Society Development –  Military VS Industry

Society Development
Society Development

Society Development

Society Development
Society Development

The Military Society Development

Military Society is any system of society in which the military wields a dominant or persistent role. Its main characteristics may be noted below:

Organization for Offensive and Defensive Military Action:

The militant society development is a kind in which organization for offensive and defensive military action is prime. It is the society in which the army is the nation mobilized and the whole nation is regarded as a silent army. Here, the entire structure of society is molded into the military structure. It imitates a military organization.

Centralized Pattern of Authority and Social Control:

Here the head of the military is also the head of politics. He has the authority to control the kingdom and the property of all his subjects. Complete control of the leader makes it possible for a powerful, direct, and strong position in the community. Officials at each level fully comply with the above. Spencer wrote: “They are all slaves of the highest and the few of the lowest.”

Rigid Social Classes:

This rigid grading of power essentially involves a rigid grading of social ranks. Hence it gives escalation to unyielding social classes in an economic lifetime. The distribution of property, and the distribution of material rewards in society, are meticulously linked with the order of social ranks.

Religious Beliefs and Doctrines relating to the Hierarchical Power of Gods:

This authoritarian and graded nature of the society is also reproduced in the dominant system of ideas and beliefs. There exists a set of doctrines, myths, and rituals that portray a supernatural authority and government. The gods are also visualized in standings of a hierarchy of power. The religion itself is a hierarchical organization, and the Sacred Head himself owns superlative, tyrannical buff. In such a society, t despotic head is, at the same time, not only the military and political head but also the Ecclesiastical one. His central power over government, army, and all civil and economic affairs, is hallowed and given validation by religion. Here, the societies are usually in antipathy with other societies. Thus, Spencer said: “Ever in antagonism with other societies the life is a life of enmity and the religion a religion of enmity.” Life is Subject to Rigorous Discipline: The whole tenor of life in a military society is characterized by rigorous discipline. Virtually there is no difference between public life and private life. No element of the private life of the citizen is closed to the state. The state can enter and affect the private lives of citizens whenever it is felt essential or necessary to do so. There is the lack of individual rights in the relationship between individuals and the state. Thus, the prevailing belief is – “that its members exist for the benefit of the whole and not the whole for the benefit of its members. The loyalty of the individual to the state has to be unquestioning.”

Human Relationship Based on Compulsory Co-operation:

Human relationships are characterized in this kind of society by a state of “compulsory co-operation.” Spencer, however, has not elaborated this point much. It is vibrant from the above explanation that Spencer’s “Militant type of civilization could be used as a basis of interpretation not only to the despotic societies of the ancient world but also to the totalitarian societies in the contemporary world. As Ronald Fletcher says, as a “type”, the “militant Society” Could be seen to be of extensive use for the determination of virtual societies. It is relevant to the societies of both the past and the present.

The Industrial Society Development

The concept of “Industrial society” refers to “that form of society development or any particular Society, in which industrialization and modernization has occurred. The general term “industrial society” originates from Saint Simon who chose it to reflect the emerging central role of the manufacturing industry in 18th century Europe, in contrast with the previous pre-industrial society and agrarian society.

Spencer’s “Industrial Society” is one in which military activity and organization exist but it is carried on at a distance. It takes place in the periphery of the society and the greater part of the social organization is peaceful. It focuses upon the rise and enhancement of all features. The features of “industrial society” in this way distinction powerfully with those of the “militant type.” They are briefed below

Recognition of Personal Rights:

In the industrial society, the members hold “personal rights” as citizens of the community. There is also an energetic Concern on the part of the members for the preservation of these rights. hence, they assert upon an operative means of illustrative government. Any disagreement or mutual claims and counter-claims concerning the rights are to be set here through a neutral procedure or official arrangement.

“Sustaining System” Possessing a Large Degree of Freedom:

In this society, the “sustaining system” possesses a large degree of freedom from the “regulatory system.” Here the control and governance of the economic affairs are deliberately separated from the political government. It is assumed here that the intelligent persons disturbed with their own economic activities are more capable of making their own decisions than e administrative officials. They are not only allowed but they are also actively encouraged, to do so.

Opportunity for the Growth of Free Associations and Institutions:

The growth of agriculture, commerce, and industrial manufacturing within a fixed geographic territory are given military security. The inactive atmosphere leads to the growth of free links and establishments. In all such links, forming committees, laying down rules, and dealings, conducting elections, etc. become a public practice.

A Less Rigid Class Structure:

“These factors bring about a much less rigid and less tyrannical class structure” [Ronald Fletcher – 285]. In this kind of class building, human associations become votive and free. Further, the progressions of status and rank are less surely marked. As Spencer puts it “There is a grow…..of  “combinations of workmen and employers to resolve, particular disputes, quite separately from the central authority of law.”

In the Industrial Society, Religious Organizations and Religious Beliefs Lose their Hierarchical Structure and Power:

Individual faith and sectarian discrimination enter into religion. Religion instead of working as a means of social control remains only as a matter of individual faith and commitment. Religious institutions and practices have become more and more secular in nature. Here the members of the Society do not exist for the Good of the State, but the well-being of the Individuals becomes the Supreme Objective of the Government: The doctrine that the members of the society exist for the good of the state slowly disappearing. The idea, the will, and the well-being of the individual citizens which is of supreme importance in the society prevails upon the previous one. Hence all systems of governmental control occur simply too evident their wishes and to assist them.

Awareness of the Duty to Resist Irresponsible Government:

In such a society the despotic government is considered to be inappropriate and incorrect It becomes a positive responsibility on the part of the citizens to struggle against the reckless government. “There is always a tendency to disobedience amongst minorities and individuals, and such a critical tendency 1 positively encouraged.”

 The dominance of Free and Contractual Types of Human Relationships:

It is clear from the above explanation that the “Human relationships in industrial society are, therefore, wholly different from those in the militant Society. Free, responsible, contractual relationships between individuals require voluntary cooperation, not the Compulsory co-operation which characterizes relationships in the militant type.”

Concluding Remarks

It should be noted that “Spencer did not believe that societies really existed in the world with the clear distinction of the definition he described in drawing these” examples. “Spencer believed that he introduced the two” models “to help differentiate between societies. Spencer believed that this method of segregation would help in interpreting and understanding some of the most important evolutionary processes in society. assisted Spencer in conducting a detailed study of each social institution within each “type” of society. This gave him a glimpse of what, in the entire sphere of social structures that have taken place in the past, and what is happening in the present.” 

At this stage of society, Spencer seemed to have high hopes for the industrial community. Bargardus, therefore, says: “In the forthcoming industrial plan Spencer foresaw a period in which the main public enterprise would be to protect the rights of” One People. “Spencer predicted an era of industrialization that would end the war. Experience may tell us that war is not a thing of the past. It means that social organization is more important than the social process. It does not care enough to provide enough natural psychological changes. Assuming the industrial community, thus, will have peace. It underestimates the importance of entertainment motives”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.