Page 1 :
SEC 4 Page 1 of 6, , 9. THE CULTURAL CHANGES AND THEIR IMPACT ON HUMAN, DEVELOPMENT II, 9.1 Conditioning factors and agents of cultural change: Cultures are inherently, predisposed to change and, at the same time, to resist change. There are dynamic, processes operating that encourage the acceptance of new ideas and things while, there are others that encourage changeless stability. It is likely that social and, psychological chaos would result if there were not the conservative forces resisting, change., There are three general sources of influence or pressure that are responsible for, both change and resistance to it:, 1. forces at work within a society, 2. contact between societies, 3. changes in the natural environment, Within a society, processes leading to change include invention and culture loss., Inventions may be either technological or ideological. The latter includes such, things as the invention of algebra and calculus or the creation of a representative, parliament as a replacement for rule by royal decree. Technological inventions, include new tools, energy sources, and transportation methods as well as more, frivolous and ephemeral things such as style of dress and bodily adornment., Culture loss is an inevitable result of old cultural patterns being replaced by new, ones. For instance, not many Americans today know how to care for a horse. A, century ago, this was common knowledge, except in a few large urban centers., Since then, vehicles with internal combustion engines have replaced horses as our, primary means of transportation and horse care knowledge lost its importance. As, a result, children are rarely taught these skills. Instead, they are trained in the use, of the new technologies of automobiles, televisions, stereos, cellular phones,, computers, and iPods., Within a society, processes that result in the resistance to change include habit and, the integration of culture traits. Older people, in particular, are often reticent to, replace their comfortable, long familiar cultural patterns. Habitual behavior, provides emotional security in a threatening world of change. Religion also often, provides strong moral justification and support for maintaining traditional ways., In the early 21st century, this is especially true of nations mostly guided by Islamic, Law, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Page 2 :
SEC 4 Page 2 of 6, , The fact that cultural institutions are integrated and often interdependent is a, major source of resistance to change. For instance, in the second half of the 20th, century, rapidly changing roles of North American and, European women were resisted by many men because it inevitably resulted in, changes in their roles as well. Male and female roles do not exist independent of, each other. This sort of integration of cultural traits inevitably slows down and, modifies cultural changes. Needless to say, it is a source of frustration for both, those who want to change and those who do not., The processes leading to change that occur as a result of contact between societies, are:, 1. diffusion, 2. acculturation, 3. transculturation, Diffusion is the movement of things and ideas from one culture to another. When, diffusion occurs, the form of a trait may move from one society to another but not, its original cultural meaning. For instance, when McDonald's first brought their, American style hamburgers to Moscow and Beijing, they were accepted as luxury, foods for special occasions because they were relatively expensive and exotic. In, America, of course, they have a very different meaning--they are ordinary every, day fast food items., Acculturation is what happens to an entire culture when alien traits diffuse in on a, large scale and substantially replace traditional cultural patterns. After several, centuries of relentless pressure from European Americans to adopt their ways,, Native American cultures have been largely acculturated. As a result, the vast, majority of American Indians now speak English instead of their ancestral, language, wear European style clothes, go to school to learn about the world from, a European perspective, and see themselves as being a part of the broader, American society. As Native American societies continue to acculturate, most are, experiencing a corresponding loss of their traditional cultures despite efforts of, preservationists in their communities., While acculturation is what happens to an entire culture when alien traits, overwhelm it, transculturation is what happens to an individual when he or she, moves to another society and adopts its culture. Immigrants who successfully, learn the language and accept as their own the cultural patterns of their adopted, country have transculturated. In contrast, people who live as socially isolated

Page 3 :
SEC 4 Page 3 of 6, , expatriates in a foreign land for years without desiring or expecting to, become assimilated participants in the host culture are not transculturating., There is one last process leading to change that occurs as an invention within a, society as a result of an idea that diffuses from another. This is stimulus, diffusion--a genuine invention that is sparked by an idea from another culture., An example of this occurred about 1821 when a Cherokee Indian named, Sequoyah saw English writing which stimulated him to create a unique writing, system for his own people. Note that some letters are similar to English while, others are not. To see the entire Cherokee syllabary, click here., It is also likely that ancient Egyptians around 3050 B.C. invented their, hieroglyphic writing system after learning about the cuneiform writing system, invented by Sumerians in what is today Southern Iraq., There are processes operating in the contact between cultures as well that result in, resistance to change. These are due to "us versus them" competitive feelings and, perceptions. Ethnocentrism also leads people to reject alien ideas and things as, being unnatural and even immoral. These in group-outgroup dynamics commonly, result in resistance to acculturation and assimilation., We now understand that this holistic approach to understanding culture change, must also include consideration of changes in the environment in which a society, exists. For instance, environmental degradation of fresh water supplies, arable, land, and energy sources historically have resulted in the creation of new, inventions, migrations, and even war to acquire essentialresources., 9.2 Cultural change and adaptation: Ethnographic fieldwork had been undertaken, mainly in colonial situations characterized by contact between conquering and, conquered cultures. This experience produced a theory of cultural crossfertilization (acculturation) and culture change. A legacy of colonialism was the, great differential between developed and underdeveloped parts of the world. The, “development project” undertaken by the wealthier nations after World War II to, relieve colonial poverty and diminish global inequities has produced various, cultural theories of development based on continuing anthropological research as, well as strong critiques of the discipline’s role in development., Cultural anthropology has maintained its concern for the history of change in, particular cultures. Kroeber was the most notable cultural historian among Boas’s

Page 4 :
SEC 4 Page 4 of 6, , students, examining change over the long term on a scale that connected easily, with the historical sociology of Max Weber and the social history of Fernand, Braudel. The last two decades of the 20th century witnessed a striking invigoration, of historical anthropology that took issue with utilitarian and materialist, interpretations of cultural stability and change, emphasizing the importance of, symbols and their meaning for all human action. Marshall Sahlins was a leading, proponent of this school of “historical anthropology.”, Cultural ecology also has its roots in an earlier cultural anthropology, particularly, the study of the geographic and environmental context of culture change. The neoevolutionist Leslie White reacted to the idealism of the cultural approach, turning, his attention to the progress of technology in harnessing energy to serve the, survival and subsistence needs of cultures. Cultural ecology has sought to produce, a more quantitative discipline than is characteristic of most cultural anthropology,, which has remained rooted in the humanities., 9.3 Cultural change in the post modern world: change is such a prevalent and, often disturbing feature of contemporary life that both the specialist and the, layman may be tempted to suppose that it is peculiarly modern. Certainly the, extent and rate of change in the modern world are greater than in most past, periods, but the static qualities of primitive cultures or archaic civilizations are, easily and commonly overstated. Change, at some level and degree, is as, characteristic of man’s life in organized systems as is orderly persistence., Indeed, small-scale changes may be an essential component of persistence on a, larger scale. For example, given man’s biological life cycle, enduring systems,, such as kinship organization and government, depend upon orderly patterns of agespecific role performances. Likewise, changing patterns—on a daily, weekly,, monthly, or annual cycle—provide a basic and predictable continuity to the, patterns of social existence., Paradoxically, as the rate of social and cultural change has accelerated in the real, world of experience, the scientific disciplines dealing with man’s actions and, products have tended to emphasize orderly interdependence and static continuity., The genuine difficulties of dealing with social dynamics are in part responsible for, this state of affairs. The relationship between small-scale and large-scale change, and the relationship between short-term and long-term change exemplify the many, analytical and factual complexities that are involved. These considerations make a, formal definition of social change highly desirable, and we shall therefore attempt, one here:

Page 5 :
SEC 4 Page 5 of 6, , Change is the significant alteration of social structures (that is, of patterns of social, action and interaction), including consequences and manifestations of such, structures embodied in norms (rules of conduct), values, and cultural products and, symbols., This definition encompasses small-scale change, such as the gradual development, of a leadership role in a small, task-oriented group; cyclical patterns of change,, such as the succession of centralization and decentralization in administrative, organizations; and revolutionary change, such as the overthrow of a government. It, includes short-term changes in employment rates as well as long-term changes in, occupational structures; both growth and decline in membership size of social, units; continuous processes such as specialization and bureaucratization; and, discontinuous processes such as particular technical or social inventions., Social change and cultural change, The broad definition given above comprises both what is commonly identified as, social change, which refers mainly to actual human behavior, and cultural change,, which refers mainly to culturally meaningful symbols produced by human beings., The emphasis in this discussion will be on the interplay among the complex, normative patterns of behavior that we call institutions, since it is these that, provide much of the rationale for social control and human activities in general., This emphasis cuts across conventional distinctions between the “social” and the, “cultural” aspects of social systems. Cultural change, it is true, requires social, actors as agents, and social change is likely to have cultural counterparts. However,, changes in certain cultural subsystems—for example, language, the arts, and, perhaps theological or philosophical systems—may be viewed in virtual, abstraction from concrete human behavior (see, for instance, Sorokin 1937–1941)., Similarly, fluctuations in the fashions of dress may be viewed as “autonomous,”, although it is also proper to consider such fashions as patterns of appropriate, conduct in one sphere of social behavior (Kroeber 1957)., It is true that such modes of abstraction are often mere matters of convenience. For, example, the steady specialization of vocabularies in language systems may be, treated as a principle of autonomous evolution; it may be related to the expansion, of knowledge and to role differentiation in complex social systems. However, there, is an underlying problem that should be made explicit. The degree to which, cultural subsystems, such as language, may be traced to structural sources is a, question of considerable theoretical importance. Similarly important is the question, of the degree to which such cultural subsystems may be translated into guides for, social behavior. In human societies the extent of autonomous variability among, coexistent features appears to be substantial. Therefore, a multiplicity of principles

Page 6 :
SEC 4 Page 6 of 6, , relating to structural regularities and to significant alterations is necessary for the, understanding of order and change., It follows from the possibility of autonomous variability and from the initial, discussion of small-scale social changes that in order to formulate principles of, social change we must first of all identify the social structure to which these, principles are to be applied. It is also necessary to specify the time period over, which change is to be studied and to set up standards for measuring various, degrees of change. Until these conditions are fulfilled, we cannot even begin to say, what it is that is changing or how much it has changed. There is no singular,, sovereign cause for changes in social systems or subsystems. It is true that the, scientific quest for simplification has led to the identification of individual, variables, such as technological innovation or population growth, that are, important enough in themselves; but the result of these inquiries has been the, development of special theories of change for specific classes of structures rather, than any kind of master theory that embraces all types of factors., For small-scale social structures in general— face-to–face groups, for example, or, formal organizations—we can safely assume that change will originate through, such familiar mechanisms as the normative requirements attached to role, performances (Moore 1963, p. 50). Large-scale systems, such as whole societies,, are less easily studied; but even on present knowledge we can be confident that, population growth or decline and the vicissitudes of incorporating infants into the, system through socialization will introduce at least some flexibilities and, adjustments, if not major structural changes in a definite direction. The probability, of both technical and social innovation may be inferred from a universal feature of, human societies which can be called the lack of correspondence between the, “ideal” and the “actual” in the realm of social values. On the whole, these, innovations are likely to be directed toward both “adaptation” to the nonhuman, environment, to which adjustment is never perfect, and social control of the human, population.