ABSTRACT
In general, if one looks up social change in almost any sociology textbook (cf. for example, Rocher, Moore) on social change, one is likely to find a wide range of ‘theories’ making ambitious generalizations. Sometimes they search for the prime mover of change, which they identify either as the material conditions of production, technological development, or again in the ‘mutations’ of the value system. Sometimes they aim to describe the states necessary for the change, to which they implicitly attribute a direction by describing it as an evolution, a development, or a modernization. Other theories look for the driving force of the change (class struggles, conflicts between forward-or backward-looking groups, contradictions between productive forces and cultural models, etc.). Others still look for the forms of the change. Some see it as linear or ‘multilinear’ (Sahlins). Others see it as a cyclical process (Sorokin) unless it has to take ‘necessarily’ the
form of a succession of blockages and crises. Some see it to be continuous and smooth, proceeding by a succession of progressive maladjustments and adjustments. Others see it to be discontinuous and marked with breaks or ‘mutations’—a far-fetched metaphor drawn from the misappropriation of a biological concept. Some theories see in the processes of social differentiation one of the essential forms of change (Parsons), while others insist on the antagonisms and conflicts (Garner). One could easily extend the list.
