Social Change in Modern Society

What is Social Change?

Social change is a universal phenomenon: every society changes, though not at the same pace or in the same direction. Social change refers to change in social structure, social functions, and social relationships. It can be analysed across multiple dimensions: within family, religion, gender, political institutions, and the economy. Sociology itself is a child of social change: it emerged to make sense of the dramatic transformations of the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.": Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto

Causes of Social Change: Economic and technological factors (Marx, Ogburn); cultural and ideational factors (Weber, Sorokin); demographic factors (Malthus, Durkheim); conflict (Marx); diffusion of ideas and technology across societies; environmental and ecological factors; wars and external shocks; social movements and collective action.

Sociological Theories of Social Change

A. Evolutionary and Linear Theories

Evolutionary theories hold that society evolves in a single, progressive, universal direction: from simple to complex, from lower to higher forms. They were the dominant framework in 19th-century sociology.

Thinker	Stages of Evolution	Key Text
August Comte	Theological → Metaphysical → Positive (Scientific)	Positive Philosophy
Edward Tylor	Savagery → Barbarism → Civilisation	Primitive Culture
L.H. Morgan	Seven technological stages from savagery to civilisation	Ancient Society
Herbert Spencer	Simple Society → Compound → Doubly Compound → Trebly Compound	Principles of Sociology
Emile Durkheim	Mechanical Solidarity → Organic Solidarity	Division of Labour in Society
Karl Marx	Primitive Communism → Ancient Slavery → Feudalism → Capitalism → Communism	Capital; German Ideology
Hobhouse	Pre-literate → Proto-science (ancient East) → Stage of reflection (5th cent BC, China and India) → Critical and systematic thought (Greece) → Modern scientific thought (16th century onward)

Herbert Spencer's organismic analogy: Adopted Darwinian evolution for society: progressive increase in size, followed by increase in differentiation and integration. The higher the differentiation and integration, the higher the evolutionary stage. Applied social Darwinism, "survival of the fittest", to societies. These theories considered Europe the most advanced civilisation, an assumption that collapsed after Europe fought the most savage wars of history in WW1 and WW2.

Critique of Unilinear Evolutionary Theories:

• Value bias: ethnocentrism; Eurocentrism
• Armchair theorisation: based on secondhand data, not fieldwork
• Macro theories with no consideration of cultural variations
• Cannot explain the decline of societies
• Ignores external factors of change
• Stages of evolution are not fixed in reality: leapfrogging is possible
• There can be no final stage; evolutionary schemes are always value-laden
• May explain long-term trends but not change on a smaller scale

B. Neo-Evolutionary Theories

Neo-evolutionary theories emerged to overcome the limitations of classical evolutionism: avoiding value judgements, acknowledging multilinearity, and providing empirical grounding.

Talcott Parsons: Based on the biological theory of evolution; the key process is adaptive upgrading: increasing capacity for adaptation. Two basic processes drive evolution: differentiation (society becomes more complex with specialised structures) and integration (new mechanisms emerge to coordinate differentiated parts). Five stages based on differentiation and integration (PAHSM): Primitive societies (Australian aborigines); Archaic societies (Mesopotamia, Egyptian empires); Historical societies (China, India); Seed-bed societies (Israel, Greece); Modern societies (US, USSR, Europe, Japan).

Gordon Childe: Model based on the development of material culture, supported by archaeological evidence.

Leslie White (Energy Theory of Change): The amount of energy harnessed is an index of the level of social development. Energy is both the cause and the effect of the process of social transformation.

Lenski and Lenski: Some changes are cyclic and unpatterned, but an evolutionary process of cumulative change is the predominant pattern. Cumulative changes happen through innovation (new variations emerge) and selection (which variation survives). These processes occur at two levels: individual society and world system. They portray the course of evolution as progressive: moving toward greater freedom, justice, equality, and happiness.

C. Cyclical Theories

Cyclical theories hold that societies revolve in cycles rather than progressing in a straight line. Change is repetitive: societies rise, peak, decline, and fall, then the cycle begins again.

Oswald Spengler (The Decline of the West): Every civilisation follows an organic cycle (birth, growth, decay, death) which is inevitable. Cited the Roman civilisation as the model; his theory closely resembles the ancient Hindu theory of Yugas.

Vilfredo Pareto: Focus on political changes, particularly elites. History is the circulation of elites. Elites are two types (Lions (conservative, use force) and Foxes (manipulative, use cunning)) who keep circulating, each replacing the other when they fail.

Pitirim Sorokin (Very systematic cyclical theory): Classified cultures into three distinct types based on their mode of perceiving reality:

• Ideational culture: places importance on spiritualism and mysticism; reality is perceived through spiritual insight
• Sensate culture: places importance on science and the senses; reality is perceived through empirical observation
• Idealist culture: an ideal combination of the above two

These three types succeed one another in cycles. Two key principles: the main thrust for change comes from within the system itself, and there is a definite limit to change in any given direction, once a culture reaches its limit, it reverses direction.

D. Conflict Theory of Social Change (Marx)

For Marx, class struggle is the motor of social change. Five stages of historical materialism correspond to five modes of production: Primitive Communism → Ancient Slavery → Feudalism → Capitalism → Communism. Each transition is driven by the contradiction between the forces of production (technology, labour power) and the relations of production (who owns what). When these contradictions reach a critical point, conflict erupts and the old order is overthrown. Economic determinism: the material base (economic structure) determines the superstructure (politics, law, religion, culture).

Weber agreed that conflict can be productive and drives change, but rejected economic determinism. For Weber, cultural forces (particularly religious ideas like the Protestant ethic) can independently drive social change: the spirit of capitalism was born not from economics but from Calvinist theology.

E. Diffusionist Theory

Developed by Robert Redfield, M. Singer, and McKim Marriott. The source of change is outside the society: change begins through cultural contact. Cultural contact can lead to: assimilation (America, the melting pot); acculturation (India: Westernisation); or rejection (many tribal communities). Diffusionism challenges the evolutionary assumption that every society must discover things independently: most cultural traits spread through contact, not independent invention.

F. Mal-Integration Theory

Associated with Neil Smelser and R.K. Merton. Over time, dysfunctions and incompatibilities accumulate within the social system, causing structural strain. This structural strain produces collective mobilisation and social movements, which eventually produce social change. This theory bridges structural functionalism and conflict theory.

G. Cultural Lag Theory (Ogburn and Nimkoff)

Culture is divided into two parts: material culture (technology and other material goods) and non-material culture (values, beliefs, religion, family, education, also called "adaptive culture"). Non-material culture changes more slowly than material culture. The gap between them, cultural lag, produces social problems. Example: reproductive technology has advanced faster than social norms around surrogacy and parenthood.

Critique by Y. Singh: this theory is not applicable in India because of the non-existence of indigenous material culture like technology, India absorbed Western technology rather than developing it domestically, creating a different kind of lag.

H. Modernisation Theory

Associated with Daniel Lerner, Marion Levy, Wilbert Moore, and David McClelland. Modernisation theory holds that certain broad patterns emerge as societies modernise: regardless of starting point: agriculture gives way to industry; traditional healthcare is replaced by Western medicine; primitive agriculture is replaced by technical agriculture; family transitions from extended to nuclear. The pattern is universal and unilinear.

Critique: Broad patterns are not visible in Afro-Asian nations. Most Middle Eastern nations have industrialised without becoming democratic. The theory is culturally biased toward Western models of development.

I. Convergence Theory

Associated with Clark Kerr, Dunlop, and Harbison. Because of similar stimuli (science and technology, industrialisation, secularism, modern education) modernising societies acquire uniform features. They tend to converge on similar lines irrespective of their starting points: communist societies eventually come to resemble capitalist ones and vice versa as they industrialise.

Critique (shared with modernisation theory): too simplistic; Western bias (value-loaded); ignores the persistence of cultural diversity.

J. World Systems Theory (Immanuel Wallerstein)

Wallerstein explains social change from a global and historical perspective. He categorises economies into: Core (developed countries, high-end technology and manufacturing); Semi-Periphery (middle-income countries that serve as buffers); Periphery (underdeveloped countries: suppliers of raw materials and cheap labour). The modern world system (post-WW2) is neo-imperialist in nature. Core countries develop high-end products that keep periphery countries dependent. This is perpetuated by MNCs, the IMF, the World Bank, and by elites living in periphery countries who benefit from the arrangement.

K. Dependency Theory

Developed in the late 1950s under the guidance of Raul Prebisch of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America. Prebisch's observation: economic growth in advanced industrialised countries did not lead to growth in poorer countries, instead it often produced serious economic problems there. His explanation: poor countries export primary commodities; rich countries manufacture products from those commodities and sell them back at higher prices. The value added by manufacturing always exceeds the value of primary inputs: so poorer countries can never earn enough from exports to pay for imports.

Andre Gunder Frank: Underdevelopment is not a transitional stage but a permanent condition produced by the relationship between centre and periphery: the "development of underdevelopment." The capitalist system enforces a rigid international division of labour. Dependent states supply cheap minerals, agricultural commodities, and labour, and serve as repositories for surplus capital and obsolescent technologies.

Samir Amin: Distinguished between auto-centric (self-generating) accumulation in the core and extraverted accumulation in the periphery. The periphery suffers three distortions: a bias toward export activities absorbing major capital; a bias toward tertiary activities; and a bias toward light industrial branches. His solution: peripheral countries must "delink" from the global system, compelling it to adjust to their needs rather than unilaterally adjusting to the core's needs.

Lenin (Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism): Imperialism is moribund capitalism: it results in exploitation of colonial peoples; produces war between nations through competition for markets and territories; and ultimately brings about the end of capitalism itself through the arming of workers in national wars that become class wars.

Core propositions of dependency theory: Underdevelopment is fundamentally different from un-development (unused resources). Poorer countries are not "behind": they were coercively integrated into the European economic system as producers of raw materials, denied the opportunity to develop independently. Dependency is maintained not just by powerful states but also by elites within dependent states whose private interests coincide with those of dominant states.

Critique of dependency theories: Few empirical examples; newly industrialised countries of South-East Asia do not fit the core-periphery model. The categories "developed" and "underdeveloped" are overly homogenising: India, Brazil, and Mexico are very different from each other. Ties with MNCs can serve as means of technology transfer. The theories do not reflect changed contemporary conditions (rich nations are now closing borders to trade). There is an inability to think beyond the state as primary agent of development.

Education and Social Change

Education helps in changing the basic outlook of a person towards society. It changes established patterns of social relationships, attitudes, and values: and through these, the structure of society itself.

Objectives of Education

• Pursuit of self-knowledge and knowledge of the universe
• Building bridges between past and future
• Accelerating human progress; developing critical thinking and tolerance for diverse ideas
• Integral growth of personality: intelligence, skill, creativity
• Development of both the individual and society; generating harmony and peace
• Creating favourable attitudes to skill acquisition and upgradation
• Bringing change in gender equality

Sociological Perspectives on Education

Functionalist view: Education serves several functions for society: socialisation (Durkheim: "schools are socialization agencies that teach children how to get along with others and prepare them for adult economic roles"); social integration; social placement (upward mobility); cultural innovation. Latent functions include childcare, peer relationship formation, and keeping school-age youth out of the full-time labour force.

Conflict view (Bourdieu, Gramsci, Althusser): Education promotes social inequality through the use of tracking, standardised testing, and the "hidden curriculum": a set of values and beliefs that support the status quo and the existing social hierarchy. Pierre Bourdieu: like economic capital, cultural capital (cultural taste, knowledge, patterns of speech, clothing, etiquette) is difficult and time-consuming to acquire, and the education system rewards those who already possess it, reproducing class privilege. Gramsci: the majoritarian state's ideological hegemony may be transferred to pupils through the school system. Althusser: education functions as an Ideological State Apparatus, propagating the dominant class's ideology.

Symbolic Interactionist view: Focuses on social interaction in the classroom and playground. Studies show playground activities reinforce gender-role socialisation (girls tend to play more cooperative games; boys play more competitive sports: Thorne, 1993). Labelling theory in action: low standardised test scores or poor class performance lead to a student being labelled as a low achiever, a label that is difficult to shake off, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton). Credentialism: emphasis on certificates and degrees as symbols of achievement and competence, enabling labelling and status allocation.

Critical perspectives on Indian education:

• Karuna Ahmad (1974): Formal education can bring "ideational" change (transformation of knowledge, attitudes, and values), but its effectiveness in bringing about structural changes is extremely limited because of the linkages between educational practices and vested interests of the status quo. Structural changes are more likely to be brought in by politico-economic factors.
• A.R. Desai: Education has not been purposively geared after independence to obtain the desired changes. Policies and funding have failed to attain the goals of social mobility and equality.
• Pierre Bourdieu: Cultural reproduction benefits only the top classes. Corroborated by MM Tumin: top classes have a culture of excellence that self-perpetuates.
• Tawney (Tadpole Theory): Only the "top of the bottom" (the most talented among disadvantaged groups) get state sponsorship; the rest are left behind.
• Sachchidananda, The Harijan Elite (1977): reservation and education produce a small elite that escapes its class without transforming the class as a whole.

Educational divides in India: Caste-related divide; gender (girls are undereducated and undernourished, leading to poor academic outcomes); class divide; religion (Sachar Committee, Ranganath Mishra Committee: Muslims denied entry in some schools); taboo-based exclusion (children of HIV patients, sex workers).

PESTEL analysis of changes education brings: Political change (values for democracy, rights, duties); economic change (more employment, less burden on agriculture); social change (literacy, health awareness, decreased superstition); environmental change (awareness for conservation: Chipko movement); technological change (improved access to education, better communication media); ideological change (anti-superstition movements in Maharashtra).

New Education Policy 2020

India's third education policy (after 1968 and 1986), released in 2020 after a 34-year gap. Drafted by the committee chaired by K. Kasturirangan (draft 2019) and approved in July 2020, it is aligned with SDG4 of the 2030 Agenda: "inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all."

Key structural changes: Replaces the 10+2 structure with a 5+3+3+4 structure, incorporating children from age 3 into the formal education system (Early Childhood Care and Education). The four stages are: Foundational (3-8 years), Preparatory (8-11 years), Middle (11-14 years), Secondary (14-18 years).

Key reforms:

• Foundational Literacy and Numeracy mission: every child to attain basic reading and arithmetic by Grade 3
• Teaching in mother tongue / regional language up to at least Class 5 (preferably Grade 8)
• Three-language formula to continue; Sanskrit offered at all levels; coding introduced in Middle Stage
• Board exams for Grades 10 and 12 retained but reformed to eliminate coaching dependency; students can take board exams on up to two occasions per year
• Assessment shifts from summative to formative; 360-degree holistic progress cards including self-assessment, peer assessment, and teacher assessment
• Elimination of rigid science-commerce-arts stream separation: students can combine history and physics in Class 11 and 12
• Multiple entry and exit points in higher education (certificate after 1 year, diploma after 2, bachelor's after 3, bachelor's with research after 4)
• Academic Bank of Credit for digitally storing and transferring academic credits
• GER in higher education to increase from 26.3% (2018-19) to 50% by 2035
• National Research Foundation (NRF) to fund and facilitate quality research
• Single overarching body for higher education: Higher Education Commission of India (HECI)
• Public investment in education to increase to 6% of GDP
• By 2025, at least 50% of learners to have exposure to vocational education

Critique of NEP 2020: Increased emphasis on mother tongue may impede the progress of marginalised sections by restricting their access to English and thus to employment. Phasing out college affiliations in 15 years may lead to corporatisation of education. Overwhelming reliance on online education is problematic: only 9.85% of government schools have a functional computer (UDISE+). Primary reasons for dropping out (child marriage, child labour) remain unaddressed. No clarity on whether the 6% GDP figure refers to public funds or includes private investment. Digital divide will deepen for rural and poor communities lacking internet access.

Science, Technology and Social Change

Science and technology are central drivers of change in modern society. Key debates:

Technological Determinism: Technology is the autonomous, primary cause of social change. Changes in technology inevitably reshape social organisation, culture, and values. Ogburn's Cultural Lag theory is in this tradition. Marshall McLuhan: "The medium is the message", technological changes in communication fundamentally transform social consciousness.

Social Shaping of Technology: Technology is not autonomous: it is shaped by social, political, and economic interests. Who funds research determines what gets invented. Feminist critique: technology has been developed mainly by men, reflecting masculine values and often reinforcing gender inequality (reproductive technologies, surveillance technologies).

Postmodernist critique of science (Lyotard): Science is just another metanarrative, not privileged over other forms of knowledge. Modern science is increasingly abstract (quantum mechanics, chaos theory) and funded by vested interests. The credibility of "value-free" science is itself a social construction that legitimises powerful interests.

Risk Society, the Pandemic and the Social Responsibility of Science

Ulrich Beck (Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, 1986, English 1992) argued that industrial modernity is giving way to a risk society, whose central problem is no longer only the distribution of wealth but the distribution of risks produced by modernisation itself: nuclear accidents, chemical pollution, climate change and new diseases. The book appeared in the year of the Chernobyl disaster.

• Manufactured risks: unlike natural hazards, these are created by science and technology. Giddens (Runaway World, 1999) contrasted manufactured risk with external risk.
• Global and boomerang effects: risks cross borders and classes and return to those who produced them. Beck wrote that "poverty is hierarchic, smog is democratic", though in practice the poor are more exposed.
• Reflexive modernisation: science both creates risks and is needed to detect them, so experts lose their monopoly and society must question science.
• Organised irresponsibility: states, firms and experts diffuse blame so that no one is held accountable.

Science, Technology and the Pandemic

Science as rescuer: the genome of the new coronavirus was shared within weeks, and vaccines were developed within a year. India produced Covishield (Serum Institute, with Oxford-AstraZeneca) and Covaxin (Bharat Biotech with ICMR), began vaccination on 16 January 2021 and gave more than 200 crore doses through the CoWIN platform. Telemedicine (eSanjeevani), online education, digital payments and work from home kept society running.

At the mercy of its own creations: the virus spread along global air networks, zoonotic spillovers are linked to ecological disruption, and an "infodemic" of misinformation spread on social media. The lockdown announced on 24 March 2020 triggered the exodus of migrant workers, the second wave of 2021 exposed oxygen shortages, online schooling excluded children without devices, and rich countries secured vaccines first. These outcomes reflected social organisation and inequality more than the limits of science.

Social Responsibility of Science

J.D. Bernal (The Social Function of Science, 1939) argued that science should be organised to meet human needs. After Hiroshima, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto (1955) and the Pugwash Conferences (from 1957) called on scientists to answer for the uses of their work. In India, Nehru championed the "scientific temper", which the 42nd Amendment (1976) made a fundamental duty under Article 51A(h), and the Scientific Policy Resolution (1958) tied science to the removal of poverty.

Science and backwardness in developing societies: the Green Revolution ended food shortages but widened gaps between regions and classes and depleted Punjab's groundwater. Satellite communication, Operation Flood and the eradication of polio (India was certified polio-free in 2014) show science reducing backwardness. Yet technology designed without attention to society can exclude the poor, as when failures of biometric authentication denied rations to entitled families. Sheila Jasanoff's call for "technologies of humility" (2003) asks that the governance of science include public participation, attention to the vulnerable and honesty about uncertainty.

Assessment: humanity is not simply at the mercy of nature or technology. Science supplies the means to face crises such as COVID-19, but whether its benefits reach everyone depends on social institutions, equity and democratic control.

Globalisation and Social Change

Globalisation refers to the process of increasing interconnection between societies across the world in which distant events have increasing effects on local life and vice versa (Giddens). It operates across multiple dimensions: economic (integration of markets, MNCs, WTO); political (rise of international institutions: UN, World Bank, IMF); cultural (spread of global consumer culture, McDonaldization); communicational (internet, social media, electronic networks); and ecological (global environmental risks, climate change).

Three positions on globalisation (Held and McGrew):

• Globalists / Hyperglobalists: globalisation transforms the economy and global politics fundamentally; the nation-state is declining; a new global order is emerging
• Sceptics: nothing is fundamentally new; international trade and migration have existed for centuries; people maintain strong national identities; the state remains central
• Transformationalists: globalisation is real but its trajectory is uncertain; it may change direction or be reversed; it is bringing diverse people together, which can become a source of both cooperation and conflict

Leslie Sklair (Sociology of the Global System): Transnational practices include: economic (transnational corporations), political (capitalist-inspired politicians), and cultural-ideological (consumerism spread globally). Globalisation has mostly negative impacts: class polarisation and ecological unsustainability.

Impact on social change: Globalisation accelerates the pace of social change; spreads Western values, consumer culture, and democratic norms globally; creates new forms of inequality (digital divide, global class polarisation); undermines traditional cultures and produces identity anxieties that fuel nationalism, religious revivalism, and fundamentalism; and generates new collective risks (environmental crises, pandemics, financial contagion) that require collective responses beyond the nation-state.

Sustainable Development, the SDGs and Corporate Social Responsibility

The Brundtland Commission's report Our Common Future (1987) defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". It joined two ideas: priority for the needs of the world's poor, and the limits that technology and social organisation place on the environment's ability to meet them. The Rio Earth Summit (1992) adopted Agenda 21, and the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) set eight goals mainly for developing countries.

On 25 September 2015 the UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets. Its elements:

• Three integrated dimensions: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection, treated as indivisible.
• Five Ps: people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership.
• Leave no one behind: reaching the furthest behind first, which requires data disaggregated by income, gender, age and disability.
• Universality: unlike the MDGs, the goals apply to rich and poor countries alike.
• The goals: social (no poverty, zero hunger, health, education, gender equality, water and sanitation), economic (clean energy, decent work, industry and infrastructure, reduced inequality, sustainable cities), environmental (responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, life on land) and institutional (peace, justice and strong institutions, partnerships). India tracks progress through NITI Aayog's SDG India Index, first published in 2018.

Sociological debate: ecological modernisation theorists hold that technology and markets can decouple growth from environmental damage. Allan Schnaiberg's "treadmill of production" (1980) argues that capitalism's drive for constant growth rules this out without structural change. Ramachandra Guha and Joan Martinez-Alier (Varieties of Environmentalism, 1997) describe an "environmentalism of the poor", for whom forests and water are matters of livelihood, as in Chipko and the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

Corporate Social Responsibility

CSR is the idea that business has obligations to society beyond profit. Archie Carroll's pyramid (1991) ranks economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities, and John Elkington's "triple bottom line" (1994) asks firms to account for people and planet as well as profit. Milton Friedman (1970), by contrast, held that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Section 135 of India's Companies Act 2013, in force from April 2014, made India one of the first countries to mandate CSR spending: companies with a net worth of Rs 500 crore, turnover of Rs 1,000 crore or net profit of Rs 5 crore must spend at least 2 per cent of their average net profit of the previous three years on activities listed in Schedule VII, which include environmental sustainability.

Relevance amid environmental crises: CSR can fund afforestation, water conservation, renewable energy and clean-up, and pushes firms to measure their environmental impact. Critics see much of it as greenwashing: spending clusters in industrialised states and safe fields, and philanthropy does not offset harm from a firm's core business. In the Niyamgiri case (2013) the Supreme Court left the Vedanta-linked bauxite mining project to the gram sabhas of the Dongria Kondh, all of which rejected it, showing that community rights and regulation matter more than voluntary goodwill.

Civil Society Organisations and Grassroots Change

Civil society organisations occupy the space between family, market and state: non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community-based organisations, self-help groups (SHGs), cooperatives and people's movements. Working close to communities, they act as agents of change from below.

• Organising the poor: the Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA), founded by Ela Bhatt in Ahmedabad in 1972, organised informal women workers into a union, cooperatives and a bank.
• Credit and empowerment through SHGs: NABARD's SHG-Bank Linkage Programme (1992), Kerala's Kudumbashree (1998) and the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (2011) gave poor women savings, credit, collective voice and a route into panchayat politics.
• Rights and accountability: the public hearings of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan in Rajasthan led to the Right to Information Act 2005, and civil society campaigns shaped the rural employment guarantee law (2005), the Forest Rights Act (2006) and the National Food Security Act (2013). Social audits of MGNREGA expose corruption.
• Service and innovation: Pratham's Annual Status of Education Reports (since 2005) measure learning, and Barefoot College at Tilonia trains rural women as solar engineers.

Limitations: James Ferguson (The Anti-Politics Machine, 1990) showed how development agencies turn political questions of power into technical problems, and Sangeeta Kamat (2002) described the "NGO-isation" of movements as professional, donor-funded bodies replace mass mobilisation. SHGs can add to women's burdens and suffer elite capture, and the Andhra Pradesh microfinance crisis (2010) showed the dangers of commercial lending. Partha Chatterjee (The Politics of the Governed, 2004) notes that most of the poor deal with the state through "political society" rather than formal civil society.

Civil Society and Science and Technology Policy in India

Indian science policy, from the Scientific Policy Resolution (1958) to the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (2013), was framed mainly by scientists and the state. Civil society has pressed for science that serves the people and for public scrutiny of technology:

• People's science movements: the Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (1962) spread science in Malayalam under the slogan "science for social revolution" and led the campaign that saved Silent Valley, declared a national park in 1984. The All India People's Science Network (1988) followed.
• Technology assessment: public consultations led to the moratorium on Bt brinjal in 2010, and protests at Kudankulam questioned nuclear safety.
• Knowledge and patents: challenges by CSIR and civil society groups led to the revocation of patents on turmeric (1997) and neem (2000), and health activists backed section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which the Supreme Court applied in Novartis v. Union of India (2013) to refuse a patent on a cancer drug.
• Accountability: survivors' groups after the Bhopal gas disaster (1984) keep corporate and state responsibility for industrial hazards before the public.

Patriarchy, Gender Division of Labour and Development

Sylvia Walby (Theorising Patriarchy, 1990) defines patriarchy as a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women. Through the gender division of labour it assigns paid, public and valued work mainly to men and unpaid care and domestic work mainly to women. Social development, measured by health, education, freedom and equality, is held back when half the population is confined in this way.

• Development can marginalise women: Ester Boserup (Woman's Role in Economic Development, 1970) showed that in African shifting cultivation women did much of the farming, but colonial and modernising policies gave men land titles, cash crops, training and technology, pushing women into less productive work.
• From WID to GAD: the Women in Development approach of the 1970s sought to add women to projects. Women and Development, drawing on Marxist feminism, stressed women's place in global capitalism. Gender and Development, from the 1980s, targets power relations between women and men. Caroline Moser distinguished practical gender needs (water, income) from strategic gender needs (land rights, freedom from violence), and the Beijing conference (1995) adopted gender mainstreaming.
• Missing women: Amartya Sen ("More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing", 1990) traced excess female mortality in South Asia and China to son preference and neglect of girls. India's child sex ratio fell to its lowest level since Independence in Census 2011, prompting Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (2015) and stricter enforcement of the PCPNDT Act (1994, amended 2003).
• Unpaid care: the first national Time Use Survey (2019) found Indian women spending about three times as long as men on unpaid domestic work, which limits their paid work, schooling and leisure and goes unrecorded in GDP.
• Assets and bargaining power: Bina Agarwal (A Field of One's Own, 1994) argued that land rights strengthen women's bargaining power within the household. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 made daughters coparceners.

Does women's education end patriarchal discrimination?

• In part: education delays marriage, lowers fertility and child mortality and strengthens women's voice. Dyson and Moore (1983) linked the greater autonomy of women in south India to better demographic outcomes, and educated women have led campaigns against dowry and violence.
• Not by itself: women's paid work in India stayed low even as girls' schooling rose, consistent with Claudia Goldin's U-shaped curve of female labour force participation. Education can be valued as a marriage asset, and dowry often rises with the groom's education. Leela Dube showed how girls are raised as temporary members of their natal home. Kerala combines high female literacy with dowry, low female employment and gender violence.

Assessment: patriarchy and development shape each other. Education reduces discrimination most when it goes with changes in property, work, law and the sharing of care.