A sociological analysis of social change requires in the first place a model more precise and less ambitious than the general theories we discussed in the last chapter, which would make possible the formulation of problems and the systematic presentation of results. In their book, Character and Social Structure, Gerth and Mills have outlined such a model, in terms of six major questions which can be asked about social changes: (i) what is it that changes? (ii) how does it change? (iii) what is the direction of change? (iv) what is the rate of change? (v) why did change occur or why was it possible? (vi) what are the principal factors in social change?
In dealing with the first of these questions it is useful, I think, to define social change as a change in social structure (including here changes in the size of a society) or in particular social institutions or in the relationships between institutions. Following the distinction proposed earlier between social structure and culture, we might then employ the term ‘cultural change’ to refer to variations in cultural phenomena such as knowledge and ideas, art, religious and moral doctrines, etc. Obviously, social and cultural changes are closely linked in many cases; for example, the growth of modern science has been closely associated with changes in economic structure. In other cases, however, the relations may be less close, as in changes of fashion, or changes in the forms of artistic creation.
The questions concerning the manner, direction and rate of change require for their answer historical description and interpretation, such as have been provided, for example, in the various accounts of population changes, of the increasing division of labour in industrial societies, of the changes in the character of the modern Western family, and so on. Discussion of the direction of change need not involve any value judgments; the diminishing size of the family, and the increasing size of economic units, are matters of historical fact. But in other cases, the direction of change may be less obvious and may become the subject of divergent interpretations. Moreover, the change itself may be one which is difficult to observe in a detached way, e.g. the increase in the divorce rate, or the extension of ‘bureaucracy’; and discussions of the direction of change are then likely to become closely involved with moral evaluations. Finally, when it is a matter of analyzing changes in the total structure of a society, whether it be a historical or present day society, the line of demarcation between the critical analysis and the expression of a social philosophy becomes obscure and uncertain, and can perhaps never be rigorously established. This is apparent if we consider the widely divergent accounts of the changes taking place in the British Welfare State, or in the USSR since the death of Stalin, or in India since the attainment of independence; or, on a larger scale, the contradictory accounts proffered by Marx and Max Weber of the dominant trends of change in capitalist societies.
The rate of change has always interested sociologists, and it is a commonplace to refer to the acceleration of social and cultural change in modern times. W.F.Ogburn was one of the first to examine the phenomenon systematically and to undertake quantitative studies of the rate of exchange, especially in the sphere of technological inventions.1 He also focussed attention upon the discrepancies between rates of change in different sectors of social life; the hypothesis of ‘cultural lag’ is concerned with a major disharmony between the rapid growth of technology, and the slower transformation of familial, political and other institutions and of traditional beliefs and attitudes (religious, moral etc.). In recent years these problems have acquired greater importance, with the emergence of industrialization of underdeveloped countries as a major issue in world politics.2 Research has followed two principal lines; sociological studies of the changes in social structure and culture induced by industrialization and the structural disharmonies of the transition period, and psychological studies of the adaptation of individuals to rapid social changes.3 Some of these problems as they appear in India will be discussed in the following sections.
1Social Change (op. cit.), Part II. See also W.F.Ogburn and M.F.Nimkoff, A Handbook of Sociology, Ch. 26, and S.C.Gilfillan, Sociology of Inventions (Chicago 1935).
2There is a good review and discussion of research on these problems in Africa in Social Implications of Industrialization and Urbanization in Africa South of Sahara (UNESCO 1956. Prepared by the International African Institute, London). For Asian countries, see the five studies collected in The Social Implications of Industrialization and Urbanization (UNESCO Research Centre on the Social Implications of Industrialization in Southern Asia, Calcutta 1956). For a more general study see B.Hoselitz, Sociological Aspects of Development (Chicago 1960).
3On the latter, see Margaret Mead (ed.), Cultural Patterns and Technical Change (UNESCO 1953), especially Part V, pp. 279–303.
The problems have also been studied in the industrial societies; in the context of changes in the family, in social stratification, in religious and moral ideas, in law, etc. and from the aspect of attitudes, the reactions of the individual to social change, and the implications and consequences in education, crime and delinquency, and mental health.
The problem of why change occurred, or why it was possible, is closely linked with the general problem of the factors in social change and raises very complex issues concerning social causation. Gerth and Mills briefly discuss some of these issues, as for example, the role of individuals in bringing about social change, and the relative influence of material factors and of ideas. In a recent essay, Morris Ginsberg has undertaken a systematic analysis of the factors which have been invoked by different writers to explain social change:1 (i) the conscious desires and decisions of individuals (exemplified by the development of the small family system in Western countries); (ii) individual acts influenced by changing conditions (e.g. the decline of villeinage in England between 1300 and 1500); (iii) structural changes and structural strains (including as one instance the contradictions between forces of production and relations of production emphasized by Marxists); (iv) external influences (culture contact, or conquest); (v) outstanding individuals or groups of individuals; (vi) a confluence or collocation of elements from different sources converging at a given point (e.g. in revolutions); (vii) fortuitous occurrences (e.g. the Norman Conquest of England, the Black Death in the fourteenth century, the British conquest of India); and (viii) the emergence of a common purpose. The final section of the essay contains an illuminating discussion of the concept of cause in social science, and its connection with teleology.
Much recent sociology, under the influence of functionalism, has disregarded problems of change or has presented them in such a way as to suggest that social change is something exceptional. The emphasis has been upon the stability of social systems and of systems of values and beliefs, and upon consensus rather than diversity and conflict within each society. It is clear, however, that all societies are characterized by both continuity and change, and that a major task of sociological analysis is to discover how the two processes are related to each other. Continuity is maintained by the social controls which we discussed earlier, and especially by education,
formal and informal, which imparts the accumulated social heritage to new generations. On the other hand, there are also certain general conditions which make for social change; the most important being the growth of knowledge and the occurrence of social conflict. The growth of knowledge has not been continuous, nor has it occurred at the same rate in all societies; but since the seventeenth century there has been a more or less continuous growth which has now affected all societies. This has become a major condition of recent social change. Conflict, as a condition of social change, may be regarded from different aspects. In the first place, conflict between societies has played an important part historically in bringing about larger social units (as Comte and Spencer recognized), in establishing or reinforcing social stratification (as Oppenheimer argued), and in diffusing social and cultural innovations. In modern times international conflict has profoundly influenced the economic and political structure of societies, social policies, and norms of behaviour; but these phenomena have hardly received the attention they deserve. Secondly, conflicts between groups within society have been and are a major source of innovation and change. Among these conflicts, that between social classes, although it has not had the universal and decisive influence attributed to it by Marxists, has been an important agent of change, particularly in modern times. The establishment of political democracy in Western Europe has been very largely the outcome of class struggles. Finally, we should consider the conflict between generations, which has received much less than its due attention from sociologists.1 Continuity in society, we have noted, is maintained by imparting the social tradition to new generations by the process of socialization; but socialization is never complete in the sense that new generations exactly re-enact the social life of their predecessors. Always there is criticism, rejection of some aspects of tradition, and innovation. In modern societies these features become more prominent because of the general changes which are taking place in the environment, and because of the diversity of norms and values, which allows the new generation to choose, in some degree, between different ‘ways of life’ or to re-combine diverse elements in the culture in new patterns. It is a significant feature of the industrial societies that a distinctive youth
1Karl Mannheim was one of the few sociologists to see the importance of the subject; he discussed it in an illuminating essay, ‘The Problem of Generations’ (1927); published in English in Karl Mannheim, Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (London 1952). S.N.Eisenstadt, From Generation to Generation (London 1955) takes up the subject again on a broader comparative basis.
culture and organized youth movements appear, which oppose in various ways the cultural values of the older generations. The phenomena of inter-generational conflict are especially prominent in societies such as India which are undergoing extremely rapid change from one type of society to another, and we shall consider them more closely in the following section.
The earlier theories of social change, which we examined in the previous chapter, tended to emphasize a single factor in the causation of change. For the most part, however, they were not monocausal theories (as they are sometimes classified), nor were they deterministic in any strict sense, as has been alleged by some recent critics.1 Comte and Spencer both conceived of some ultimate law of social evolution (the development of mind for Comte, and a cosmic process of differentiation for Spencer), but in examining actual social change they took into account many factors, not least the conscious and deliberate acts of individuals. Spencer, for example, did not confine his studies to differentiation within societies, but considered the effects of knowledge, warfare, and other factors in bringing about social change. Marx’s theory has often been condemned as mono-causal and deterministic, but his account of social causation is in fact extremely complex, involving several related but distinct phenomena—the forces of production, relations of production, class relations, and ideologies. Moreover, his doctrine of political action is the very opposite of a deterministic theory. In later theories, such as those of Hobhouse, Toynbee and Sorokin, the complexity of social causation is fully recognized; and Sorokin, in particular, examines very carefully the various factors involved in social change.
Nevertheless, these theories raise a number of broad problems which need to be considered. The first is that concerning the part played respectively by individuals and by ‘social forces’ in inducing change. It should be remarked that the term ‘social forces’ does not refer to any forces which are entirely distinct from the acts of individuals, but to values and tendencies which are resultants of the interaction of individuals yet which confront any single individual as something external to him and relatively impervious to his individual criticism or influence. Thus the voluntary acts of individuals enter as constituents into ‘social forces’; in this sense any individual may contribute to social change, although the effects may only be perceptible when a number of individuals begin to act in a new way (for example, in limiting the size of their families). A different
problem is that of the influence of outstanding individuals. At one extreme, it may be held that all important social and cultural changes are brought about by men of genius; at the other, that men of genius owe all their influence to the fact that they incarnate or represent the dominant social forces or tendencies of their time.1 Neither of these extreme views is acceptable. For one thing, the influence of outstanding individuals may be greater in some spheres of social life than others; for example, greater in the field of artistic creation than in that of technology.2 It would be arbitrary, however, to deny the personal influence of great men in the sphere of morals, religion, politics or economics. In the modern world, Lenin in Russia, and Mahatma Gandhi in India, have had a profound influence, and it would be difficult to demonstrate that our world would have been the same had they not lived and acted as they did. Of course, they too were influenced by their environment, and their authority arose in part from their ability to formulate and interpret the latent aspirations of large numbers of people; but they were also charismatic leaders in Max Weber’s sense, owing their positions of leadership to personal qualities, and imposing upon events the imprint of their own values.
A second major controversy has concerned the role of material factors and ideas in social change. Marxists, it is claimed, attribute a primary influence to material, economic factors, while others (e.g. Comte, Hobhouse) give pre-eminence to the development of thought. One of the principal disputes in sociology is that between Marx and Weber concerning the origins of modern capitalism, in which Weber argued, not that ‘ideas rule the world’, but that in some historical situations ideas or doctrines may independently affect the direction of social change. It would be a mistake, in any case, to establish a simple opposition between material factors and ideas, for material factors as such do not enter into social behaviour. In Marx’s own theory of change the ‘forces of production’ are a determining element, but they are no more than the applications of science and technology; and the development of the productive forces can only mean the growth of scientific and technical knowledge and ideas. The fundamental problem is to determine the ways in which the growth or arrest of knowledge and thought affect society, whether
1The latter view, in its Marxist version, is well expounded by G.V.Plekhanov, The Role of the Individual in History.
2Though there are evidently social influences upon art; see Max Weber’s essay on the development of Western music, in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. and A.Hauser, The Social History of Art.
through the influence of science upon economic relationships and class structure, or through the emergence of new religious, moral or philosophical doctrines, and how these diverse strands are connected in particular sequences of change.
Recent sociological studies of social change have dealt with more limited problems and have not aimed to provide any general explanation of change. But they have perhaps gone too far in dispensing with any conceptual scheme which would allow comparative studies and partial explanations. Later in this chapter we shall consider whether a typology of social change might be constructed which would fill this gap.
Two elements have played a decisive part in bringing about social change in India; first, Western science and technology, and secondly, social planning. The influence of technology has been apparent in diverse areas of social life. By the improvement of living conditions and medical care it has affected the mortality rate, and is thus largely responsible for the rapid growth of India’s population. The introduction of capitalist industry brought about changes in the property system1 and in the division of labour, and gave rise to new social strata and classes which played an important part in the political development of India.2 In earlier chapters we have traced some of the effects of industrialization upon the joint-family, property, law, and the caste system. But technology did not only bring about change indirectly through the gradual transformation of economic relationships; technology and the scientific thought which was its basis constituted a new view of the world which came into conflict with the traditional culture. Moreover, British rule introduced into India social as well as technological inventions (a new system of government and administration, judicial procedures, forms of education), and new cultural values such as rationalism. and later on, egalitarianism and socialism.
The concept of ‘cultural lag’ has great relevance to India. The development of a modern capitalist economy brought into existence some social movements which rejected traditional Indian culture, and others which set out to reform and modernize it; but it is by no
1Notably the establishment of individual private property in land. The effects have been studied very thoroughly in the case of Bengal; see S.Gopal, The Permanent Settlement in Bengal and Its Results (London 1949) and Ramkrishna Mukherjee, The Dynamics of a Rural Society (Berlin 1957). Ch. 1.
2See especially, A.R.Desai, Social Background of Indian Nationalism.
means the case that the social institutions and cultural values of present day India are adapted to the way of life of an industrial society, whether capitalist or socialist. The large joint-family is not a useful or necessary institution in a modern society where individual mobility is considerable and the provision of welfare services a public responsibility. A caste system is incompatible with the rationality, mobility, and egalitarianism of a democratic society; in India, the principle of caste is unmistakably in conflict with the assumptions of the political regime, with the educational system, and with the needs of industry. Yet caste and the joint-family are fundamental elements in Hinduism, and thus in the traditional culture; and as they become weaker so also do the cultural values of the past. Popular Hinduism itself is being directly influenced by the rationalization and secularization which accompany the growth of industrial society. The strains involved in this transition are, and have been for some time, apparent in the situation of Indian intellectuals who have to reconcile the divergent claims of two cultures, and in the conflict between generations. Many of the younger educated Indians dislike the caste restrictions upon marriage, are opposed to arranged marriages, and resent the patriarchal authority of family elders; yet they usually accept, in practice, the traditional forms of behaviour, moved by family loyalty and affection, and perhaps also by uncertainty as to the outcome if they choose a different path. There are other conflicts similar to those which occur in industrial societies, notably conflicts between social strata and classes. Caste, like every system of social stratification, involves economic differentiation and economic interest groups, although in the past these features have been partly obscured by the ritual significance of the institution. In conditions of economic change the privileged groups are led to resist innovations which would diminish their own prestige and economic advantage. These various conflicts are, in one sense, sources of change, but they may also retard change over a longer or shorter period, or even produce stagnation or regress. It is not a sociological law that every society can be successfully industrialized, although sociological research may well contribute to ensuring success, and to reducing its costs in tension, dis-orientation and suffering.
Social planning, in India as elsewhere, overrides to some extent the conflicts we have mentioned. It represents the factor in social change which Ginsberg defines as the emergence of a common purpose. There is now, in almost all societies, central economic and social planning intended to promote social well-being. The extent and forms of planning vary widely from one society to another but the objectives and implications are similar. For the first time in human history, the mass of the people are drawn into a process of rational and deliberate transformation of their social life; social change has been brought, to some extent, under human control. The Indian Constitution of 1950 defined the purposes of the new political system as being to establish social, economic and political justice, liberty of thought, expression, belief and worship, equality of status and opportunity, and fraternity. The Government Planning Commission, established in the same year, was conceived as a major agency for achieving these purposes, although its work has been somewhat narrowly restricted to economic problems. An excellent recent study by S.C.Dube1 surveys the changes brought about by one of the principal activities of the Planning Commission, the Community Development Programme (and also the less intensive National Extension Service), and examines some of the obstacles to change which these activities have revealed. In a detailed study of one Project in Uttar Pradesh, covering 153 villages, Dube shows that the more strictly technological innovations, such as improved seeds, fertilisers, improved breeds of animal, and so on, were accepted fairly readily, especially where the effects became apparent in a short time, as for example in higher cash prices for crops; but that the innovations which had, or were likely to have, repercussions on the social structure, or the cultural values, met with resistance. Thus, new agricultural techniques, co-operative methods of farming, measures to improve sanitation, and educational ventures, aroused much less interest and in some cases were opposed. In a general evaluation of the Project, Dube observes: ‘Modest as they may appear, these projects have introduced certain ideas that will be long lasting. The people are slow and extremely cautious in accepting innovations, but on a limited scale they too make some experiments and watch their results carefully. Some of the project-sponsored innovations in the field of agriculture and rural health, though they appear to have been rejected or very reluctantly accepted today, may finally establish themselves in about a decade from now. Signs of a psychological change, too, are evident, although they cannot be attributed in every instance or even primarily to the project. There is an unmistakable change in the people’s level of expectation, and with the gradual removal of barriers between them and the government substantial progress can be expected.
However, the Project studied here appears to have done little to further even the traditional modes of co-operation in these communities’.1
Dube establishes clearly the importance of communication between the government representatives who are seeking to induce change, and the villagers to whom the new ideas are addressed. The problems of communication involve several factors: the perceived character of those who originate the communications, the form and content of the communications themselves, and the response of the recipients. In the first of these problems the role of the Village Level Worker is crucial, and constitutes an important subject for sociological research.2 The form and content of communications pose a general problem of balance between continuity and change; communication is more effective where it can be related to existing aspirations (e.g. for economic betterment), or to traditional cultural norms (e.g. the improvement of breeds of cattle presented in terms of the traditional religious valuation of cattle). Finally, the response of the villagers is determined largely by the local elites and opinion leaders, and the successful induction of change depends very much upon identifying such leaders (formal and informal) and convincing them, in the first place, that the changes are desirable.
This account of social change in India indicates the profound effects of economic change. In the present-day world, as in nineteenth century Europe, it is the process of industrialization which pre-eminently shapes the structure of society and the cultural norms. Yet at every stage there is an interplay between the different elements of social life, and no one can predict the final form which industrial societies will assume. In India, a number of distinct processes are occurring together. There is the deliberate planning of industrial growth, and alongside this, planning of the still predominant agricultural economy; and at the same time a multitude of unintended and unforeseen changes which arise directly from industrialization and rationalization. These vast changes have scarcely yet been described by sociologists, let alone analyzed.
The data which we have so far presented may allow us to formulate a typology of social change which would serve as a framework for comparative study, and as a basis for generalization and
1Op. cit., p. 151.
2Dube, op. cit. Appendix I gives an illuminating account of the work and problems of the Village Level Worker.
interpretation. Such a typology seems possible in terms of four major problems.
1. Where does social change originate? A distinction can first be made between endogenous and exogenous change, i.e. change originating within or outside a particular society. In practice, the origin of change cannot always be assigned wholly to one or the other category; but to take a modern example, it is evident that the changes now occurring in under-developed societies have originated very largely outside these societies, and are the product of Western technology which was introduced in most cases by conquest. The problem which has then to be posed is whether there are significant differences between processes of change which are either internally or externally induced. It seems probable that there are such differences, especially in the relationships which are established between the agents of change and the rest of the population.1 A second aspect of this question concerns the problem of where the changes begin within a particular society (regardless of their more remote origin); i.e. which institutions first undergo change. Two other problems are involved here; that of the factors in social change, and that of the social groups which initiate change. Historical evidence may permit us to classify processes of change according to the spheres or groups in which they begin; economic, political, religious etc., and to study more closely how change is diffused from one sphere to another.
2. What are the initial conditions from which large-scale changes begin? The initial conditions may profoundly influence the course of social change; it cannot be assumed, for example, that the formation of ancient empires, of feudal states, or of modern capitalist societies, occurred in the same ways or can be accounted for in terms of a single generalization. In the contemporary world, industrialization is a very different process in tribal societies (as in Africa), and in societies of ancient civilization such as India. It is different again according to the size and complexity of the society. The sociological analysis of industrialization as a particular process of change would be greatly helped by a typology of under-developed societies themselves.
3. What is the rate of change? Social change may occur rapidly in some periods, or in some spheres, and more slowly, perhaps imperceptibly, in others. The rate of change may also be accelerating or decelerating. Ogburn and Gilfillan, whose work was referred to
1See also footnote 3 on p. 266 above, referring to the economic framework of changes in underdeveloped societies.
earlier, have shown that in industrial societies the rate of technological change, as measured by the numbers of patents issued, has been increasing. An important distinction is that between processes of gradual change and processes of revolutionary change (as a particular form of rapid change). In the economic and technological spheres it is not too difficult to identify revolutionary changes, and to trace their causes and effects. Gordon Childe has admirably described what he terms the ‘neolithic revolution’, the introduction of a food producing economy;1 and economic historians have documented and analyzed the phases of the modern industrial revolution.2 Political and social revolutions, however, have been considered for the most part in historical, descriptive terms, while comparative and analytical studies have been lacking. There is, of course, a Marxist theory of social revolution but it has not been very effective in stimulating sociological research. The 20th century social and national revolutions have been closely linked with war, although the connections have not been systematically explored. At the same time, they have revealed the important role of intellectuals, as well as social classes, in revolutionary movements.
4. To what extent is social change fortuitous, causally determined, or purposive? The principal distinction here is one which we have already discussed in considering social planning. In one sense, of course, almost all social changes are purposive, since they result from the purposive acts of individual men. But such acts may have unintended consequences, because the individual actions are not co-ordinated and may actually impede or distort each other as, for example, in situations of conflict. In such conditions, which have been those of most societies until recent times, change may be causally determined, or there may also be quite fortuitous elements in it, but it is not purposive in the sense that it achieves the purposes of all, or most, of the individuals who are involved. Change may more properly be termed purposive in the case of modern societies where, as Ginsberg suggests, a common purpose emerges and may be realized by degrees through a process of planned social change. Even here, of course, fortuitous events may have an influence, and there may (since planners, like other men,
1V.Gordon Childe, Man Makes Himself, Chapter V.
2For a short study of the first industrial revolution see H.L.Beales, The Industrial Revolution, 1750–1850 (new edn. London 1958). The changes in the economic system and in social attitudes are vividly presented in R.L. Heilbroner, The Great Economists (London 1955), Ch. 1. A more sociological examination of the different phases in the industrial revolution is given by Georges Friedmann, La crise du progrés (Paris 1936), especially Ch. 1.
lack omniscience) be many unintended consequences. It is plain, however, that human beings have now a greater control than in the past over the natural and the social conditions of their life; the social sciences are themselves a product of the aspirations for control over the direction of social change and have contributed greatly to its establishment.
The idea of progress
Carl Becker, ‘Progress’, Encylopaedia of the Social Sciences.
J.B.Bury, The Idea of Progress (London, 1920).
Morris Ginsberg, The Idea of Progress: A Revaluation (London, 1953).
Social evolution and development
The notions of evolution and development as applied to human societies have not received the systematic examination they deserve. Much of the discussion is still at the level of the functionalist criticisms (presented in an extreme form by Malinowski) of ‘conjectural history’. There is a critical survey of evolutionary theories in P.A.Sorokin, ‘Sociocultural Dynamics and Evolutionism’ in Gurvitch and Moore (eds.) Twentieth Century Sociology. ‘Social Darwinism’ has been discussed, or historically surveyed, by a number of writers; see especially D.G.Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1885), and R.Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Philadelphia, 1945).
M.Ginsberg’s essay ‘The concept of evolution in sociology’, Essays in Sociology and Social Philosophy, Vol. I, discusses some of the crucial problems. See also, the essays in Ginsberg’s latest volume, Vol. III, Evolution and Progress (London, 1960). There is a stimulating discussion in V.Gordon Childe, Man Makes Himself, Chapters I and II.
R.M.MacIver, Social Causation (Boston, 1942) presents a good analysis of the notion of cause as applied to social change.
K.R.Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (London, 1957) is a major criticism of evolutionary theories on grounds of logic and method.
Social Change
W.F.Ogburn, Social Change (New York, 1922). See the discussion in the text.
Reference should be made to the works of Pareto, Toynbee and Sorokin cited in the text. In addition, there is a useful short exposition of Sorokin’s concept of social and cultural change in F.R.Cowell, History, Civilization and Culture (London, 1952).
On the Marxist theory see Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, N.Bukharin, Historical Materialism, and Edmund Wilson, To the Finland Station (London, 1940).
There are a number of anthropological studies of social change in primitive societies; see especially the following which also consider some of the general problems of analysing social change:
B.Malinowski, Dynamics of Culture Change (Yale, 1945).
G. and M.Wilson, The Analysis of Social Change (Cambridge, 1945).
M.Mead, The Changing Culture of an American Indian Tribe (New York, 1932).
A.L.Kroeber, Anthropology (New York, 1948) Chapters 10–12.
Raymond Firth, Social Change in Tikopia (London, Allen & Unwin, 1959).
On social change in India see the works by A.R.Desai and S.C.Dube discussed in the text, and also:
A.K.Nazmul Karim, Changing Society in India and Pakistan (Dacca, 1956).
T.K.K.N.Unnithan, Some Problems of Social Change in India in Relation to Gandhian Ideas (Groningen, 1956).