Abstract
4 branches of sociol'al theory are discussed re their inadequacies for explaining or predicting soc change: (1) functionalism (focusing on the work of T. Parsons), (2) evolutionism, (3) conflict theory, & (4) soc psychol'al theory. An attempt is made to demonstrate that functional theory & evolutionism, by stressing adaptation & equilibrium, do not differ in their explanations of soc change. Accordingly, it is noted that integration & conflict are not mutually exclusive in any explanation of change of soc systems. The shortcoming of soc psychol re developinga definitive theory of personality formation is discussed under the assumption that such a theory is necessary to explain change within the system. 4 areas that have been relatively neglected in the study of soc change are suggested for future res: (a) the role of youth in soc change, (b) the role that ideas & idea systems play in the process of soc change, (c) a return to instit'al analysis, esp the role groups play in seeking power in a changing soc system (the civil rights movement as a grab for power in US society is an example discussed), & (d) the role that specific individuals play in soc change. Neglect of the last area is due to a basic 'sociol'al imperialism' in that we have buried the importance of the individual in soc change by concentrating on systems analyses. AA.