Nov. 2008, Volume 5, No.6 (Serial No.

43) Journal of US-China Public Administration, ISSN1548-6591, USA

Ambiguities of social transformation: A critical framework for the concept

Kubilay Akman
(University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep TR 27310, Turkey)

Abstract: All the conceptualizations regarding to societies inevitably have been determined, or at least
motivated by ideological processes, through the apparatus professionalized on the ideological reproduction of the
social structure (Althusser). The core question of this paper is scrutinizing the particular ideological contexts
under which the “social transformation” concept has grown. The critical conceptual archeology on social
transformation will seaway to a discussion of two other related concepts: development and globalization. It is still
ambiguous whether social transformation discussions will take the ex-position of the developmental approach, or
instead be a critical alternative to the neo-liberal ideas in social sciences of the 21st century. If the concept is taken
literally, we can possibly never see a society which does not experience a “transformation” in “social” terms at all.
Societies have always been transformed through social processes. However, as an independent concept it appeared
in a particular contextual basis. This same multi-dimensional context was the driving force behind UNESCO’s
organization of the MOST (Management of Social Transformations) Program. This paper can be considered a
theoretical framework focusing on social transformation as defined through the examination of its principal
ideologies and the study of the concept’s reproduction through international institutions.
Key words: social transformation; development; globalization; anti-globalization; neo-liberalism

1. Introduction

The Management of Social Transformation (MOST) Programme of UNESCO was launched in March 1994,
promoting “a culture of evidence-based policy-making” in the national, regional and international levels and with
the purpose of “producing reliable and relevant knowledge for policy makers”. MOST was declared as “the only
UNESCO programme that fosters and promotes social science research” and was placed in a pivotal position in
the overall promotion of UNESCO’s goals. This programme also launched a growing social scientific concept,
“social transformation” which was candidate the ex-position of “development” and accepted as an alternative to
the neo-liberal politics of globalization. Concepts are not born without connection, relation or contiguity with
other social and theoretical factors on a particular historical, economic, social and ideological basis. Scientific
concepts, especially in social sciences, are produced under the multi-dimensional influences of the overall
ideological atmosphere of the age. When we discuss the concept of “social transformation”, we should consider
that this concept has been produced and is still reproducing in the ideological streams of the 90’s and 2000’s. The
terminology of previous decades became exiguous when the globalization process spread local economic, social
and cultural practices around the world. This paper argues that social transformation in the ideological context
effected its production with the inter-connection among social transformation, development and globalization.
Before going further, it is up to now to summarize the history of the concept.

Kubilay Akman, assistant professor at University of Gaziantep, editor of Euro Art Web-Magazine; research fields: social theory,
sociology of art, aesthetics, sociology of literature and cultural studies.

23
 Ambiguities of social transformation: A critical framework for the concept

2. Social transformation: A newborn concept

Throughout history, all societies have transformed in different dimensions. A society, by definition, is
constantly transforming from one situation to another as evidenced through shifts in their social, cultural,
ideological and artistic elements. The teleological approaches in social sciences as indicated on the logos of
socio-historical process, directs societies to move through a pre-determined route that we can only foresee with
the proper methodology. The 19th century marked the development of several of these social science concepts:
Marxism and Positivism could be two typical examples which continued, in new forms, into the 20th century.
Actually, there is no significant theoretical approach that denies the transformation of societies. However, when
we mention “social transformation” as a newborn concept, we are referring to something more than the literal
meaning of these two words. It is a multi-dimensional concept based on studies in the last century of a broad
range of relevant fields like economic literature and sociology. One of the defining characteristics of social
transformation is that it does not stipulate specific societal changes, thus protecting it from the handicaps of some
other developmental theories which are impaired of a usual optimistic trust to the general route of societies that
takes its way in a positive direction (Castles, 2000). It could be asked whether it is problematic to call social
transformation “newborn” since it was first described in the late-20th century. This paper would like to emphasize
that concepts are produced through a long-term process that takes many years, sometimes centuries. It could be
said that “social transformation” is not a completed scientific term, but rather a concept still in its infant stages.
Although it has not been designed as the “anti” discourse of development studies, there is a rejection of
developmental theories in social transformation concept, as it does not have a teleological approach and belief to
positive-determinist progression especially expressed with quantitative values. One of the concept’s key
components can be viewed as a critique of globalization, despite globalization’s dialectically arable field. As
Stephen Castles (2000) emphasizes “social transformation implies an underlying notion of the way society and
culture change in response to such factors as economic growth, war or political upheavals” and it is not newly
invented. However, he suggests “using social transformation in a new, more specific sense”. This new and more
specific sense seems to be a conscious disconnection from its past. According to Castles it should be established
“as an analytical framework which is particularly relevant to the current historical period. In other words, social
transformation studies could be seen as a new inter-disciplinary paradigm which we wish to develop”. “Paradigm”
is the word that best explains social transformation’s separation from “development”, allowing for its analysis as a
new concept able to respond to the needs of a global age. A new period of the world required a new approach, and
this approach emerged as the realization that social transformation is possible.
Social transformation studies emerge as a research field that can lead to theorizing positive social and
political actions to protect locals and communities against the negative consequences of the globalization process
(Castles, 2000). Conversely, transformation does not always equate to positive social change for ethnical, cultural,
environmental or gender issues; sometimes it can come as “a high intensity of exposure to various risks” (Genov,
1999). Because of this, we could consider “social transformation” as a controlled-moderated way of change by the
authorities. This affects all types of societies, developed and less-developed regions, in the contexts of economic
globalization and cultural relations, while globalization is leading to new forms of social differentiation through
international and national levels. The analysis of social transformation can no longer be limited by the level of
development in various countries, as social problems are becoming global problems. Within the context of a
border-less world, macro-social forces and local traditions are converging. The neo-liberal interpretation of

24
 Ambiguities of social transformation: A critical framework for the concept

globalization can be criticized by the new concept and start new forms of “globalization from below” (Castles,
2000). However, the biggest handicap for this purpose is present at its inception. Let us remember the aim of the
MOST programme was to provide knowledge to the “policy-makers” or “decision-makers”. Clearly, the
programme is not focusing on the peoples of the world. When a concept is promoted for the “policy-makers”, it’s
becoming an alternative “from below” would be pretty vulnerable. This is perhaps the Achilles’ heel of the
concept, in spite of its transcending the economic-quantitative restraint of the developmental schools. Thanks to
Michel Foucault (Foucault, 1980), today we are keenly aware of the deep connections between power and
knowledge. The statement on “social transformation” by the official authority, MOST can be perceived as a direct
sample of the relations between power and knowledge, a contradiction to the democratic emphasis of the concept.
Now let us focus on the notion of “ideological state apparatus” and its possible effect over the development
of our particular concept.

3. Ideological changes and “apparatuses”

The literature on ideology is extensive and unnecessary to examine here. This paper will borrow examples
exclusive to Althussher’s theoretical thesis regarding to ideology for its power to explain the production of
ideology as a material process. In this context, the verb “borrow” is preferred consciously for two reasons: First,
the thesis of Althusser is not located in a Marxist composition in this paper; second, the concept of ideology is
disconnected from the general structuralist methodology of the author.
Before Althusser, in Marxist tradition, ideology was considered a reflection of infrastructure. Gramsci had
opened the way to Althusserian ideology theory through his concept of “hegemony”. Arguably, the enormous
endeavor of Althusser was a true revolution in Marxist theory, and with his contribution ideology shifted from the
transcendental field of philosophy to a more sociological ground. He was focusing on the empirical production of
ideology, rather than philosophical abstractions.
Althusser (2001) showed that ideologies in modern societies were produced by an apparatus structuralized on
this field as a sociological process and that also made the superstructure a mechanism work practically, like the
infrastructure. Although Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) are spread mostly in private domains, some are in
the public domain, reproducing the ideologies of societies which are integral to the system’s survival. For example,
religious, educational, family, legal, political, communicational and cultural ISAs (Althusser, 2001).
In this particular context, defining the MOST programme and its many related institutions, research centers
and media as ideological state apparatus would be too problematic and schematic for two reasons: Firstly, it seems
social transformation programmes have the potential to belong to people if social activists silence the authorities
by taking more initiative. A project aimed primarily at policy-makers could be more democratic if the citizens in
these societies could take over the policy-maker roles. Secondly, the discourse regarding to social transformation
and the concerned institutions are usually transnational and not based on particular states. However, in this
paradigmatic channel that opened, we witness some states that have organized national ministries for social
transformation.
Global challenges provide the basis for the concept of social transformation. If we mention any ideological
apparatus, it may be more correct to talk about global ideological apparatuses that transcend state borders, thus
carrying ideological production to a higher level. However, again, it remains to be determined whether this
concept will be a justification of global power by these apparatuses or an effective alternative allowing

25
 Ambiguities of social transformation: A critical framework for the concept

self-governance.
The ideological needs of an era inevitably effect a concept’s creation. When we compare “development” and
“social transformation”, it is very clear how these are effective. The developmental discourse and concept was
produced in a decolonization context after 1945, in and grew during the competition between capitalist and
communist systems (Castles, 2000). The Soviet Bloc was “exporting” revolutions in the Third World, while the
western powers promoted a development described with quantitative and economy-centered terms. The related
social sciences literature was written in this general atmosphere. Past colonies should become “developing”
countries if following the western model. This concept completed the transition and rise of the colonies’ new
international politics over their old rulers. The Soviets were using multiple vehicles to spread anti-American ideas
and broaden the influence of the communist system: Local communist parties, international organizations and
even collaboration with many anti-imperialist, non-communist powers.
After the Soviet Empire collapsed, the bipolarized world became unipolarized. Although, unpolarized may be
a more accurate description of the world’s state, as it quickly lost its center and a new all-encompassing “empire”
emerged. Concrete identities have since dissolved with this globalization, or at least, this process speeded up
through the deepening of global mobilization.

4. Globalization: Is it the socio-economic basis for “social transformation”

The social sciences discussion of globalization most closely corresponded to the period when the Soviet Bloc
was collapsing and the years immediately following this event. Although the idea that we were entering a new age
became more popular, some felt differently. For example, according to Paul Sweezy there was an exaggeration
about “globalization” in the last years of the 20th century. Sweezy (1997) claimed that “globalization is not a
condition or a phenomenon: It is a process that has been going on for a long time, in fact ever since capitalism
came into the world as a viable form of society four or five centuries ago .... What is relevant and important, is to
understand that capitalism is in its innermost essence an expanding system both internally and externally. Once
rooted, it both grows and spreads...”. So, today maybe we can focus on the acceleration of the expanding of
capitalism, rather than a new phase called as “globalization”.
Samir Amin also opposes the general ideas regarding to globalization. Amin emphasizes that imperialism is
inherent in capitalism’s expansion from its inception. Imperialistic conquest of the world by Europeans and their
North American children was carried out in two phases and is now probably entering a third one. The first phase
of this devastating progress of capitalism was the conquest of the Americas, the result of which was the
destruction of the Indian civilizations and their Hispanicization-Christianization, or genocide of native people on
which the United States were built. The second phase of imperialist capitalism sprang from the industrial
revolution as evidenced in the colonial subjection of Asia and Africa, “to open the markets” for European
economies and to seize the world’s natural resources were the real motives of colonization. According to Amin
“today we see the beginnings of a third wave of devastation of the world by imperialist expansion, encouraged by
the collapse of the Soviet system and of the regimes of populist nationalism in the Third World. The objectives of
dominant capital are still the same—the control of the expansion of markets, the looting of the earth’s natural
resources, the superexploitation of the labor reserves in the periphery—although they are being pursued in
conditions that are new and in some respects very different from those that characterized the preceding phase of
imperialism”. From this point of view, despite many differences, the new phase is still imperialism proving no

26
 Ambiguities of social transformation: A critical framework for the concept

radical break in the continuity of capitalist systems.

Literature on globalization is plentiful, with many approaches to the subject outlined and analyzed. Among
all of them, Jagdish Bhagwati is one of the most outspoken and ambitious supporters of globalism. Bhagwati is
defending globalization and believes that it already has a “human face” (2003). He claims that economic
globalization gives all people the opportunity to improve their quality of life. “Women’s rights” is one of the
examples he sites. Against the feminist critique of globalization, Bhagawati (2003) says that the globalizing
economy is allowing women around the world to witness other cultures’ improved life conditions that they can
then try to effect in their own environment. However, millions of protesters or criticizers of globalization do not
agree with this opinion. They believe that globalization is reproducing poverty, ecologic problems and human
repression. Many protests voiced by anti-globalization members are rooted in qualitative changes for society. In
this respect, they remind us of sustainability and social transformation concepts.
Globalization creates problems as well as possibilities. Opposition to economic globalization is also sites the
possibilities offered by the same process. While the social transformation concept is trying to convert the chaos
into an order with regulations in technology, economy, culture, education and other related fields, the radical
criticizers, especially the most radical ones, aim to reach a “positive anarchy” from chaos. Many young radicals,
especially those activists at the center of the anti-globalization movements, call themselves anarchists. “For
contemporary young radical activists, anarchism means a decentralized organizational structure, based on affinity
groups that work together on an ad hoc basis and decision-making by consensus. It also means egalitarianism,
opposition to all hierarchies, suspicion of authority, especially that of the state, and commitment to living
according to one’s values. ... For them, anarchism is important mainly as an organizational structure and as a
commitment to egalitarianism. It is a form of politics that revolves around the exposure of the truth rather than
strategy. It is a politics decidedly in the moment” (Epstein, 2001). The new activists are sometimes uncomfortable
being called an “anti-globalization” movement as they are among the most globalized people in the world,
preferring to be referred to as anti-capitalists against the neo-liberal version of globalization or “market
fundamentalism” (Graeber, 2002). They are also internationalists like members of past social movements. “There
is one striking contrast between this and earlier internationalisms, however. The former usually ended up
exporting western organizational models to the rest of the world; now, the flow has, if anything, reversed. Many,
perhaps most, of the movement’s signature techniques including mass nonviolent civil disobedience were first
developed in the global South. In the long run, this may well prove the single most radical thing about it” (Graeber,
2002). They are promoting their concept of social transformation with action, a concept sharing intersections with
another long-standing concept: social revolution.

5. Conclusion

From where we stand, the future of social transformation is quite ambiguous. Will it be out-dated in a couple
of years? Will it take a permanent place in the social sciences literature? It is believed that actual and practical
effects of a concept are much more important than its conceptual life story. Perhaps the question to ask is, will the
concept of social transformation be the crucial medium of a significant social transformation with positive effects
for our planet—the same planet we are currently devastating with our own hands? Authorities have power, but
individuals grouped into societies can enact for bigger and more detailed changes. The institutions and scholars

(to be continued on Page 35)

27