Download Trace the development of the idea of Progress in the18th, 19th, and

Trace the development of the idea of Progress in the18th,
19th, and 20th centuries.
Idea of progress has been one of the issues in the social thought even before the
emergence of sociology as a science. Although Hobbes do not have a clear
understanding of progress, he realizes the problems of the time. He states
“Homo homini lupus,”- men eat men. He sees the state as the force that
maintains the order within the society. He does not have the idea of rebellion
against the state, but Rousseau finds a solution to the oppressive structure of
the state.
For Rousseau, individuals voluntarily give up some of their rights and become
free in the society. Being free without a society is meaningless for him. Thus
society is formed with a social contract by the individuals. Society gives its rights
to the state in order to live in an equal environment. Just like they form the
society, they also have right to take it away. “Return to nature” is the basic idea
of this contractual agreement within the society that gives the right to rebel
against the state. Thus for Rousseau society can break down the social order that
is constructed by the members of the society and the status quo, and form a
new social order for the benefit of the members of that society.
Vico also presents a better understanding of the idea of progress and classifies
three stages through out the historical progress. For Vico “age of gods,” “age of
heroes” and “age of people” are the three stages in the historical progress. This
classification is also very similar to Comte’s law of three stages. Age of gods is the
first step where theocratic system has emerged, where as the age of heroes
refers to the monarchic systems. Heroes who are semi-god semi-human were the
main element of this stage. The final stage where individuals gain importance is
the age of people. Democracy has emerged in this stage.
Hegelian ideology is also one of the most important approaches to progress.
Marx was influenced from Hegel, although he gave a different meaning to
progress. For Hegel ideas are the main elements of progress. Thesis is the initial
and necessary step. Antithesis also starts to grow in the seed of the thesis.
Finally thesis and antithesis conflict, and a new idea emerges. Hegel calls it
“synthesis.” Synthesis is not the thesis, nor it is the antithesis, but it’s has
elements both from thesis and anti-thesis. For Hegel ideological progress leads
to the progress in the real world.
The uni-linear idea of progress is the main element of classical sociological
theories. Sociology emerges as a science and Comte was also curious about the
historical progress. He presents “the law of three stages.” According to Comte
human knowledge passes through these stages. Being a holistic not only the
human knowledge or the individual, but also the whole society passes through
these stages that I will shortly present know.
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 throughout 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 itself.” 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 another 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 throughout
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.