Theological stage: Comte also calls this stage as fictitious stage. In this stage humans seek for the essential reasons of the origin and the purpose of the universe. Belief in gods and explaining all phenomena according to the immediate action of gods are the main elements of this stage. For Comte this stage reached its perfection when it substituted all gods with a single Being.
Metaphysical stage: Comte also calls this stage as the abstract stage. This stage is the modification of the first stage. Here we found abstract forces variable entities inherent in the individuals. Phenomena are explained referring to each individual.
Scientific stage: Comte also calls this stage as positive stage. In this stage phenomena are explained according to its causes and reasons. Observation and reasoning according to the scientific rules is necessary. Human are not any more interested in the origin and the destination but try to explain phenomena by natural laws.
Comte also makes an analogy and states that childhood is the theological stage where as youth is the metaphysical stage and the manhood is the scientific stage in one’s life. Comte’s idea of progress presents a linear progress which is always stepping for a better one. However for Comte Scientific stage is the final stage; for him there is no progress after the scientific stage.
Durkheim focuses on the maintenance of the social order; for him progress is an evolutionary process, thus it is still linear. In his book Division of Labor Durkheim identifies two societies where there are mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. In order to identify them he searches laws. In mechanical solidarity repressive laws, more punishment can be seen; however in organic solidarity there are restitutive laws that can be seen. For Durkheim through division of labor societies evolve from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity where individualism gains importance. In mechanical societies there exists a similarity between the individuals social conscience is in its highest level. Personality dissolves in the social conscience. In organic solidarity specialization leads to individualism; however individuals are still bound to each other through the interdependence.
Anomie is also one of the concepts of Durkheim where he sees the social change. For him, anomie occurs in the social breakdown and individuals are left to their own devices. There is no social control over the individuals. Durkheim realizes that social breakdowns occur during the social changes. Sudden upheavals in the society may cause anomie. Thus social progress has to occur while the social order is maintained. We can see the Darwinian evolution in Durkheim’s approach to social progress.
However Marx’s idea of progress is totally different from Durkheim’s. Marx also traces the history and realizes different types of mode of productions. For Marx first stage is the “primitive communism” where there is no division of labor. With the domestication of animals and agriculture division of labor emerged. For him division of labor leads to inequality between the members of the society. Thus class system is the main element through out the history. Slavery, Asiatic mode of production, feudalism, capitalism and communism through socialism are the stages of progress for Marx.
Influenced by Hegel class conflict is the necessary element for the progress. However his approach is based on materialistic conceptions. Marx somewhere states that “philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways but the point is to change it” Forces of production and relations of production are the elements of mode of production. Forces of production are technology and the labor force, where as the relations of the production, such as state, religion arts, is the social relations that individuals enter into during the process of production. Marx revolutionary progress provides that forces of production has to be far advanced in order to alter the relation of productions. Thus for Marx idea of progress posits that evolution occurs through revolution.
Feudalism led to capitalism by the emergence of merchants in the feudal system. In capitalism there are two antagonistic classes, bourgeoisie and the proletariat. For Marx, class consciousness is the necessary element for the revolution. “ Class in itself” has to be “class for it self.” However this is only possible for Marx by struggle between the classes as he somewhere states” Individuals form class, in so far, as they engage in a struggle with an other class”
Weber believed that social progress occurs in different spheres. Emergence of capitalism is an example in the economic spehere. In his book, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” Weber explains how Capitalism emerged through out the history. Unlike Marx, Weber claims that not only material conditions but also ideas play their role in the creation of history. He uses, or say it, barrows the concept of “elective affinity” from Gothe. According to Weber ideas and material conditions progress independently from each other. The creation of history happens when they intersect with each other.
Weber’s analogy of the switchman and the locomotive is indeed illuminates the concept. Material conditions are the locomotive that has the energy to move and make changes, where as the ideas are the switchmen who work on the railroad and give the direction to locomotive, material conditions.
Weber sees the Protestant Ethic as the ideas that influence the material conditions, like the switchman. Before capitalism the economic system was ready to for a change, but the idea was lacking with the influence of Protestantism the economic system grew rapidly and found its meaning.
Another area for Weber is the bureaucracy, and the rationalization through out the history. Charismatic leader gains importance for Weber, ritualization and the emergence of bureaucracy is one of the progresses. However, it has its own problems.
Marx’s revolutionary approach has been criticized by many theorists. Dahrendorf is one of these conflict theorists. Dahrendorf, like Marx, believes that norms are not achieved by consensus but conflict. The main diverging point of Dahrendorf from Marx is that Dahrendorf claims that one’ s relation to power and authority (Weberian) are the reason of conflict where as for Marx it is the one’s relation to means of production. Thus Dahrendorf differentiates class from the strata and uses authority as the reason of the inequality which is inevitable within the society. While Marx believes that communism where there is equality is the final point through out the history of men.
Dahrendorf also supports that social change is possible by revolution; however it is not the unique way of the social change. He differentiates exogenous factors from endogenous factors. Exogenous factors are the external factors such as war or cultural diffusion where as endogenous factors refers to internal factors. Class conflict is only one way of social changes that Marx refers to; thus he states that Marx was wrong when he states that “History of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle.”
Dahrendorf in his book, “Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Societies,” also states that capitalism is the subsystem of the industrial society. Marx was mistaken as he reduces the social life to economic life. Authority is more broad then economy for him.
Dahrendorf also differentiates the ways of social change as structural change, ideological change and change of the oppressive class. Dahrendorf is not a holistic and he believes that change can occur in one part and can diffuse to the general but it can also stay within that part.
Merton is a structural functionalist. He traces the foot prints of Durkheim and fills the gaps in his theories. He challenged the three postulates of the functionalism and presented new concepts dysfunctionality, non –functional functional alternatives and anomie are some of these concepts that are related to social change.
For Merton not every element is functional in the society. They can exisist without disturbing the social order. Also some are dysfunctional for the system, for example slavery was functional for the white America however it was dysfunctional for the blacks. Also it was dysfunctional for the whites in the south because it delayed the progress of industrialization.
For Merton also some elements do not play a vital role in the society and there may be some equivalents of these.
For example capitalism, socialism patriotism can serve as a functional alternative for religion. For Merton cause of anomie is not the change in society but the double facedness of the structure. Structure may regulate high values for individuals although the means are barred for them. Thus he shows five different adaptations of individuals to the structure.
Conformist: Accepts both the means of the society and the values of the society and the structure is available for them.
Innovators: Accepts the values but rejects the means to achieve them. Crime is a way to achieve the goals
Ritualists: Accepts the means and rejects the goals of the society.
Retreats: Rejects both means and the goals of the society, but do not take action. For example, drug addicts and drunkards.
Rebellions; Rejects both means and the goals of the society and have their own goals and means.
Merton also do not support linear progress for him system may go worse and he is not a holistic.
Finally post-modern theorists have totally different approach to sociology and to the progress in the society. Most of the post-modern theorists are pessimistic about the social change. I believe some of their concepts will be enough to understand their view.
Brazillianisation of the world, the illusion of the end, brave new world, new world order are some of these concepts. All believe that individuals, societies are will have hard time because of the improvements that occurred in the past. Individualism will increase people have to face with the difficulties by themselves. Capitalism will lead to extinct of the dependent countries. Thus social change is circular here, where as it is like a pendulum for Sorokin who is a contemporary theorist.
