Social change in contemporary Nigeria: A theoretical discourse

Obviously, social change has some characteristics that distinguished them from other forms of social events. An extensive review of the literature showed that there are four main characteristics of social change. These four characteristics are briefly explained with some insights from Nigerian society in order to explain various social, economic and political dynamics of social change in Nigeria between 1960 and 2015. Against this background, the first characteristic that was identified in the literature lies in the belief that social change occurs everywhere naturally- since human society is never static and social, political, economic and cultural changes occur repeatedly-nevertheless, the rate of change varies from time to time and place to place. For example, Nigeria and other Third World countries with limited access to up-to-date technology and information communication systems might experience a slow process of change compared to the United States, United Kingdom and other developed countries where there is unlimited access to advanced information communication technology. The second characteristic of social change is the notion that change can be intentional yet often unplanned. For instance, the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) which was introduced in the 1980s by the World Bank and IMF as a strategy to recuperate funds from owing countries of the South (developing countries) was a deliberate action, however the way SAP would affect the socio-economic development of other developing countries was perhaps not envisioned along with the strategy. Hence, social change can have general impacts on entire social institutions, communities, societies or nations.

The third characteristic depicts that social change often generates controversy. For example, the motion from developed countries (United States, Canada and so on) that homosexual rights (i.e. same-sex marriage) should be accepted in Nigeria and other developing countries has caused controversy involving the government, military, religious leaders, and the society at large. In addition, the fourth characteristic posits that some changes matter more than others do. For example, the invention of personal computers was more important than Cabbage Patch dolls. This is because the computer serves many more vital purposes for human development than the latter.

The causes of social change across human societies are essentially linked to either internal or external forces; natural or non-natural events; historical or contemporary issues. This perception is supported by the diagram presented below on the factors that can bring about social change in society.

Figure 1

As illustrated above, social change may arise from an alteration in population size, structure and composition (which can arise from migration, mortality or fertility). A change in the population could be unavoidably influenced by the movement of people from rural areas to urban areas, where jobs are easier to find or into previously uninhabited areas where natural resources are plentiful (causing population decrease in rural areas and population increase in urban areas). The city of Lagos is a comical example of this social reality. Population density is Lagos State, Nigeria has engendered the idea of division of labour, speciality and competition among people living in the area. This scenario tallies with the postulation of Durkheim who argued that when the population of a society increases or becomes denser; the only viable way in which the people can survive is through resource/ task sharing, specialization and complementarity of roles (Motoi 2017). More so, the losses and gains of cultural components are vital proxies of social change. The erosion of Nigeria's cultural values due to colonialism cum neocolonialism, capitalism and its affiliates; democracy, borderless economy and ICT revolution became incompatible with local realities and negatively plunged the country into diverse socio-economic and political crises. This is correct to an extent as argued by Mimiko: For him,

The social fabric was completely devastated and a new culture of violence was implanted. Traditional African systems of conflict resolution were destroyed and, in their places, nothing was given. The democratic process, rudimentary though it was, with great potential as accompanies every human institution, was brutally uprooted and replaced by the authoritarianism of colonialism. A new crop of elites was created, nurtured, and weaned on the altar of violence and colonialism armed with the structures of the modern state to continue to carry out the art and act of subjugation of the mass of the people in the service of colonialism (Mimiko, 2010 cited in Arowolo, 2010).

The above assertion revealed that colonialism serves as a vehicle for the implantation of cultural imperialism in Nigeria. This is also supported by many pieces of evidence to show that colonialism is an imposition of foreign rule over the indigenous traditional political setting and foreign dominance and subjugation of African people in all spheres of their social, political, cultural, economic and religious civilisations (Arowolo 2010). One of the most profound consequences of colonization, as shown by scholars, is the political and economic rape of the colonies which led to what can be regarded as an unbridgeable cultural gap between the nations that were the beneficiaries of colonization and those that were the victims of the colonial assault (Omobowale 2013; Arowolo 2010). The era of colonial pillage and plunder led to the relative stagnation and often precipitous decline of traditional cultural pursuits in the colonies (Arowolo 2010). In the current dispensation, notwithstanding, peoples’ cultures have been changed through invention (production of new products, ideas and social patterns), discovery (seeking something that has never been established before, or finding something new in something that already exists) and diffusion (circulation of ideas and objects from one society to another).

Similarly, social tension, social unrest and conflict (between two or more races, religious sects, social classes, political parties, communities etc.) can cause social change. As a result of social unrest or conflict, the general population becomes uneasy, restless and discontented. For example, the Niger-Delta militancy created huge public tension in Nigeria and this forced the federal government into granting amnesty to Niger-Delta militants through an amnesty programme. Furthermore, the need for adaptation within social systems may result in social change (Greenwood 2008). For example, the development and adoption of Green Practices in many Nigerian manufacturing companies serve as an adaptive response to climate change. Moreover, another viable source of social change is environmental factors such as earthquake, diseases and climate shifts and other situations produced by people, such as pollution or the overuse of natural resources. Any of these factors could produce a change in the economic base and social ties of a group. For instance, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in 2010, that climate change has pushed approximately 240 million people (i.e. one person out of every four) in sub Saharan Africa (SSA) out of adequate food security and a quality lifestyle into malnourishment, hunger and extreme poverty (Ozor, Umunnakwe and Acheampong 2014). In another dimension though on a lower scale, it is significant to note that the increasing environmental pollution in the Lagos metropolis of Nigeria has forced a majority of the residents, specifically those living in polluted environs, to develop a culture of coping with pollution with concomitant socio-economic implications (Solaja, Omobowale and Alliyu 2015).

Of great significance is the gradual shift in industrialization, social and economic opportunities from the developed countries to the developing countries in recent times. This shift has generated development in bilateral ties between and among countries of the world (such as US-Cuba, US-China, Sino-Africa relations, to mention a few) and a number of multinational corporations in developing countries. For example, China’s share of exports from Africa increased from 3% in 1998 to 15% in 2008, and it had already outplayed the United States as Africa’s largest trading partner since 2009 (Whalley and Weisbrod 2011). Significantly, social change has occurred in Nigeria due to the ‘westernization consumerist ideology’ that projects the assumption that man's wellbeing is best achieved by amassing extreme wealth (legal or illegal) as quickly as possible, in that African social value and culture are being shaped to the benefit of capitalist system, with emphasis on the idea that economic growth is suitable for the development of human and society. The western ideology has often been used in a normative way to indicate that foreign-made goods are of a high standard, and have better features, with longer life-span than locally made goods. As such, an average Nigerian would prefer to buy everything (new or old) made overseas and refuse to buy anything made in Nigeria. This act has gradually institutionalized a status quo which can be called the Tokunbo phenomenon and the second-hand economy in Nigeria with concomitant socio-economic and environmental implications (Omobowale 2013). Western consumerist ideology, therefore, is a particular way of life, considered as superior and advanced identifiable with the West.

Furthermore, social change can occur from people joining together for a common cause. This is called a social movement. Social movements are classified according to the kind of change they seek, which may range from social, religious, political, human rights to economic changes. In Nigeria, the Association for Better Nigeria (ABN) and Safe Nigeria Movement (SNM) stand as pressure groups opposing government policies, plan and agenda at one point or the other. As a matter of fact, social change materialized in response to the contact and interaction between human beings and their material, social and intellectual environment, religion is a vital factor of social change. Religion and society influence each other through the process of secularization. This is partly true because religion deals with beliefs about creation, purpose, destiny, life, and love. Hence, it significantly shapes the behaviour of people (particularly believers). It, therefore, follows, that religion can influence people’s attitudes and social ethics, either positively or negatively. For instance, the works of Weber on The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism sufficiently explained the connection between religion and social change only in Europe. Though, much of Weber’s works on the role of religion in social transition has been criticized on the ground that one cannot understand Weber’s ideology outside the particular social context in which he wrote. Without going too far, the nexus between religion and social change is also apparent in the anti-social and terrorist ideology of the Boko Haram sect in Nigeria aimed at the general acceptance of Sharia law and opposing other man-made laws, of which hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and property worth millions of naira have been damaged by Boko Haram (Eme and Ibietan 2012). In addition, the growth rate in access to information and communication technologies plays a significant role in improving the quality of decisions to effect social change. To be sure, in the current age of information, non-material and material resources such as information and technology remain critical ingredients in social change (Mutekwe 2012).

The development of social change theory by classical and contemporary sociologists has been based on two distinct viewpoints which dominate the theoretical circles to date. Some theorists take a change in structure (the establishment of new institutions), composition (inter-group migration) and function (specialization of labour, industrialization, authority relations) as the phenomenon to be explained (Mesure 2009; Chiribuca 2004). While other theorists believe that stability or the re-establishment of some stable state (social inequalities) are worthy of examination (Vlasceanu, Miroiu, Paunescu, and Hâncean 2011). These two views were clearly exemplified by Rusu (2008) as the systemic approach and the modern, process-oriented, dynamic – or constructivist– approach. However, the simple truth arising from the two divergent approaches on social change is that it gives the paradigm of social change the feature of Trifunctionality (the theoretical propensity to describe, explain and evaluate social changes).

The outstanding works of prominent scholars like Comte, Durkheim, Marx and Weber on social change constitutes the classical viewpoints. The majority of the classical works on social change were published in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Comte’s analysis of the evolution of human society marked the beginning of classical studies on social change. According to Comte, human society is a living organism hence, it is dynamic in nature and social change occurs as a result of the constant progress in intellectual or knowledge production. Comte’s assumption is largely based on the view that human thoughts, knowledge and intellectual properties are principal factors that drive scientific advancement and other forms of progress that had been transmuting human society from one stage to another. Comte emphasized that since human society is practically a social organism, all the fragments of human society are symbiotic, in the sense that any change that occurs in one of the fragments will facilitate significant changes in the entire social organism and, by extension, propel the movement of human society across the three essential stages of civilization namely; theological (refers to the period when people are yet to discover the natural causes of various phenomena and they attribute them to a supernatural or divine power), metaphysical (refers to the period when people believe that an abstract power or force determines social events) and positive/ scientific (refers to the period when people base their explanations about social events on observation, experiment and comparison). Based on the above views, Comte strongly argued that all forms of social change that occur in human societies are engineered by their social progress which can be divided into two categories; progress in scientific knowledge and economic knowledge. In contrast, the notion that social change occurs as a result of social progress had been disputed on the grounds that not every social evolution depicts social advancement.

Furthermore, the work of Emile Durkheim on the division of labour in society advanced another classical perspective to the concept of social change. Durkheim put forward the view that social change emerged from the increased division of labour that became necessary as human societies continued to develop from agrarian/mechanical ones to modern/organic ones. In the context of social evolution, as argued by Durkheim, there was a need for human integration as a means to coordinate activities or tasks performed by individuals on the division of labour platform. Furthermore, Durkheim affirmed that it is easy or more convenient to coordinate the interactions of a small group of people (e.g. family) or population that is spread across a particular geographical location with joint dependence on the same resources and modes of operation because they (individuals) are not likely to upset each another, while coordinating the interactions of a large group of people or population is more tedious and only achievable through the division of tasks, specialization and interdependent functions. Consequently, the process of breaking down the whole task into smaller tasks or specialities is usually done in proportion with the size and form of societies as well as the rate at which the population in these societies are growing. This particular view suggests that increased population size might not be the only factor responsible for the division of labour in a given society. Durkheim conceptually explains this viewpoint by submitting that the nearer individuals are to each other, the more their interactions are increasing, diversifying and strengthening, and there is a gradual construction of moral density, better creativity, as well as an improved civilization in the society.

Moreover, other works published by Karl Marx (1818 - 1883) and Max Weber (1864 - 1920) propelled a new direction and perspective to understanding social change. According to them, social change is a product of social conflict which inevitably happened between or among people of different interests and purposes in a given society. This proposition is based on the postulation that people are in a continuing conflict with each other, in the struggle over scarce resources and higher status. For a fact, the three social classification factors that Marx and Weber deeply examined in their works on social change are; the social class (centred on economic differences), the status (based on prestige), and the party (based on political power). Thus, Marx and Weber's perspective to social change is entrenched in the assumption that through social conflict people (especially the marginalized group) are able to rotate access to resources of power, prestige, and material wealth, which invariably do translate to social change and a new social order. An example of the use of conflict by some individuals or a group to engender a change in the social status quo was extensively detailed by Weber (1905) in his popular book entitled Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism in which the Protestants went up against the Catholic practices in the early nineteenth century and brought about the progress of Protestantism, to the detriment of Catholicism, along with progress in industrialization. Similarly, Marx (1848) in his philosophical expression argued that the ambiguity and alienation between labour and capital, or between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are the social realities that triggered class struggle or social uprising that often led to social change in the history of human societies. Having examined the classical perspectives on social change, it is also imperative to examine contemporary perspectives on social change.

The contemporary perspective on social change was pioneered by the dependentist, modernist and post-modernist scholars. Proponents of the contemporary perspective on social change include Parsons (1991), Sorokin (1957), Merton (1949), Dahrendorf (1959), Bourdieu (1972), Giddens (1984), Smelser (1995), Alexander (1998), Habermas (1998), Beck (2000), Bauman (2001), Cohen (2003), and Baudrillard (1992). These scholars variously conceptualized social change from different perspectives, however, the heart of their arguments focused on the dynamics of scientific knowledge, division of labour and culture of the society which is closely connected to the classical point of view.

Realistically, proponents of the contemporary social change theories have exclusive and opposing ideologies from that of the classical scholars as it relates to what could bring about social change and how it can be managed in the modern-day societies. For instance, Parsons (1991) believed that the main causes of social change are differentiation and integration. According to him, differentiation arises in as much as human societies continue to develop, and the existential needs of people begin to increase; society strives to meets the needs by creating new social institutions and joining them with the existing ones so as to function as a system. As a whole system, Parsons further argued that when human societies become more modern, the adaptations among the various social institutions could designate growing distinctions, but the functions they perform remain uninterrupted. Hence, human societies frequently ensure the maintenance or modification of their social institutions regardless of external influences. In the same vein, Smelser (1995) submitted that modifications or alterations in social structure could be expedited through differentiation within and outside the system itself. In the view of Merton (1949), changes within a society occurred due to the failure of the social system to work correctly. This scenario can emerge from several factors, however, he stresses the effect of conflict between cultural goals and institutional norms in bringing about internal change in society (Merton, 1949).

Furthermore, Dahrendorf (1959) succinctly opined that social change is a product of the division of classes in capitalist societies. This is based on the assumption that as the division of classes increase, the class situations also become intense. In another point of fact, Alexander (1998) noted that the conflict between classes is not the main cause of social change rather it is the competition and polarization of opinions that arise between classes in capitalist societies. For Bourdieu (1972), social change happens when there is a disconnection or fragmentation between habitus (internalized objective structure, history and practices) and the field that inspires the development of critical consciousness and other causal factors of societal transformation. According to Giddens (1984), the cause of social change is an intrusion into what is often overlooked; which could arise as a result of alterations in external conditions, or attention and consideration on the side of the people that, in turn, lead to a modification in the social structure. In this regard, Habermas (1998) perceives the cause of social change to include population growth, increase in productivity, technological improvements, scientific progress and globalization. For Bauman (2001), the effect of the interaction between the agency and the self-confidence of individuals in contemporary society is the cause of social change. Beck (2000) conceives the unplanned upshot of neoliberal free-market ideals as the factor responsible for social change, while Cohen (2003) opined that social change occurs due to entrepreneurship activities and the creative destruction of the capitalist system and Baudrillard (1992) maintained the opinion that there is no real social change however what exists in contemporary societies is a repetition of history and an impression of change.

The theoretical tour of social change began with the classical evolutionary theorists. The evolutionary theorists like Auguste Comte, Saint Simon, Frederick Hegel, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim who launched the theorizing exercise of social change by transposing the ideological stance of biological evolution theory (from a simple process to complex processes) propounded by Charles Darwin in 1859 into the social sciences being confident that society and culture experienced changes similar to the laws of biology and organism growth (Mesure 2009; Badescu 2005). The evolutionary proposition presents a linear conception that all societies move from a simple stage to a complex stage of social progress. Since that was the way social changes occurred in the Western world. This assumption simply means that every society will inevitably move from a simple to a complex stage, as expressed in Europe. However, it is to be pointed out that evolutionary theory has been seen to suffer some serious drawbacks; mainly the conception of being ethnocentric in the sense that it uses Western societies as the standard of construction. Equally, it has been pointed out that, it is not in all cases that social evolution represents social progress. Also, critics have pointed out that evolutionary models do not tell us why societies like Great Britain have declined from the heights of imperial power or why the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece and Rome flourished, declined and ultimately became material for courses in ancient history and classics.

In the effort to explain the rise and fall of human societies, cyclical theorists like Oswald Spengler (1918), Arnold Toynbee (1946), Vilfredo Pareto and Pitirim Sorokin (1948) submitted that social change appears in three stages of a life cycle namely, growth, development and decline. The West is believed to have passed through its maturity in the 18^th century and is now moving in the direction of decline. While this proposition is quite convincing as an explanation of history, it says little about any challenge a particular society may expect in response to changes in its environment. However, the revolutionary/ radical theorists’ like Karl Marx and Ralph Dahrendorf are of the opinion that social change occurs basically by a succession of modes of production, being tense with ambiguities of an economic and social nature (Popescu 2009; Valade 2006; Marx 1964). Conflict theorists were criticized for focusing mainly on the role of social tensions, or dysfunctions of a predominantly economic nature, ignoring the role played by technological progress or external influences in the area of social dynamics such as population, inequalities etc.

The structural-functionalist theorists like Bronislaw Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, Talcott Parsons and Robert. K. Merton set to answer some of the criticisms levelled against the conflict theory of change, by submitting that social change occurs as a result of population growth, changes in technology, inequalities among classes and status groups, and efforts by different groups to meet their needs in a world of scarce resources. In this view, there is no prediction of rising and fall or uni-linear social change like it is found in early evolutionary conception or even classical Marxian theory. The main criticism advanced against the functionalist perspective is that it focuses less on social change and conflict. And it was equally criticized for its failure to give adequate account for the sources and causes of social change. However, modernization theorists appeared to give account for sources and cause of social change which functionalists failed to do.

To modernization theorists, “societies develop in fairly predictable stages through which they become increasingly complex” (Johnson 2007). More emphatically, Walt Whitman Rostow claimed that every society must undergo a sequence of five stages (The traditional society, The preconditions for take-off, The take-off, The drive to maturity and the age of high mass-consumption) and ascribed the dominant agent of development to technological progress and industrialization (Popescu 2009). The most viable criticism of modernisation theory is the mistake of treating less developed countries (LDCs) as homogeneous (i.e. as having the same characteristics). With this, the theory fails to understand that value systems and institutions tend to be culture-specific. For example, Nigeria and Ghana may be neighbouring countries but their cultures are quite different from one another and may each require different development strategies. Some sociologists, therefore, argued that each LDC needs to be analysed and understood independently. In light of this, it is important to note that all these classical approaches have been the subject of disagreements and have been attacked by many sociologists which drives us to contemporary theories of change.

As part of contemporary theories, dependency theory emerged to attack the modernization theory which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development. Dependency theorists like Walter Rodney, Bauer Prebisch and Andre Gunder Frank believed that developed countries are responsible for impoverishing the less developed countries. Thus, social change occurs due to deteriorating trade terms in the periphery regions which favoured countries belonging to the core regions of the world. As such, dependency theory argued that a marginal number of underdeveloped nations are dependent for their trade and investment on the core of industrialised countries, which maintain the advantages of trade for their own interest (Morariu and Ignat 2011; Giddens 2010). The integration into an increasingly globalised capitalist economy has limited the potential for improvement in the living standards according to the culture of underdeveloped countries (Morariu and Ignat 2011). The dependency theory is criticized for failing to interrogate the applicability of externally imposed development initiatives (Mantuhu 2011). This situation perhaps informed some theorists (especially free-market economists like Bauer and Wolf) to criticize the dependency theory on the basis of corruption, lack of competition, sustainability, and domestic opportunity cost.

In expanding the scope of dependency theory, Immanuel Wallerstein subsequently developed the world-systems theory, premised on the relations between developed countries (core nations) and less developed countries (peripheral nations), shaped by political, economic, historical and geographical factors (Morariu and Ignat 2011). Wallerstein argues that in understanding social change the world capitalist economic system should be analysed as a single unit, comprising four overlapping elements:

The world systems theory was criticized on the grounds that it focused on the economy and not enough on culture, and for being too core-centric and state-centric. Similarly, the positivists criticize the approach as too prone to generalization, lacking quantitative data and failing to put forth a falsifiable proposition. While the orthodox Marxists see the world systems approach as deviating too far from orthodox Marxist principles, in that it does not give enough weight to the concept of social class.

In the same worldview, globalisation theory (a derivative of world systems theory) responds to modernisation theory by seeking to account for present-day development. Globalization theorists stressed the global integration of complex social systems, with a strong emphasis on the economic and cultural transactions as drivers of social change (Capello şi Resmini 2011; Lechner 2009). Baltasiu (2009) and Lechner (2009) argued that global communication and the increased access to information are now transforming the complex social systems which generate visible consequences on the social, economic, political and cultural levels, in every country, creating the premises of the emergence of a global culture and development of a global consciousness. The duo analysed globalisation from two perspectives:

Furthermore, globalization theory has been criticized for the scepticism of the appealed benefits of globalization (Manfred 2009; Ritzer 2010). Also, anti-globalization theorists’ (mostly economists and policymakers) believed that globalization is a process of bringing prosperity to few people and not to the majority of people all around the world. Their claim of causation was supported by the success of the Asian tigers as a result of their own policies, and the failure of many of the African states as a result of the opposite policies (Bradhan 2003).

Having reviewed some classical and contemporary theories of change above, it is pertinent to stress that classical theories of change focused on two main perspectives, i.e. social evolution and social revolution which were built on the general assumption that social change was common to all societies, irresistible and it occurred in an undeviating manner (unilinear, multi-linear and universal dimensions) with a fixed life-cycle. However, contemporary change theories see social change as a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Therefore, proponents of contemporary theories of change are of the view that any theory must contain three main elements that should stand in definite relation to one another. The elements are:

The paper employs the use of an explanatory research design in which information is gathered from published articles, journals, newspapers, as well as texts on social change as of 2019. The articles used in this paper were sourced from reputable databases such as Google Scholar, directorate of open access journals (DOAJ) and science direct. Also, the paper focused on the empirical literature that explained the classical and contemporary theories of change; on the one hand, and studies that analysed the forms of sociocultural, political and economic change in Nigeria between 1960 and 2019; on the other hand. The data gathered from the literature is thematically presented in the paper for easy the interpretation of the process of social change in Nigeria.