Readings in Social Evolution and Development

442 Pages·1970·5.01 MB·English

by  S. N. Eisenstadt (Eds.)

THE COMMONWEALTH A ND INTERNATIONAL
LIBRARY
READINGS IN SOCIOLOGY
Editorial Board
RENE KOENIG (Germany)
A. H. RICHMOND (Canada)
E. A. SHILS (England)
J. R. TRÉANTON (France)
Forthcoming Volumes
KURT DANZIGER, Readings in Child Socialization
CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, Readings in Kinship in Urban Society
CLIFFORD JANSEN, Migration
In the same series
JOAN BROTHERS, Sociology of Religion
R. E. PÄHL, Urban Sociology
READINGS IN
SOCIAL EVOLUTION
AND DEVELOPMENT
Edited by
S. N. EISENSTADT
PERGAMON PRESS
Oxford ' London ' Edinburgh * New York
Toronto · Sydney . Paris * Braunschweig
Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford
4 & 5 Fitzroy Square, London W.l
Pergamon Press (Scotland) Ltd., 2 & 3 Teviot Place, Edinburgh 1
Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford,
New York 10523
Pergamon of Canada Ltd., 207 Queen's Quay West, Toronto 1
Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., 19a Boundary Street,
Rushcutters Bay, N.S.W. 2011, Australia
Pergamon Press S.A.R.L., 24 rue des Écoles, Paris 5e
Vieweg & Sohn GmbH, Burgplatz 1, Braunschweig
Copyright © 1970 Pergamon Press Ltd.
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Pergamon Press Ltd.
First edition 1970
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 78-96463
Printed in Great Britain by A. Wheat on & Co., Exeter
This book is sold subject to the condition
that it shall not, by way of trade, be lent,
resold, hired out, or otherwise disposed
of without the publisher's consent,
in any form of binding or cover
other than that in which
it is published.
08 006812 X (flexicover)
08 006813 8 (hard cover)
Preface
THIS is one of a series of volumes published by Pergamon Press.
Each consists of a collection of articles on a specialized aspect of
sociology, or social psychology, together with an introduction
designed to relate the selected readings to the state of sociological
knowledge and research in the field in question. Each volume of
readings has been prepared by a distinguished scholar who has
specialized in the area.
A characteristic of the series is the inclusion in each volume of
a number of articles translated into English from European and
other sources. English-speaking scholars and students will have
the opportunity of reading articles which would not otherwise
be readily available to them. Many important contributions to
sociology made by European and other writers will be given a
wider circulation in this way. It is hoped that the series will
contribute to an international cross-fertilization of sociological
theory and research.
York University ANTHONY H. RICHMOND
Toronto General Editor
vii
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT is due to the publishers, editors, and authors
whose material has been reprinted in this volume. Morris Gins-
berg's article "Social Change" first appeared in the British Journal
of Sociology and appears by permission of Messrs. Heinemann.
"The Marxist Theory of Social Development" is reproduced
from Le Développement Social by permission of UNESCO. The
Rural Sociological Society gave permission for us to reproduce
"Some Considerations on the Theory of Social Change" by
Talcott Parsons from Rural Sociology. The American Sociological
Association gave permission for us to reprint "A Reconsideration
of Theories of Social Change" by Wilbert E. Moore, "Religious
Evolution" by Robert N. Bellah, and "Evolution, Function, and
Change" by Kenneth E. Bock, all from the American Sociological
Review. "The Study of Evolution" by Eric R. Wolf reprinted from
Sol Tax (editor), Horizons of Anthropology (Chicago, Aldine
Publishing Company, 1964), copyright © 1964 by Aldine Pub-
lishing Company and George Allen & Unwin Ltd, "Democracy
and Industrialization" by Ernest Gellner is reprinted by permission
of the European Journal of Sociology, 8 (1967). "The Termination
of Conflict" by Lewis A. Coser appears by permission of Conflict
Resolution. "The Socio-cultural Development up to the Present
Time and Our Place in It" by Richard F. Behrendt is reprinted
from Der Mensch im Licht der Soziologie by permission of W.
Kolhammer GmbH. The two extracts from "Political Develop-
ment in the New States" by Edward Shils are reprinted by permis-
sion of Comparative Studies in Society and History. "The Trans-
ition to a Mass Democracy in Argentina" by Gino Germani first
appeared in Politica and is reproduced from Contemporary
Cultures and Societies of Latin America by permission of Random
ix
χ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
House Inc. "Sociology of Development" by Alain Touraine is
reprinted from Sociologie du Travail by permission of Éditions du
Seuil. Presses Universitaires de France gave permission to re-
produce "Socio-cultural Unbalance and Modernization in the
Underdevloped Countries" by Georges Balandier from Cahiers
Internationaux de Sociologie. "Legal Evolution and Societal Com-
plexity" by R. D. Schwartz and J. C. Miller is reprinted from the
American Journal of Sociology by permission of the University of
Chicago Press who also gave us permission to reprint "Break-
downs of Modernization" by S. N. Eisenstadt from Economic De-
velopment and Cultural Change.
Professor Eisenstadt was unfortunately not able to correct the
proofs and wishes it to be emphasized that the technicalities of the
publication were in the hands of the publisher.
Social Change and Development
S. N. EISENSTADT
THE problem of social change has been one of the most central
foci of sociological inquiry. Modern sociological theory views
social disorganization as a starting point for studying the mechan-
isms of social order, its functioning and change in general, and
its varying types in particular. This implies that social disorder
and change are not prior to and hence different from social order
but an inherent part of it. Although this problem has been of such
central importance in sociological theory, there has been little
consensus on how to approach it. The search for universal causes
of change or for one "central" "basic cause", the polemics as to
whether such change is exogenous to a social system or inherent
in it, the controversy concerning "static" and "dynamic" socio-
logy, have all greatly contributed to this lack of agreement.
In the last 20 years there has been a growing convergence of
research and analysis which may now enable some revaluation of
the many discussions about social change.
It might be worth while to focus such revaluation around three
topics. First is the problem of the extent to which change is built
into any organized, institutionalized, social system—and of the
mechanisms of such change. Second, the problem of the extent
to which it is possible to discern within any given society and in
human society in general some directionality of change, i.e. the
old problem of "evolution". Lastly, as a special case of the
former, but of great interest in its own right, is the problem of
modernization and development.
3
4 READINGS IN SOCIAL EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT
PART I
Institutionalization and Change
Claims have long been made that structural or "structural-
functional" analysis, with its stress on systems, equilibrium,
common values, and boundary maintenance, not only neglects
problems of change but also is analytically incapable of dealing
with them. In response, many sociologists have recently asserted
that not only is there no necessary contradiction between struc-
tural analysis and the analysis of change but also that, on the con-
trary, the two are basically compatible. As formulated, for instance,
by Moore, the argument is that every society (or social system) is
inherently predisposed to change because of basic problems to
which there is no over-all continuous solution. (1) These problems
include uncertainties of socialization, perennial scarcity of
resources relative to individual aspirations, and contrasting types
of social orientation or principles of social organization (e.g.
Gemeinschaft vs. Gesellschaft) within the society. While this general
view has been accepted to some extent, it has given rise to the
contrary claim that it is couched in terms too general to explain
the specific directions of change in any concrete society, that such
specificity is beyond the province of "structural" analysis, and
that such analysis can explain any concrete change only by
reference either to very general and hence inadequate causes or
to forces external to the system. (2)
These difficulties can be at least partially overcome by recogniz-
ing that the general "predilections" to change inherent in any
social system become "concretized" or "specified" through the
process of institutionalization.
The organization of such systems of behavior involves the
creation and definition of norms to regulate the major units of
social behavior and organization, criteria according to which the
flow of resources is regulated between such units, and sanctions
to ensure that such norms are upheld. All these involve the
maintenance of the specific boundaries of the system, i.e. the
INTRODUCTION 5
maintenance of the units that constitute them, their relations with
outside systems, and the norms that delineate their specific
characteristics.
These activities are undertaken by people who are placed in
structurally strategic positions, who aspire to implement certain
goals, and who succeed in competition with other such people or
groups. Institutional norms regulate the provision of various
resources from other parts of the society to these power positions,
to the new organizations, to some of the relations among the
different groups in the society, and to the obligations of the occu-
pants of these positions toward various groups in the society.
Thus such institutionalization creates organizational and be-
havioral patterns directed to the upholding of certain goals.
Within these organizations there develop systemic boundaries and
mechanisms which attempt to regulate the flow of activities and
resources. As we shall see later in greater detail, no such system is
ever fully homogeneous, that is, upheld and found binding to the
same degree in all areas of social life and by all groups in a society.
It does, however, set up some broad limits within which its norms
are operative, even if in varying degrees.
Each such system, crystallized within any major sphere (econo-
mic, cultural, etc.), is dependent on the systems functioning in
other major institutional spheres and is necessarily very closely,
although not deterministically, related to and dependent on such
systems in other institutional spheres. In general, each insti-
tutional sphere is dependent on others for various resources for
its own effective functioning, that is, for the maintenance of its
specific structural forms, activities and rates, and norms of
exchange.<8)
While the general types of such resources (or "inputs" and
"outputs") are necessarily the same in all societies, the types of
resources of any specific institutional spheres vary greatly accord-
ing to their particular characteristics and problems. Thus, for
instance, although all political systems are necessarily influenced
by external exigencies and pressures, the special sensitivity of the
centralized bureaucratic empires to such exigencies and pressures,
6 READINGS IN SOCIAL EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT
as well as to international economic fluctuations, has been shown
to be rooted first, in the great emphasis of their rulers on military
and expansionist goals and second, in the dependence of these
rulers on various resources. The availability of the latter was, of
course, dependent on certain international economic situations.
The dangers of excessive taxation and inflation in these political
systems were also rooted in the high expense involved in the im-
plementation of the rulers' goals and in the great importance of
various flexible resources not only for the implementation of these
goals but also for the general political position of the imperial
rulers.<4)
The relative autonomy of each institutional sphere in relation
to others probably does vary between different institutions and
between different situations. It is probable that the symbolic
sphere usually exhibits greater autonomy than the others; but all
of these problems have yet to be investigated in detail.
Individual Behavior, Role Performance, and
Institutional Change
Any institutional system regulates and organizes patterns of
behavior of the individual members of a society or of its com-
ponent groups; in turn it is, of course, greatly dependent on their
activities, sentiments, and attitudes. It is not as yet, however, at
all clear in what exact ways various personal sentiments and
activities, limited to different (even if similar) informal settings,
become "exchanged" or crystallized into the more fully insti-
tutionalized commodities and norms.
Studies of social determinants of behavior and attitudes have
rarely attempted to analyze how these attitudes and behavior
affect the process of setting up new norms and organizational
settings.(5) However, such studies certainly do not support the
assumption of the existence of a direct relation between attitudes
and sentiments, on the one hand, and the undertaking of jural
injunctions or the crystallization of institutional norms, on the
other. It is more likely that an individual's performance of various