Presentation on theme: "FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20151 THE DESTINY OF SOCIETY: Sociologies of Hope and Hopelessness Darwin’s Nightmare? EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING IN SOCIOLOGY."— Presentation transcript:
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20151 THE DESTINY OF SOCIETY: Sociologies of Hope and Hopelessness Darwin’s Nightmare? EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING IN SOCIOLOGY
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20152 Contents of Presentation v 1. Introduction: –Social Darwinism and Societal Transformation –Central Question and Main Theory –Assumption, Paradigm Shift, and Agenda of Main Theory v 2. Typologies of Evolutionary Theorizing: –Classical –Neo-evolutionary v 3. Classical Evolutionary Theorists v 4. Neo-evolutionary Theorists v 5. Darwin’s Nightmares
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20153 IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN v LvszWBf6BQ LvszWBf6BQ LvszWBf6BQ
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20154 v INTRODUCTION
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20155 INTRODUCTION: Social Darwinism v Evolutionary selection is the organizing force of not only the natural world but also the social world. v According to Herbert Spencer, “since all creatures adapt biologically to their environments, it is both useless and cruel to try to civilize the natives in colonies or to allow criminals and mentally defective persons to produce their inevitably defective children” ( Collins and Makowsky 2005, p. 81).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20156 v EVOLUTIONARY SELECTION (x) x Transformation of the Social World Y
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20157 INTRODUCTION: Societal Transformation v Evolutionary theories of sociology provide a stimulating overview of how societies transform by identifying: v 1. the major and far-reaching differences between our reality and that of our ancestors. v 2. the processes of the transformation v 3. the directions and impact of the transformation v 4. the driving forces of the transformation v 5. the destiny of society
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20158 INTRODUCTION: Central Question v WHAT IS THE CHANGE PATTERN OF HUMAN SOCIETIES, ITS IMPACT, DRIVING FORCE DESTINATION?
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/20159 INTRODUCTION: Main Theory v All human societies start from the same point, move on the same path and in the same direction towards the same destination independent of the actions of societal members or social engineering.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ INTRODUCTION: Assumption v Human choices count for little [unless society is in transitional crisis]; Societal change is non-negotiable.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ INTRODUCTION: Paradigm Shift v Supernatural forces and human/social action have little to do with societal change. v Social Engineering is unnecessary: v According to Saint-Simon, “the main task of science [knowledge] is to discover the laws of social development, evolution, and progress; those laws are inevitable and absolute. All that man can do is submit. Progress takes place in stages and each stage is necessary and contributes something to the further progress of humankind” (Zeitlin 2001: 71).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ INTRODUCTION: Agenda v Political: To maintain the STATUS QUO. v “…to avert revolution and to achieve the resignation of the ‘multitude’ to the conditions of the existing order” (Zeitlin 2001: 82). v This agenda puts evolutionary theorizing into the ideological typology of sociological theory.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ v TYPOPOLOGIES
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ TYPOLOGIES OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v 1. Classical Evolution Theory: Linear Stages Model v 2. Neo Evolution Theory: –Ecological Model – Curvilinear Model –Globalization Model
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ TYPOLOGIES OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v CLASSICAL: Growth is Progress: Stages Toward Progress v Conceptualizes the movement of society through evolutionary stages where each stage of development represents a marked movement in human progress. v The movements are independent of social action/engineering. v NEO: Growth creates a New order but not necessarily Progress v focuses on mechanisms and processes of change in size, scale, scope and complexity rather than progress. v Social action/engineering influences change only in periods of structural crises.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ v CLASSICAL SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ CLASSICAL SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v MAIN THEORY: v Change in human society is inevitable, unidirectional, stages-based, and progresses toward a final destination.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF CLASSICAL SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v 1. All societies are fundamentally similar in that they all go through the same sequence of stages, albeit at different rates of change, showing a hierarchy of developmental stages toward the highest and final stage. v 2. Many of these classical theorists ranked their own societies (European societies) very high and placed contemporary non-European societies lower on the sequence of development—throwbacks to earlier, simpler social forms that European societies had long since surpassed.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF CLASSICAL SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v 3. Classical social evolutionists did not believe that once the final stage of evolution was achieved, history came to an end; rather, they thought that once the final stage arrives, change would involve a continued elaboration and development of this final form.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF CLASSICAL SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v4v4v4v4. Social Relationships, that is, 1) Social Action, 2) Social Status positions and Roles, 3) Culture, 4) Structured Social Inequality, 5) Social Institutions, 6) Attitudes and Behaviors of individuals, and 7) all collective phenomena are manifestations of a particular stage of development or disruptions that occur in crises periods of transition in the progressive development process.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ v CLASSICAL SOCIAL EVOLUTIONISTS
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ CLASSICAL SOCIAL EVOLUTIONISTS v Saint-Simon: Sociology of Hope v Auguste Comte: Sociology of Hope v Herbert Spencer: Sociology of Hope v Emile Durkheim: Sociology of Hope v Karl Marx: Sociology of Hope v Max Weber: Sociology of Hopelessness v Thorstein Bunde Veblen: Sociology of Hope
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY – CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONISTS v 1. Saint-Simon – Comte Model: v “The Law of Three Stages”: v Movement of ideas towards science causes society to progress in stages from THEOLOGICAL, through METAPHYSICAL to POSITIVISTIC. v What’s the driving force of social progress? v Knowledge is the underlying and sustaining factor of society; a social system is the application of a system of ideas. The historical growth of knowledge, or science, was the major cause of the transformation of European society from feudalism to industrialism (Zeitlin 2001: 70-71).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v ACCOMPANYING CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS v Theological Stage: v Dominated by religion; ruled by priests. v Metaphysical Stage: v Dominated by abstract philosophy; ruled by Enlightenment thinkers v Positivistic Stage: v Dominated by science or positive philosophy as against negative philosophy, the legacy of Enlightenment and the French revolution and social thought before them; ruled by scientific-industrial elite.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v 2. Spencer’s Model: v The Law of the Four Stages: v Increasing differentiation moves human society from simple society through compound and doubly compound societies to trebly compound society. v What drives social progress? v Increasing differentiation in the areas of production, reproduction, regulation and distribution moves society progressively from a simple stage, through compound, to doubly compound and trebly compound stages. In the process the best forms of social organization emerge ensuring the “survival of the fittest” and thereby elevating the level of society.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v Simple societies of hunters and gatherers reveal very little differentiation. As societies compound to horticultural systems, however, clear differentiation between regulatory (political) and operative (productive and reproductive) structures is evident; then, as they doubly compound into agrarian societies, they differentiate distinctive distributive systems such as markets, ports and roads. Finally, with treble compounding into industrial societies, complex patterns of differentiation between and within the operative, regulative, and distributive axes are evident.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v ACCOMPANYING CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS v Simple Society: v Dominated by hunting-gathering; virtually no differentiation among the three fundamental axes of society. v Compound Society: v Dominated by horticulture; clear differentiation among the axes of society v Doubly Compound Society: v Dominated by agrarian activities; distinct differentiation with the distributive axis v Trebly Compound: v Dominated by industrial activities; complex differentiation among and within the three main axes of society.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v “Survival of the fittest”: v ‘Almost a decade before Darwin published On the Origin of Species, Spencer coined the phrase ”Survival of the fittest”. He used this phrase in a moral and philosophical sense, arguing that the best forms of social organizations emerge with unregulated competition among human, which allows most fit to survive, thereby elevating the level of society’ (Turner 2003: 77).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v 3. Durkheim’s Model: v The Law of Two Stages: v The necessity of social integration moves human society from the Mechanical Solidarity stage to the Organic Solidarity stage: v What drives social progress? v Problems of integration compel society to become differentiated and progressively move from a MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY stage to an ORGANIC SOLIDARITY stage (Emile Durkheim).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v ACCOMPANYING CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS v Mechanical Solidarity Stage: v This is an initial stage of evolution when society is characterised by hunting/gathering with little differentiation. Collective conscience (shared basic moral values, beliefs, and norms) provided social solidarity. v Organic Solidarity Stage: v This highest stage of society is characterized by industrialization with complex pattern of differentiation, and division of labour creating a moral value in the form of mutual interdependence that provide integration for the social system.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v 4. Marx’s Model: v The Law of Six Stages: v Contradictions in the relations of production create social conflict that moves society from Class— primitive communism through slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and socialism-- to Classlessness (advanced communism). v What drives social progress? v Contradictions in relations of production reflected in economic inequalities, exploitation and alienation produce conflicts--class struggles--that progressively transform society from class society into classless society; specifically from a primitive communalism through ancient slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, to socialism, and, ultimately, communism.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v ACCOMPANYING CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS v Primitive Communism: v Hunting/gathering is the focus of life with little economic inequalities and exploitation. v Slavery: v Horticulture/agrarian activities dominate; slaves and commoners are exploited for the benefits of the nobility/royalty. v Feudalism: v Agrarian economy is well developed with the exploited labour of the serfs for the benefit of the clergy and gentry.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v Capitalism: v Industrialization takes a central stage exploiting the working classes (proletariat) for the benefit of the upper classes (bourgeoisie). v Socialism: v Dictatorship of the proletariat. v Communism: v Highest stage of industrialization without exploitation; classless society. v Inequality: v Unfair distribution of scarce resources v Exploitation: v Appropriation of the labor effort of a group/individual for the benefit of another. v Alienation: v Separation from one’s self, others, and product/service.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v 5. Weber’s Model: v “The Law of Two Stages”: v Increasing rationality moves society from traditional society to modern society: v What drives social change? v Increasing rationality changes society from a traditional inefficient stage into a modern efficient but oppressive bureaucratic stage: v Increasing purposive rationality structures society into a bureaucratic “iron cage”.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v ACCOMPANYING CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS v Purposive Rationality: v the rule of reason demanding that meaning and action are justified explicitly and objectively. v “Iron Cage”: v Social organization that depersonalizes, dehumanizes, and dominates/restrains its members. v Bureaucracy: v formally rational, large-scale organization with the following six characteristics: division of labor, hierarchy of positions, formal system of rules, separation of the person from the office, hiring and promotion based on technical merit, and the protection of careers that produce efficiency.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v 6. Veblen’s Model: v The Law of Three Stages: v From savagery through barbarianism to civilization v As the material conditions of life change, society develops through three basic stages--savagery through barbarianism to civilization.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ LINEAR STAGES MODEL THEORIES IN EARLY SOCIOLOGY v MAJOR CONCEPTS: v Savage Society: v Small, independent, and self-sufficient hunting and gathering communities. v Barbarian Society: v Both the agricultural slave societies of the ancient Middle East and Asia and feudal societies that developed in Europe and Asia. v Civilization: v Modern society that began in the West in the 19 th century with the Industrial Revolution.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ v NEO-EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ NEO-EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v MAIN THEORY: v Competition for scarce resources and control over surplus compels society to evolve/grow from simple to more complex forms of social organization.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ NEO-EVOLUTIONARY THEORISTS v Amos Hawley v Gerhard Lenski v Jurgen Habermas v Anthony Giddens v Immanuel Wallerstein
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v Unlike the stages model, the ecological model does not focus on social progress. Rather, it focuses on growth—”that is, increasing size, scale, scope, and complexity of the systemic whole in its environment” (Turner 2003: 89).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING vAvAvAvAmos Hawley’s Ecological Model: vMvMvMvMain Theory: A society’s contact with other cultures and societies causes it to increase in size, scale, scope, and complexity. vAvAvAvAn ecosystem’s exposure to ecumenical environment produces new knowledge that causes growth and change in society when it increases the level of communication and transportation technologies through increasing production which then causes expansion of these technologies until the mobility costs associated with the change reach their maximum, that is, until equilibrium is attained (Hawley 1950, 1992).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING vAvAvAvACCOMPANYING CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS vGvGvGvGrowth: vIvIvIvIncreasing size, scale, scope, and complexity of the systemic whole in its environment vMvMvMvMobility cost: vtvtvtvthe time, energy, money and materials associated with the movement of information, materials, and people for a change in any given technology. vEvEvEvEcumenical Environment: v Ov Ov Ov Other societies or cultures of other societies vEvEvEvEquilibrium: vRvRvRvRelative stability in the ecological system.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ CURVILINEAR STAGES MODEL OF NEO-EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v Main Theory: v Societies begin with equality, change into inequality, and move toward equality (Kuznets’ Curve). v v=Wth6HhOYpn8 v=Wth6HhOYpn8 v=Wth6HhOYpn8
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ CURVILINEAR STAGES MODEL OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v Lenski’s Model: v Main Theory: Improvement in technology first changes society from more equality to less equality and later back towards more equality. v Low technology-production-surplus in hunting/gathering societies displayed the most equality; then through medium technology-production-surplus in horticultural and agrarian societies monopolistic control of surplus increased inequality, but with high technology-production-surplus in industrial societies, democratic redistribution of surplus lowered inequality somewhat but not to the level of hunter-gatherers (Gerhard Lenski).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ CURVILINEAR STAGES MODEL OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING v ACCOMPANYING CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS v Inequality: v Unfair distribution of power and privilege among the members of a population. v Societal types: v Hunting and gathering societies, simple horticultural societies, advanced horticultural societies, agrarian societies, and industrial societies.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ v MainTheory: v Traditional societies disintegrate into transitional modern capitalist nation- states and eventually into a global society. 3. GLOBALIZATION MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING :
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ GLOBALIZATION MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING : v 1. Habermas’ Model: Three Stages v Main Theory: Crises/contradictions in the social system transmitted by communicative action transform society from primitive classless, through class systems, to a postmodern classless global society. v Communicative action/rationality (increasing rationalization of people’s lifeworlds or ideas, values and consciousness) transmits the crises and contradictions inherent in a social system to transform society from primitive classless social formation, through class social formations (traditional civilizations, modern civilizations—liberal capitalist, organized capitalist, postcapitalist) to postmodern classless global social formation (Jurgen Habermas).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ GLOBALIZATION MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING : vIvIvIvIn other words, this evolutionary process is a reflection of underlying structural changes and contradictions manifested in the breakdown of shared values or normative structures that cause the old social system to disintegrate because such disintegration threatens people’s feeling of social identity, and therefore integration (Wallace and Wolf 2006: 177) vAvAvAvAll societies in a given social formation are similar in their lifeworlds that evolve.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ GLOBALIZATION MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING : v ACCOMPANYING CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS v Lifeworld (Ideas and Consciousness): People’s values, feelings, identity, and interaction. v Communicative Action or Communicative Rationality: v a distinctive type of interaction oriented to mutual understanding or noncoercive argumentation; an “ideal speech” situation in which everyone would have an equal chance to argue and question, without those who are more powerful, confident, or prestigious having an unequal say (Wallace and Wolf 2006: 184)
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ GLOBALIZATION MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING : v Primitive Social Formation: v Tribal societies where the burden of social integration is on religion v Traditional Civilizations: v Ancient and Feudal societies where the burden of social integration is shifting from religion v Liberal Capitalist Social Formation: v 19 th Century capitalism where the consensus formation in language is emerging as the burden of social integration.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ GLOBALIZATION MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING : v Organized Capitalist Social Formation: v Capitalism in the 20 th and 21th centuries Western societies where the burden of social integration is shifting to consensus formation in language v Postcapitalist Social Formation: v State-socialist class societies where the political elite disposes of the means of production. v Postmodern: v Global high modernity where the burden of social integration has shifted to consensus formation in language/voices.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ GLOBALIZATION MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING : v 2. Anthony Giddens’ Model: Three Stages v Main Theory: Changing dynamics of the interaction between social structure and human agency have transformed human society from a tribal system through a class-divided systems to a global high modernity: v Due to structuration, the past is dominated first by tribal societies and then by class-divided societies where tradition and kinship are the dominant structural principles. Then followed global high modernity, distinctly different from class-divided societies in that its classes are global and structured by expertise and risk (Anthony Giddens).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ GLOBALIZATION MODEL OF NEO- EVOLUTIONARY THEORIZING : v ACCOMPANYING CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS v Structuration: The dynamics of the combined forces of social structure and human agency v Social Structure: Norms, particularly rules, of relationships that tell people how to “do” social life, and the resources on which people can call to “do” social life. v Human Agency: The creative aspect of human action—the individual as a knowledgeable actor. v Global High Modernity: Modern capitalism where people both calculate risk and feel out of control; where economic changes have taken “from the poor to give to the rich…on a huge and global scale, both within and between countries” (Susan George 1999: 190).
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ v DARWIN’S NIGHTMARES
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ DARWIN’S NIGHTMARES v 1. Natural Selection is the Exception: Unnatural Selection is the Rule v A) Orchestrated or planned action does the de-selection or the selection. v B) Societies that are well advanced on the evolutionary ladder are not producing enough off-spring and vice versa: v 2) Change is negotiable
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ DARWIN’S NIGHTMARES v Unnatural Selections is the Rule: –MOVIE REVIEW: 'DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE' By A. O. SCOTT Published: August 3, 2005 : Get the full video in Camosun Library and watch it. –Youtube Video: h?v=VK9v3ioiYBU&feature=fvsr h?v=VK9v3ioiYBU&feature=fvsr h?v=VK9v3ioiYBU&feature=fvsr
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ DARWIN’S NIGHTMARES v What do the planes bring to Africa? The answers vary. The factory managers say the planes' cavernous holds are empty when they land. One of the Russians, made uncomfortable by the question, mutters something vague about "equipment." Some of his colleagues, and several ordinary Mwanzans, are more forthright: the planes, while they occasionally bring humanitarian food and medical aid, more often bring the weapons that fuel the continent's endless and destructive wars. v Along the shores of the lake, homeless children fight over scraps of food and get high from the fumes of melting plastic- foam containers used to pack the fish. In the encampments where the fishermen live, AIDS is rampant and the afflicted walk back to their villages to die.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ DARWIN’S NIGHTMARES v Unnatural Selection is the Rule: v The Nile perch itself haunts the film's infernal landscape like a monstrous metaphor. An alien species introduced into Lake Victoria sometime in the 1960's, it has devoured every other kind of fish in the lake, even feeding on its own young as it grows to almost grotesque dimensions, and destroying an ancient and diverse ecosystem.
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ DARWIN’S NIGHTMARES v 3. The Extinction of the “Naturally Selected” v countries_and_territories_by_fertility_r ate countries_and_territories_by_fertility_r ate countries_and_territories_by_fertility_r ate
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ DARWIN’S NIGHTMARES v The Extinction of the “Naturally Selected”: v In 2005, Hispanic women had the highest fertility rates, followed by non-Hispanic black women, Asian women, Native American women, and non-Hispanic white women.* Fertility rates for Hispanic women were over 45 percent higher than those for non- Hispanic black women and Asian women (99 births per 1,000 for Hispanic women versus 67 births per 1,000 for non-Hispanic black and Asian women), and more than 65 percent higher than those for Native American women and non-Hispanic white women (60 and 58 births per 1,000 women, respectively). (See Figure 3) (See Figure 3(See Figure 3
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ DARWIN’S NIGHTMARES The Extinction of the “Naturally Selected”: v Ukraine: 0.8% natural decrease annually; 28% total population decrease by 2050 Russia: -0.6%; -22% Belarus -0.6%; -12% Bulgaria -0.5%; -34% Latvia -0.5%; -23% Lithuania -0.4%; -15% Hungary -0.3%; -11% Romania -0.2%; -29% Estonia -0.2%; -23% Moldova -0.2%; -21% Croatia -0.2%; -14% Germany -0.2%; -9% Czech Republic -0.1%; -8% Japan 0%; -21% Poland 0%; -17% Slovakia 0%; -12% Austria 0%; 8% increase Italy 0%; -5% Slovenia 0%; -5%
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ v CONCLUSION
FRANCIS ADU-FEBIRI01/05/ CONCLUSION v Societal Change is Negotiable: v The irony of Marxism and functionalism, says Berger and Luckmann, was that though their social ideas were inspired by the high ideals of the Enlightenment, their social theories sketched a process of social evolution in which individual choice counted for little… Berger and Luckmann wished to bring real living, acting individuals back into the center of social thinking. They aimed to replace organismic and mechanistic social imagery with a view of society as a precariously negotiated, fluid order that ultimately resides in the interaction of individuals. The very title of their major work, The Social Construction of Reality, underscored the power of the individual to shape society and the open-ended character of history ( Seidman 2004, p. 81)