uction

There have been many attempts to relate and integrate the social into the economic and vice versa. The conception and theory of culturallag is well suited to a blending of the social and the economic. Whereas an analysis of the need for institutional adjustment is outside the paradigmatic boundaries of mainstream economic analysis, institutional adjustment is central to the concept and theory of culturallag. In their attempts to integrate the social and the economic in an holistic framework, both Thorstein Veblen as an economist, and William F. Ogburn as a sociologist, utilized the conception of cultural lag in their theories related to the dynamics of culture evolution. Whereas Veblen analysed the processes of economic evolution in the framework of culture evolution, Ogburn analysed social evolution in the context of culture evolution (Ogburn, 1966, p. 377).

Consequently, cultural lag does not pertain simply to conception alone, but relates to theory and explanation as well, "I think it better to say that since it is a concept of a relationship, it is a theory. It is therefore more than merely a new term in the language" (Ogburn, 1957, pp. 169-70). As concept and theory, cultural lag helps to identify, analyse and explain social problems as well as to predict and anticipate future problems. More than that, it can also be policy-oriented and direct us to possible solutions. It is noted in the literature that the cultural lag concept and theory has provided one of the most important tools of socioeconomic analysis:

The culturallag approach has been one of the master concepts of modern social analysis ... The concept of culture lag, which Veblen used to analyse social processes, has been widely used by American sociologists to account for both social change and social problems (Davis, 1968, pp. 304-5).

Culturallag is discussed in most current sociology textbooks as an important aspect of social change.Cultural lag is often critiqued, however, as being too general as to conception. "Once a theory includes such concepts as 'lags' ... it becomes so labile and so indistinct that it can be reconciled with virtually any configuration of data" (Merton, 1951, p. 238). None the less, the concept has weathered the storm. The significance, staying power, and merits of the concept are obvious, in that "cultural lag" still appears in most dictionaries and textbooks[1].

Relative to its importance, there is little current discussion pointedly directed to a specific statement ofcultural lag theory and its relevance to current problem identification and resolution. Our aim is to review the pros and cons of the concept and theory of culturallag, with a view to integration and analysis of the pertinent issues raised by its supporters as well as critics. In this way, we hope to clarify and update the concept and theory of cultural lag.

This paper will be divided into three parts: The first part will deal with a clarification of the cultural lagconcept and theory. The second part will address the issue of empirical verification. The third part will discuss the relevance of the concept and theory of culturallag to socioeconomic policy.

A clarification of cultural lag: concept and theory

One definition of cultural lag offered by Ogburn is:

A culturallag occurs when one of two parts of culture which are correlated, changes before or in greater degree than the other part does, thereby causing less adjustment between the two parts than existed previously (Ogburn, 1957a, p. 167).

The idea of cultural lag has evolved over time. It was apparent in the works of both Karl Marx and Thorstein Veblen. The Veblenian dichotomy juxtaposed the dynamics of industrial technology, as material culture, to the statics and lag inherent in the ceremonial and the pecuniary, embedded in non-material culture. According to Ogburn, "I have been accused of taking the theory from Thorstein Veblen", which Ogburn denied, "... because I had never read him on this point" (Ogburn 1957a, p. 168). Ogburn admitted that he had read Marx on this subject and that this was "... a base from which the theory of cultural lagwas developed, but certainly neither the materialistic interpretation of history nor economic determinism is the same as cultural lag" (Ogburn, 1957a, p. 168).

It would seem that while the idea of cultural lag was implied by others, the explicit formulation of the concept and development of the theory awaited Ogburn. Cultural lag is possible "to the extent that culture is like a machine with parts that fit" (Ogburn, 1957a, p. 171). In this sense, Ogburn was influenced by functionalism because he emphasized the interrelatedness of social institutions. But the concept ofcultural lag also differs from functionalism because it has to do with the dynamics of structural change and disorganization. Functionalists, by comparison, deal with the statics of equilibration within a given structure[2].

Ogburn first used the term "cultural lag" when he was a professor of economics and sociology at Reed College in 1914. He developed his theory of cultural lag in 1915, but did not publish it until 1922. A primary concern of Ogburn was empirical verification. In one of his earlier studies, he related the adjustment of legislative laws to industrial accidents, which revealed his positivistic inclinations, in that each of the steps in his analysis required "... careful assessment of evidence and is not something to be judged ... in an offhand manner" (Duncan, 1964, p. xvi).

Prior to the industrial period, tools were simple and the work relationship was of a personal nature. Under these conditions, if a worker had an accident, there was something called the common law of negligence under which the employee could be compensated. With the coming of the machine age, the rise of the factory system, and the resulting increase in the number of accidents, the common law of negligence would no longer suffice. Hence, there was a period of maladjustment or lag until such time as the workmen's compensation laws came into effect (Ogburn, 1966, pp. 213-16). A basic statement of Ogburn'scultural lag thesis is:

... that the various parts of modern culture are not changing at the same rate, some parts are changing much more rapidly than others; and that since there is a correlation and interdependence of parts, a rapid change in one part of our culture requires readjustments through other changes in the various correlated parts of culture ... Where one part of culture changes first, through some discovery or invention, and occasions changes in some part of culture dependent upon it, there frequently is a delay in the changes occasioned in the dependent part of culture. The extent of this lag will vary according to the nature of thecultural material, but may exist for a considerable number of years, during which time there may be said to be a maladjustment (Ogburn, 1966, p. 200).

As with many others, given the complexity of culture, Ogburn recognized the difficulties of definition. One definition, though, that he gave in his book, Social Change, revealed his background as a social behaviourist. He defined culture as "... the accumulated products of human society, and includes the use of material objects as well as social institutions and social ways of doing things" (1966, p. 58). In general terms, Ogburn conceptualized culture as our "social heritage", the "superorganic" which he got from Herbert Spencer's evolutionary theory, and "civilization" (Ogburn 1966, pp. 4-5). Ogburn, however, recognized the unilinear fallacy and rejected the inevitable-stages part of Spencer's theory as being characteristic of any specific culture.

Of central importance, Ogburn divided culture into the material and nonmaterial. His aim was to emphasize the material part of culture that he felt was not particularly emphasized in Edward Tylor's earlier definition as "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society" (Ogburn, 1966, p. 4). Non-material culture was broken down into adaptive and non-adaptive parts.

An example of this would be the family, which is a part of non-material culture. When the factory system provided work away from home, the family had to adapt and adjust to these changed material conditions. At the same time, some of its functions remained constant, and were non-adaptive, such as procreation. Culture evolves and accumulates as a result of invention, discovery and diffusion. It accumulates selectively bemuse of the persistence of culturalforms (culturalinertia) and the addition of new forms.

This selective process leads to diversification and heterogeneity, which in turn leads to specialization. This occurs because a particular group does not become acquainted with the whole of culture, but only that part in which it specializes. As material culture â€¦

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company