Assignment

(2)
Subject:
Pak Studies
Submitted by:
ALI ZAIN
Roll No#:
FA20-BSE-069
Section:
(A)
Submitted to:
Sir Allah Wasaya Sab
COMSATS
University Islamabad ( Vehari Campus )

What are the political causes of industrial backwardness in

Pakistan?
Those who organized the conference on which this volume is based—including the
editors decided to use the terms "social change" and "modernity" as the organizing
concepts for this project. Because these terms enjoy wide usage in contemporary
sociology and are general and inclusive, they seem preferable to more specific
terms such as "evolution" "progress," "differentiation," or even "development,"
many of which evoke more specific mechanisms, processes, and directions of
change. Likewise, we have excluded historically specific terms such as "late
capitalism" and "industrial society" even though these concepts figure prominently
in many of the contributions to this volume. The conference strategy called for a
general statement of a met framework for the study of social change within which
a variety of more specific theories could be identified.
1. Industrial Change and Modernity: -
Those who organized the conference on which this volume is based—including the
editors decided to use the terms "social change" and "modernity" as the organizing
concepts for this project. Because these terms enjoy wide usage in contemporary
sociology and are general and inclusive, they seem preferable to more specific
terms such as "evolution" "progress," "differentiation," or even "development,"
many of which evoke more specific mechanisms, processes, and directions of
change. Likewise, we have excluded historically specific terms such as "late
capitalism" and "industrial society" even though these concepts figure prominently
in many of the contributions to this volume. The conference strategy called for a
general statement of a met framework for the study of social change within which
a variety of more specific theories could be identified.
2. Industrial change: -
Change is such an evident feature of social reality that any social-scientific theory,
whatever its conceptual starting point, must sooner or later address it. At the same
time, it is essential to note that the ways social change has been identified have
varied greatly in the history of thought. Furthermore, conceptions of change appear
to have mirrored the historical.
3. Great Impact: -
Realities of different epochs in large degree. In his essay for this volume Giessen
shows that even though ideas of time existed and evolved over thousands of years
ranging from the identification of time as a period of action and a period of living
to the differentiation of time according to hierarchical position (the gods are
eternal; empires rise, prosper, and fall; humans have a time lifespan), to the
conception of time as progress—stability and order were the norm and changes
were exceptional. But in more recent centuries the dominant conceptions of change
itself have changed. Social change as a concept for comprehending a continual
dynamic in social units became salient during the French Revolution and the
industrial revolution in England, both periods of extraordinary dynamism.
Comprehensive change became normal, and, accordingly, social philosophers and
later sociologists gradually replaced the older ideas of natural constants and the
contractual constructions of natural and rational order with conceptions of social
change, even though precise formulations were slow to appear. For these thinker’s
social change was "a property of social order, known as change" (Lehmann 1984,
471). Moreover, in the midst of change observers began to look in retrospect to the
dramatic changes that had occurred in earlier epochs, for examples, in the
development of the Egyptian Empire or the Western Roman Empire.
Contemporary theories of social change have become more generalized in order to
explain far-reaching processes of change in past and present. In a review of
contemporary theories of change Hermann Strassen and Susan C. Randall have
identified the following attributes for these changes: "magnitude of change, time
span, direction, rate of change, amount of violence involved" (1981, 16). In our
view any theory of change must contain three main elements that must stand in
definite relation to one another:

Discuss with examples (at least two) the remedial measures of the political
issues that country is facing nowadays?

1. Structural determinants of social change, such as population changes, the

dislocation occasioned by war, or strains and contradictions.

2. Processes and mechanisms of social change, including precipitating

mechanisms, social movements, political conflict and accommodation, and
entrepreneurial activity.

3. Directions of social change, including structural changes, effects, and

consequences.

Even this rendition of the met framework for models of change is overly simple,
for among the structural determinants of different processes of social change are
the accumulated consequences of previous sequences of change.
Wised and Kitsch (1978, vii) argue that although "the analysis of social change
represents the touchstone of sociology," it "obviously still appears to be
underdeveloped today." The editors accept this judgment and advance two reasons
for it. The first reason is that despite the evident fact that comprehensive social
changes cannot be explained by menopausal theories, such theories still survive in
one form or another: cultural emanations’ theories, materialist theories, and more
specific examples such as the explanation of social changes by the size and
composition of the population of a society (Cupola 1978) or by changes in key
actors' attitudes (Pop 1976). Such theories generally break down when confronted
with explaining unexpected changes or when they are used for predicting or
forecasting. The second reason for the underdevelopment of the study of social
changes is those who accept the necessity of multiclausal explanations face a
formidable task in arranging the great arsenal of determinants, mechanisms,
processes, and consequences into sufficiently complex interactive and predictive
models. Simple theories are easier to create but are more likely to be inadequate,
whereas complex theories are more likely to be realistic but are more difficult to
construct formally. Another point of tension in the scientific study of social change
is that between the striving for general theories and the carrying out of specialized
studies dealing with certain societies and periods of time. Certainly the more
comprehensive theories of the sociological masters still survive and inform the
research of many scholars, even though the focus of these scholars has become
more limited. Examples of the more focused study of changes in economic
structure and stratification are found in the contributions of Oglethorpe,
Haferkamp, and Munch to this volume; examinations of changes in political and
social structures are found in the contributions of Touraine and Eiermann. This
volume strikes a kind of balance between comprehensiveness and specialization.
Although the contributors and editors have kept in mind Wilbert E. Moore's
cautionary words about "the myth of a singular theory of change" (Moore 1963,
23), we have nonetheless been able to organize the volume around some general
themes in the contemporary study of social change. These themes are the
persistence of evolutionary thought, structural differentiation and cultural change,
theories of modernity, modernity and new forms of social movements, modernity
and social inequality, and international and global themes. This introduction takes
up these themes in the order listed.

Developments in the Paradigm of Evolutionary Theory: -

The lasting attractiveness of the paradigm of evolutionary theory in sociology is a
remarkable phenomenon given the controversial history of this perspective in
sociology. In very recent times, however, it has been less the evolutionary writings
of Spencer (The Study of Sociology [1872], Principles of Sociology [1876–96])
than those of Darwin that have provided the models for sociologists (Giessen 1980,
10–11; Lehmann, this volume; Giessen, this volume). Recent evidence of the
continuing vitality of the evolutionary perspective is found, among North
American sociologist, in the works of Talcott Parsons (1961, 1966, 1967, 1971a,
1977), Neil J. Smelter (1959, 1976), and Gerhard Len ski (1970, 1976) and among
West German sociologists, in the theories of Jürgen Huberman (1976, 1981) and
Nicolas Lehman (1984). The work of Shmuel N. Eisenstaedt (1970, 1976) shows a
similar influence. These evolutionary conceptions have not been without their
critics. Parsons's emphasis on evolution as an increase of adaptability, that is, the
capacity to control and gain greater independence from the environment, has come
under attack from a variety of sources (Granovetter 1979; Schmidt 1981, 1982;
Lehman 1984). This line of criticism stresses the apparent teleology of Parsons's
formulation and his failure to explain the structural prerequisites that are
presumably necessary for further evolution. West German neoevolutionary thought
has also come in for its share of critical reactions (on Huberman, see Berger 1982;
Schmidt 1981; Hornet and Jonas 1986. On Lehmann, see Haferkamp and Schmidt
1987). One particular line of criticism of Huberman’s work is that it is too
normative and not sufficiently explanatory in its force: "He fails to give a plausible
reason why a rise in the capability for moral reflection should in all cases a rise in
the adaptability of a social formation" (Schmidt 1981, 29). In this volume
Oglethorpe, impatient with the generalities of both classical evolutionary theory
and Marxist thought, echoes Popper's (1944–45, 1945) still-pertinent criticism.
Despite these critical responses, evolutionary theory—or at least selected aspects
of it—continues to reappear. In this volume a number of authors (Lehman, Eder,
and Hendrik) take up evolutionary questions directly. Other authors, who are more
closely identified with either systems theory or conflict theory (Giessen, Smelter,
and Eisenstadt), also touch on evolutionary issues. Thus, Eder, although mainly
looking at societal contradictions, also asks about the evolutionary functions of
contradictions. Looking at the contributions to this volume that take up
evolutionary themes in terms of the met framework sketched above, it is possible
to identify the following elements: triggering mechanisms for change, sustaining.

Patterns of Structural and Industrial Change: -

Among the most persistent themes that appear in the evolutionist and
neoevolutionist literature are those of differentiation, integration, conflict,

and, in particular, the relationship among these. The notion of differentiation (or
specialization) was central in the work of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Herbert
Spencer, and Emile Durkheim. The same notion informs the work of a number of
contemporary theorists, notably Parsons. Yet both the causes and consequences of
social differentiation remain unclear; they are explored by many of the contributors
to this volume. One way of organizing existing thought on structural differentiation
is to trace the ways in which this phenomenon has been related to both integration
and conflict. In the theories of Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer differentiation
was regarded as a fundamental principle of change, but the integration of
specialized activities was not problematic in their theories because it was regarded
as a result that emerged from the aggregation of voluntary exchange in society.
Differentiation (the division of labor) also played a central role in the theories of
Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Marx posited contradictions, conflicts, and
ultimate disintegration as arising from the differentiation of economic and social
positions in economic systems. Durkheim stressed the need for positive integration
in a differentiated society if anomie and conflict were not to become endemic. In
his contribution to this volume, Alexander acknowledges the power of Durkheim's
theory of differentiation but finds shortcomings in its naive evolutionary
assumptions and its mechanistic quality. One of the most comprehensive theories
of differentiation is that of Parsons, who laid great stress on the adaptive upgrading
that is attained through greater specialization of roles, organizations, and
institutions. Yet this very focus on the functional consequences of differentiation,
Alexander notes, perhaps diverted Parsons from a closer focus on "the actual
processes by which that new and more differentiated institution actually came
about." This lack of attention to mechanisms was the focus of earlier criticism of
Parsons's efforts (Lockwood 1956; Fahrendorf 1955, 1958) and is at the center of
Alexander's criticisms of both Durkheim's and Parsons's theories of differentiation.
The stress on functionally positive consequences may harbor a certain apologetic
note, even an "ideological patina." The works of Smelter (1959), Eisenstadt (1969),
Bella (1970), and Lehman (1982) have constituted something of a corrective in that
they have stressed mechanisms and processes more and positive functionalist
aspects less. But the dynamics of structural differentiation are still not fully
understood. The focus on structural causes and mechanisms of differentiation is
found in Alexander's contribution to this volume. He argues that to improve the
theory of differentiation, it is "necessary [to have] … a more phase-specific model
of general differentiation and of social process alike." Here Alexander focuses on
the key role of war and conflict.
He argues that the theory of differentiation has as yet been unable to incorporate
the notions of "political repression," "ferocious violence," "oppression," and "war."
By distinguishing between polarization and differentiation on the one hand and
various historical situations on the other, Alexander works toward a scheme that
will more readily incorporate processes of change such as revolution, reform, and
reaction. One advantage of his formulation is that it proposes a reciprocal
relationship between conflict, conquest, and repression on the one hand and
processes of differentiation on the other. Each set of variables plays a central
causal role in the development of the others. In related formulations Eder regards
conflict as a starting mechanisms of social change through variation, and
Eiermann’s analysis begins with societal conflict. This focus on conflict brings to
mind the Marxist heritage of differentiation as the source of the contradictions that
destabilize and ultimately destroy a society. Lockwood's and Fahrendorf’s
criticisms of Parsons's formulations of the positive relation between differentiation
and integration pushed both of them somewhat in a Marxist direction in that they
regarded conflict as the core consequence of differentiation, especially the
differentiation of authority. Fahrendorf’s current views of social change still echo
this position: "Social change is define in terms of direction and rhythm by that
power of unrest for which it is so difficult to find a sufficiently general name, by
incompatibility, discord, antagonism, contradiction and resistance, through
conflict" (Fahrendorf 1987, 11). Finally, it should be noted that Eisenstaedt’s
insistence on the centrality of group conflict in the development of civilizational
change is in keeping with the general thrust noted: the effort to synthesize
systematically the conceptions of conflict, differentiation, and integration. To align
these conceptions graphically, we refer the reader to Table 1. The only empty cell
in the table is the one representing integration as one of the active causes of
differentiation. Little attention has been given to this relationship in the literature
on social change. But it is at least plausible to think that a highly integrated society
with a legitimate and responsive state might tend to produce orderly structural
innovation and differentiation as a response to internal group conflict, whereas a
less-integrated system might produce chronic and unresolved group conflict and
instability. It might also be supposed that a well-integrated society would be less
likely to export its internal conflicts in the form of aggressive wars. Irene hinted at
this relationship when he contrasted the North European "Hanse" with the Italian
republics of Venice, Genoa, and Pisa.
________________________________________________________________