Theories

Key evolutionary universals that were evident in transition from pre-modern to modern societies (describes modernism but does not explain it):
 * Parson’s Evolutionary Theory - types of change:**
 * System maintenance – most common: restoring a previous pattern of equilibrium
 * Structural differentiation- very common: increasing differentiation of subsystem units into patterns of functional specialization and interdependence
 * Adaptive upgrading: new mechanisms of integration, coordination and control are developed to incorporate the integrative problems by having structural differentiation
 * Structural change – least common change: when key features of the system, e.g. basic cultural values, goals, distribution
 * social stratification
 * bureaucratic organization
 * cultural legitimation of existing structural arrangements
 * money economy and markets
 * generalized or universalistic social norms
 * democratic associations

Tension-management system (society is not an equilibrium system): if there are strains or tensions, organization will initiate compensatory, adjustive or counterbalancing actions to counter disruptions change will be confined to internal features, if these strains are so severe or prolonged that such actions cannot compensate, organizational features will be altered or destroyed and entire organization changes.
 * Neo-functionalism**


 * Mass society theory - Functionalist critique of modernity**
 * along with modernity have erosion of traditional life and culture
 * replacement of local community with bureaucratic depersonalization and anonymity
 * weaker and impersonal ties of functional interdependency
 * argued that mass developed societies are in a process of demassification

Neo-Marxism - differs from Marxism in the following ways:
 * Sources of conflict - traditional Marxism too narrow an understanding of structural basis of conflict, doesn’t always derive from struggles in control of the means of production; other conflicts based on politics, religion, ethnic or ideological differences, e.g. class, status and power
 * Role of culture: symbolic realm of ideas, values and ideologies are semi-autonomous and not merely derivative of material base (Critical theorists analyze cultural and cultural ideologies in modern society as manifested in popular literature and mass media); culture is viewed as symbolic formations and ideologies that become tools in social struggles between various groups and classes, i.e. ideas and values produce solidarity and unity (as functionalists agree) but also social control associated with interests of particular groups; same as Marxism, i.e. dominant culture stems from dominant groups in society; production of culture is one way that existing system reproduces itself; when there is widespread disillusion, disbelief or cynicism about dominant symbols in society, a legitimacy crisis - change occurs
 * Inevitability of revolutionary change: neo-Marxists less deterministic about outcomes, not simply total system transformation or revolution, nor inevitable; one result of contradictions could be reaffirming of dominance, or ongoing stalemate, or gradual reform and piecemeal changes

Conflict can be:
 * unregulated: e.g. terrorism, sabotage, disorder
 * regulated by social norms: e.g. economic boycotts, parliamentary debate, marketplace competitions
 * intense conflict: high degree of mobilization, commitment, emotional involvement
 * violent conflict: random, unorganized
 * pluralized conflict: many conflicts but not necessarily related and thus not much change, gradual
 * superimposed conflict: dyadic conflicts, large cleavage between us and them, dramatic/intense change, not necessarily

Conflict can result in:
 * stability as ongoing stalemate OR
 * defeat of established or insurgent groups OR
 * total or partial system change

Any settlement of conflict is only temporary; each restructured system carries within itself the seeds of its own transformation – thus a dialectical theory. Unlike Marxism which sees a Utopian society with no conflict in the end, neo-Marxists are anti-utopian. Conflict is engine of change - has both destructive and creative consequences, destroy old orders, create new ones.

> "Anthony Giddens has been in the forefront of developments in social theory for the past decade. In //The Constitution of Society// he outlines the distinctive position he has evolved during that period and offers a full statement of a major new perspective in social thought, a synthesis and elaboration of ideas touched on in previous works but described here for the first time in an integrated and comprehensive form. A particular feature is Giddens's concern to connect abstract problems of theory to an interpretation of the nature of empirical method in the social sciences. In presenting his own ideas, Giddens mounts a critical attack on some of the more orthodox sociological views. //The Constitution of Society// is an invaluable reference book for all those concerned with the basic issues in contemporary social theory." Adapted from: [|Social Change Theories], retrieved on September 5, 2008
 * [|Buckley’s morphogenesis]: unique capacity of social systems to elaborate or change their form, structure or state, emphasizing the active, constructive side of social functioning
 * [|Archers’ double morphogenesis]: both structure and agency are co-joint products of interaction, agency is shaped by and reshapes structure where structure is reshaped in the process.
 * [|Etzioni’s active society]: society is a macroscopic and permanent social movement engaged in intensive and perpetual self-transformation
 * [|Touraine]: making of society and history is carried out by collective action, through the agency of social movements
 * [|Gidden’s Structuration theory]: replaced static concept of structure with dynamic notion of structuration.