of social change: the processes of change within the social structure (which helps to maintain that structure) and processes of change that can modify the structure in its entirety, which is also referred to as “societal change.”

Beyond this, there are other ways to classify social change. Social change may happen on a small scale, but then does not really reach the overall society at large. For instance, there may be changes in a tribal unit, but not within the major government in which that tribe resides. For example, maybe a small village decides to live a more green lifestyle, by collectively recycling plastic and picking up trash, even though the region in which they live may not have any laws that require this or have set any examples.

Social change may also be classified by whether or not it was a change that happened over a short period of time or a longer period of time.

Social change is pretty unique to humans. Due to our biology and ability to adapt, learn, and be flexible — especially as our environment changes around us—we are able to continuously inspire social change, even if we initially cause it. Hence, the changing social order.

Image by Stefan Keller from Pixabay

The history of social change.

If social change is human, then technically, it’s been happening since our species has appeared. Humans have adapted and changed throughout the thousands of years we’ve been in existence. If we hadn’t, we’d still be hunter-gatherers.

But, if we want to discuss the history of social change, then we need to look at the first examples, studies, and theories of it. To start, there were the three basic ideas of social change, which were prominent in ancient Greece and Rome:

• The idea of decline or degeneration
• The idea of cyclic change
• The idea of continuous progress

The third one, progress, birthed more philosophical ideas of social change beginning in the 17th century, with “social thinkers” such as Adam Smith, who wrote “Nature and Causes” and the “Wealth of Nations.”

Eventually, this led to other social change theories, like those of social evolution by Herbert Spencer or Charles Darwin. This later led to more complex theories (since social change is ever-present), by people like Karl Marx, which expanded on social change to ideas like communism, socialism, and slavery.

Theories will continue to evolve as humans continue to evolve, and as we’re presented with other issues in our society that will spur a need for another social change.

What Are The Patterns Of Social Change?

Social change is believed to have a pattern to it. From the basic ideas of social change discussed earlier, some believe social change is one-directional (continuous progress), while others believe social change is a cycle (cyclical change). These are the easiest patterns of social change to be explored, as the third basic idea, “decline or degeneration,” can often have biased interpretations that are not scientifically-backed.

Cyclic Change – Mechanisms Of Curvilinear And Cyclic Change

One pattern of social change , cyclic change, says that everything happens in a cycle. For instance, how we calculate time and have the cycle of the seasons, or in business, in which it is believed the economy goes through cycles of economic boom and recession. Some of these cycles are less predictable than others, but they are hard to ignore when studying theories and patterns of social change over thousands of years.

Within this, there are mechanisms of curvilinear and cyclic change, which ultimately states that changes in one cycle can create the conditions for changes in another. These can be broken up into two ideas:

• Saturation – This is when the cycle is “saturated” with too many changes. For example, in business when the market is saturated with too many goods, which pushes rates lower.
• Exhaustion – Eventually, too much saturation can lead to “exhaustion” or “fatigue”, which is when there’s a down-curve. However, over time, the market will need to be built up again, continuing that cycle.

One-Directional Change – Mechanisms Of One-Directional Change

Another pattern of social change is one-directional change, which says that change happens — as it sounds — in one direction. This usually implies a growth or increase of some kind, such as population growth or the growth of a company. But this change could also go in the opposite direction, whereas one factor increases, another decreases.

The mechanisms of one-directional change, which discusses the “cumulative change of human knowledge,” works like this: As we learn new ideas, those ideas replace former ideas and practices with better ones. These mechanisms can be broken down into three parts:

• Accumulation – An cumulative collection of ideas, practices, and thoughts.
• Selection – The process of selecting the best, most effective ideas, once accumulation of that knowledge reaches its limit. This can be done through a trial-and-error process.
• Differentiation – Over time, to take accumulation of ideas beyond, humans would have to specialize and differentiate, or rather “innovate” to deal with new problems as they arise.

Combined Patterns Of Change

Do both cyclic change and one-directional change sound familiar to you? That could be because many experts believe in a combined pattern of change, in which one-directional and cyclic changes can happen at the same time.

Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

Explanations of social change.

There’s no questioning the fact that ideas of social change are very complex. Therefore, it can be helpful to break it down into different explanations. Sometimes, explanations of social change cannot be looked at as one. This is because there are different working parts of social change that often seem to come together, but first we need to understand each part on its own.

1. Natural Environment

One explanation of social change is the natural environment. If there is a change in the environment (which can sometimes be caused by humans, like pollution), then this can lead to pandemics, poverty, famine, etc., which can inspire changes in a society to deal with these problems.

2. Demographic Processes

Population growth can be spurred by social changes in place to allow people to grow. This growth can lead to an expansion of society, which can lead to technological innovations, which leads to even more social change. One example of this is the industrial revolution.

However, at the same time, population growth can also lead to negative changes and disparities among populations, as we see in underdeveloped countries today.

3. Technological Innovations

Technological innovations — which can be inspired by population growth as well as a way of dealing with environmental changes or a way to simply demonstrate new ideas — is another explanation of social change. It’s believed to be one of the biggest influences on social change there is. For example, think about how the internet has changed society as we know it.

4. Economic Processes

There have been many theories about how economic processes serve as an explanation of social change, and oftentimes, technological innovations can lead to changes in economics, as well. Throughout history, we’ve had different ways of organizing an economy — for instance, division in labor, currency and trade, property relations, industrialization, and economic systems like capitalism and communism.

5. Social Movements

Social movements are another important example of social change, and one that may be most prevalent in our lives. This usually takes a leader or group of people who are able to inspire change, whether that’s good or bad. For example, Hitler no doubt spurred a social change, as did Martin Luther King, Jr. Today, with technology and social media, nearly anyone can start a movement, and it has helped create changes that much quicker.

6. Political Processes

The way we vote, elect our leaders, create rules and laws, and fight those rules and laws, is an example of social change. This can encompass violence, revolutions, and international relations. Brexit, as well as what led up to it, may be a good recent example of a social change based on political processes.

Examples And Terms Of Social Change

Social change may be a familiar term to some, but there may be other examples and terms of social change that are more familiar to others. These terms may be used interchangeably by various organizations depending on what feels the most relatable to their audience:

• Social change
• Social justice
• Social activism
• Civic engagement
• Civic dialogue
• Community building
• Social capital
• Community development
• Cultural vitality

Is Social Change Hard?

If you think that social change is hard, then you’re right. Humans may engage in social change all the time, but to actually spur true social change for something you believe in is not easy.

That being said, one of the gifts that social change has given us is the internet and the ability to connect with others who share a common goal, while also being able to have discussions with others who may think differently. It takes work and dedication, but it is certainly possible.

Social Change Begins With Us

With education and community, we can have difficult conversations that can lead to social change. It has been done before, and it will happen again. It’s how society has changed not only laws, but cultural norms and expectations, leading to more acceptance and tolerance. Of course, there will always be opponents to different types of social change, no matter how far we come.

Here at University of the People, we believe education is a human right for all . That’s why we’re working towards our own social change by offering a tuition-free model, which is accessible online to anyone around the world.

Related Articles

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Role of Social Influence Processes in Social Change

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

We have previously looked at minority influence and the work of Moscovici (1969) and Nemeth (1986) who concluded that a consistent, committed and flexible minority is most effective in influencing an individual. However, minority groups also play an important role in facilitating social change by influencing an entire society to change their attitude, behaviours and beliefs.

Moscovici (1980) put forward a conversion theory to explain how social change occurs and there are three clear factors that determine the success of a minority to facilitate social change, including: consistency, sacrifices and group membership.

Firstly, the minority must be consistent in their opposition to the majority. History has provided many real life examples, where consistent individuals have challenged and questioned the values and norms of society ( and have been criminalised for their views ). Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela led civil rights movements and were consistent in their views against apartheid for many years, which helped bring about social change. Furthermore, the results of Moscovici’s (1969) research highlight the importance of consistency in minority influence. Moscovici found that a consistent minority were more likely (8.4%) to convince a majority that the colour of a slide was green when it was in fact blue, in comparison to an inconsistent minority (1.3%).

Secondly, minorities that make sacrifices are more likely to be influential. If minorities show their dedication to the cause through sacrifice, for example imprisonment or even death, their influence becomes more powerful. For example, when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white male passenger in the 1950s, she was arrested for violating US law. This event helped trigger the civil rights movement to end the racial segregation laws in America. The case of Rosa Parks demonstrates that people who are willing to make a sacrifice (in her case being arrested) show their commitment to their cause and as a result are more influential.

Finally, if the minority is similar to the majority, in terms of class, age, gender or even sexuality, then they are more likely to be influential. Maass et al. (1982) investigated the idea of group membership and found that a minority of heterosexual men were more likely to convince a heterosexual majority about gay rights, in comparison to a minority of homosexual people. Maass concluded that ‘straight’ men have more persuasive power when discussing gay rights with other straight men, in comparison to gay men. This supports the idea that similarity in terms of group membership is an important factor for minority influence and social change.

This process can be used to explain many examples of social change, which have occurred throughout history.

For example, the suffragettes were consistent in their view and persistently used educational and political arguments to draw attention to female rights. Furthermore, they remained consistent for many years and despite opposition continued protesting and lobbying until they convinced society that women were entitled to vote. In addition, many of the suffragettes made significant sacrifices for their cause; many risked imprisonment and others risked death through extended hunger strikes, making their influence even more powerful. Finally, the suffragettes used group membership to convince other women to join their cause to expand their influence and membership. Overtime their influence spread with people considering the issue until it lead to social change and all adults gaining the right to vote.

• Normative Social Influence
• Informational Social Influence
• Minority Influence
• Research and social change
• Maass et al. (1982)

You might also like

Types of conformity, conformity - asch (1951), minority influence - consistency and commitment, stem starter: minority influence.

20th January 2017

The Psychology of Sports Fans

9th February 2017

Model Answer for Question 1 Paper 1: AS Psychology, June 2016 (AQA)

Exam Support

Example Answer for Question 3 Paper 1: AS Psychology, June 2017 (AQA)

Social influence: minority influence | aqa a-level psychology.

Quizzes & Activities

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Social Changes and Civil Rights Essay

Nonviolence, violence and black militancy, works cited.

Martin Luther King is a renowned civil rights activist who used a nonviolence approach to achieve social change in America (King 42). King understood the predicament of the black people in America, but also understood the importance of peace for all races. Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, King resorted to a civil right movement that protested against racial discrimination.

The nonviolence approach included boycotts to social amenities and industrial strikes. King is known for his role in the infamous Montgomery bus boycott. Apparently, black people were not allowed to access the front row seats in a bus. This social injustice was a common occurrence in Montgomery, Alabama.

A nonviolence boycott of this injustice led to changing of the infamous rules, and black people were able to integrate with the rest of the people in social places. King beseeched his fellow black people to integrate with white people in the pursuit for social justice. King argued that black people success was bound to that of the white people. In fact, the success of nonviolence approach led to enactment of civil and voting rights acts in 1965 and 1964 respectively.

Advantages and disadvantages of nonviolence

The advantage of using nonviolence is that the approach justifies the moral behavior and philosophy of its proponents. Nonviolence is usually perceived to be an integral aspect of a country’s moral foundation. Nonviolence can be used as a way of life by its proponents as it preserves life and safeguards social values.

However, nonviolence is sometimes abused by its proponents when they mix elements of violence as a defense mechanism. Sometimes, nonviolence tactics are used to provoke violence. In addition, people resent participating in strikes and peaceful demonstrations. King’s approach was heavily criticized and undermined as ineffective by Malcolm X.

The use of violence and black militancy was advocated by the Malcolm X. Violence as a tool for advancing social and civil rights involved taking up weapons and fighting as a defense mechanism (Malcolm X 139). Malcolm X understood the plight of the black Americans in terms of socio-economic aspects.

Besides languishing in poverty, descendants of black slaves were poor and discriminated in a society that was progressing economically and politically. Black people were neglected by the government that never provided security. In this context, black people who resisted the white man rule were killed, tortured and their homes were burned.

According to Malcolm X, the only way to preserve the dignity of the black men was through rebellion. Malcolm X idea of violence and black militancy led to the creation of the cultural nationalism. Cultural nationalism focused on liberating black people from white people. This led to isolation and segregation of the blacks from the whites. Resistance to this segregation led to killing of members from either party.

Preservation of the black man culture was of importance since the white man was an oppressor and resented black culture. The main objective of violence and black militancy was to secure jobs for its people and end social conflict between the black and white people. Malcolm X’s philosophy also considered freedom and voting rights. Malcolm X preferred self-defense against police brutality, and self-governance.

Advantages and disadvantages of violence and black militancy.

The advantage of violence and black militancy is that it can be used as the last resort if all nonviolent means fail. Sometimes, violence evokes a need to intervene and understand the cause of the problem. However, violence is destructive and distorts the meaning of social and civil rights.

Moreover, violence and acts of cultural nationalism promote hatred among people of different races. National healing and reconciliation are ineffective, when the impact of violence is horrendous. Sometimes, acts of violence lead to genocide as evidenced in countries like Kosovo and Rwanda.

Feminism is a renowned approach in realizing social and civil rights. Sojourner Truth is a renowned activist who used feminism to advocate for women’s rights. During her time, racism and gender discrimination against women was not protected by the constitution. In this regard, she rebelled against the constitution by voting despite the fact she was a black woman.

When Truth was arrested and aligned in court, she expressed her displeasure with a constitution that does not protect a woman. In her speech called “Ain’t I a Woman”, Truth narrates how she worked like a man yet not respected and treated like a woman. Truth advocates for equality between men and women. Feminism approach appreciates that women are human and are inclined to work and contribute to the society just like men.

Advantages and disadvantages of feminism

The advantage of feminism as an approach to achieving social and civil rights is that it elevates women’s position in the society. Women are now engaging in politics and economic growth of a society. Unlike in historical times, women now have rights to vote, work and influence the society. However, feminism has caused discomfort among men who no longer protect women. Emergence of anti-male ideology has resulted from feminism and promotes sexist concepts.

King, Martin Luther. I have a dream . New York: Random House Children’s Books, 2012. Print.

Malcolm X. “To Mississippi Youth”. Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements . Ed. George Breitman. New York: Ballantine, 1964. 137-146. Print.

Truth, Sojourner. “ Ain’t I a woman? “. 1997. Web. < https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/sojtruth-woman.asp >

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, January 17). Social Changes and Civil Rights. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-changes-and-civil-rights/

"Social Changes and Civil Rights." IvyPanda , 17 Jan. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/social-changes-and-civil-rights/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Social Changes and Civil Rights'. 17 January.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Social Changes and Civil Rights." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-changes-and-civil-rights/.

1. IvyPanda . "Social Changes and Civil Rights." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-changes-and-civil-rights/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Social Changes and Civil Rights." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-changes-and-civil-rights/.

• The Age of American Reform, 1820-40
• The Autobiography of Malcolm X
• Emancipation of Caribbeans, Cubans, and Dominicans
• The Catastrophe to Come: When the Society Falls Apart. A
• Church Versus State: Antigone and Modern States
• The “House Rules” Movie
• The Marriage Traditions of Wolof Culture
• Negatives Effects of Social Network Sites

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Social Change — Relationship Between Technology and Social Change

Relationship Between Technology and Social Change

• Categories: Social Change

About this sample

Words: 844 |

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Words: 844 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Impact on communication and relationships, education and workforce development, social and cultural norms, economic systems and globalization.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 715 words

4 pages / 1960 words

1 pages / 611 words

8 pages / 3854 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Social Change

Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech is one of the most iconic and influential speeches in American history. In this essay, we will explore the use of logos in King's speech, examining how he used rational arguments [...]

Photography has always played a crucial role in documenting social issues and sparking change. Through the lens of a camera, photographers like Jacob Riis and Dorothea Lange have captured the harsh realities of society, shedding [...]

In conclusion, kindness has been a transformative force in my life. It has shaped my values, influenced my interactions with others, and broadened my perspective on the world. The experiences I have had, both as a recipient and [...]

Civil disobedience has been a powerful tool for social change throughout history. From the civil rights movement to the fight for LGBTQ+ rights, individuals and groups have used civil disobedience to challenge unjust laws and [...]

Disobedience, far from being a destructive force, is an essential element of progress and social change. It challenges the status quo, exposes injustice, and demands accountability. By understanding the power and potential of [...]

Many people erroneously believe that sociology is that the study of the ordinary. They claim that sociology is nothing but the applying of common sense. However, equalization any science with easy common sense could not be [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free