No ideology and no world view remains monolithic for long
Mazar Haim
introduction
In an attempt to see what social change is, we look at what any society at a given time will show different characteristics from those that characterized it at a previous given time and/or in comparison to other society or societies. The concept of social change therefore examines the dynamics that occur in every society, in terms of a living body.
One of the most prominent among the researchers of social change is Kosar who claims that every society needs conflicts. This is a kind of dynamo that causes society to change its face out of the need to adapt itself to new conditions and ideas. The change is actually an inevitable necessity, considering it a deterministic necessity. He came to this distinction following a comparison between the works of different thinkers. Thus, for example, in his interpretation of George Sorrell, he came to the conclusion that "a social system needs conflict, if only to renew itself and inject new blood into its creative powers" (Coser 168:1980). In the quote he brings from Dewey it is said: "Conflict is the spur of thought. He inspires us to observe and remember, he stimulates us to innovations. It shakes us from animalistic tolerance and motivates us to be alert and cunning... Without conflict, there is no thought and no ingenuity" (Coser 169:1980). The conflict is actually an institutional element in the development of a society without which it will degenerate and fall apart.
Eisenstedt uses a less charged phrase than Kozer, yet no less accurate. Social change is actually a product of deprivations that sometimes rely on discontinuity in everything that happens within society. "The reasons for social change lie, by their very essence, in the structure of the social order and the mutual relations of each society with its environment... social and cultural systems will be able to bring about value by themselves, create with their own power the drive to establish new social and cultural orders and even develop the ability to do so... this ability to create value, It is possible that it will be related to some of the phenomena of internal disorder in social structures" (Eisenstedt 108:1978). Social change is actually a need for a society to build or rehabilitate itself, out of a sometimes acute feeling that the situation as it actually exists can no longer continue, when this need is realized through tools that are developed specifically for this purpose. This need can arise either from a feeling that what exists is no longer relevant or from the view that in various social structures the routine is widespread (rotonization) and intensive care is required which will require the building of a new routine and as a result a new social order will be built.
Humans refers to other aspects that lead to social change and they are social disintegration and leadership. Humans defines social dynamics as the sum of the interactions between the individuals that make up a society. "With the decrease in the frequency of social interaction, the norms of the group become less defined and less firm at the beginning, and since the social rank is determined by the extent to which a person behaves in accordance with the norms, the social rank also becomes less fortified and firm" (Humans 471:1968). This is a negative social change leading to the disintegration of society. The strength and vitality of a society is actually a function of the total interactions between the various individuals living in this society. It is these interactions that define the total rewards whether they are positive or negative that are possible in society. Without interactions between the individuals, basically no society of any kind can exist and the end result will be a group of individualists, living next to each other and not with each other. All the possible rewards gain meaning only in a society where there is minimal interaction necessary for its existence and functioning as a community framework.
As for leadership, Humans states that "a deliberate change in knowledge by a leader or leaders of a group, in an effort to achieve a group goal" (Humans 472:1968). This is an individual or a group of people motivated by some idea or ideal that seems to them to be of great significance and sometimes also valuable, the realization of which will place the society that he or they lead in a good place morally, economically and in terms of quality of life. This person or group of people use various means to change the face of society. This is an elite oriented change.
According to these definitions, the social change is actually observed and examined at the cognitive level. The change is actually the product of an insight either of one person, of a group of people or of society as a whole, according to which what was can no longer continue and requires the adoption and implementation of new ways of acting and ways of thinking. All the observed phenomena are therefore the product of a process or group of processes that brought about a certain social metamorphosis. It is also necessary to address the collective subconscious that leads to these changes. It can be said that social change is a product of the degree of readiness of members of a given community to adopt, internalize and implement new ideas in practice. I will define all these patterns of behavior as sociology of depths. In order to examine this characterization we will follow the dynamics of social changes as they are reflected in the sociological theories, the classics in the analysis of social and political revolutions, and the changes taking place in modern society as they are expressed in the press. Based on this monitoring, we will try to diagnose operating patterns of the collective subconscious.
Classical sociological theories
The first theory in which we will try to diagnose the sociology of the depths is the Marxist theory. A basic concept in this theory is "praxis". "One aspect of the praxis in the revolution is the creation of workers' organizations and another aspect is the self-discovery on the part of the workers which is a result of the organizing actions. The creation of workers' organizations is a step on the way to creating the conditions leading to the final liberation of man" (Kiman 86:1979). Getting organized is a gradual process by nature. It begins with a meeting between a number of workers who feel that it is necessary to make a significant change in the situation of all the workers. This feeling is not yet the feeling of all the workers. That small group comes to this conclusion following a mental maturation process that reality as they understand it is not relevant and that if they do not take any action, the future will be worse. This maturation is the result of encounters between different individuals who each feel in need, and in these social events they externalize their hardships. The first result is a distinction that they are actually talking about similar problems and it turns out that the private distress is actually a general distress. To solve this, a formal action framework is established in which the actions carried out receive an organized and orderly expression. "The organization of the workers changes the structure of their lives, their self-consciousness and the way they look at society. These organizations force the worker to come into contact with other workers. He learns that his fate as an outcome is not a personal and subjective thing, but part of a general system that affects thousands like him. This change in the consciousness of the workers as a result of their organizing is part of the revolutionary process of changing the face of society" (Kiman 87:1979). A gradual transition from the individual cognitive self to the group cognitive self takes place. In the course of this development, a critical mass of many details is created in which the readiness of a society to act to change the existing reality bursts forth. The moment of the formation of the critical mass is considered a point of no return in the process of understanding the dam-breaking social cognition. An obvious conclusion is that in order for social change to occur, a social point of no return must be created. Without this point of no return, social change will not take place.
A common dichotomous terminology for distinguishing between societies is that of traditional versus modern societies. In fact, there is no society without changes, but the changes are dependent on pace. In traditional societies, the changes are incremental in terms of more change and more change, until the cumulative total of incremental changes create a critical mass of changes leading to the same point of no return. The point of no return appears at a distant point on the timeline. Until the point of no return is reached, any change can be reversed. An influential power group can always appear to stop the process or delay it, but once the point of no return appears, the change is irreversible. In modern society the changes are fast and the point of no return appears very early on the timeline.
If we return to Marx's process, then the point of no return appears at a close point on the timeline "the transition to socialism is not inevitable, and the existence of the workers' organizations creates the conditions for the development of revolutionary consciousness, which is an important component of revolutionary consciousness" (Kiman 87:1979). The formal organization creates a powerful mechanism that makes intelligent use of means of communication in order to spread the messages that are important to it among all the workers, thereby enhancing the potential for the rapid realization of the ideals desired by the formal framework. In this way, the very formal organization accelerates the time of the appearance of the point of no return.
If Marx talks about formal organization to create social change, then with Durkheim there is a more spontaneous trend. Durkheim makes a distinction between a mechanical Likud and an organic Likud. "The mechanical Likud is based on similarities between people in society, and the organic Likud is based on the differences between them. The people in a society characterized by a mechanical Likud are tied to each other... they are subordinate to society as a whole and have very little freedom of action. A person in a society characterized by an organic Likud, on the other hand, has his own field of action like an organ in a living body. Although society as a whole still restricts its members, the freedom of action in it is greater than in a society characterized by a mechanical Likud" (Kiman 136:1979). During its development, the society moves from a state of mechanical Likud to a state of organic Likud. According to his method, this is the natural direction of development and therefore, the more society progresses, the higher the individual's degree of freedom, although there will also be prohibitions, even if minimal. A fundamental reason for this difference is that in the Mechani Likud company "the division of the fact is not developed. All the people in the company play the same roles. Their experiences are similar, their ideas, attitudes and values are also similar... In a society characterized by organic Likud, the situation is different. The people in it are different from each other because of the division of labor. That is why there are fewer common feelings, attitudes and values and the common consciousness is weaker. Most of the crime is committed in the field of civil law - commercial law, administrative law and constitutional law" (Kiman 137:1979).
Durkheim claims that "increasing the number of inhabitants and increasing density lead to greater contact between people. Another result of the increase is the increased competition between them for the sources of existence. This competition has only two possibilities: either one of the competitors loses, and perhaps dies, or one of them leaves his previous occupation and moves to a new occupation where the competition is weaker. This process creates new professions whose purpose is to enable the existence of more people in society. The social phenomena of population growth and increased density explain the division of labor" (Kiman 138:1979). There is a zero sum game here in which a loss of one is a gain of the other in the form of work or loss, when the loss may also be expressed in a final result. In order to have a place to live and a place to work for everyone, one of the obligations is to turn to new employment channels. Since during Durkheim's time in France and in fact in all of Europe industry began to develop, these employment channels could only develop in this new productive sector. The evidence for this is the migration from the villages to the cities because the total number of jobs needed in the villages was decreasing.
From all of this it follows that the organic Likud society is quite a product of inevitable technological and scientific developments, which are accompanied by the development of new professions, which are essential to an industrial society. This great professional variety flexes the company's need to negatively reward those individuals who deviate from the accepted norm. The acuteness of society's sense of existential anxiety as a whole is getting weaker over time. In the hands of the organic Likud company are more balancing mechanisms that allow it to absorb the desires of these or other individuals to deviate from the consensus and externalize their own desires and behaviors.
While a mechanical Likud society is characterized by a stronger common consciousness, in an organic Likud society this consciousness is weaker. The Mechanical Likud company has a very low sensitivity threshold. The crime - in fact any crime - constitutes an injury to the society itself because it hurts the feelings shared by the whole society. This is a threat to society as a whole. The Organic Likud company, on the other hand, has a higher sensitivity threshold. The crime constitutes an injury to a certain segment of the population, so we can also talk about the differentiation of the crime. Only a small number of crimes threaten society as a whole.
Hence the conclusion that social deviation and the reaction to it are a function of the society in which they occur. In the mechanical Likud company, the reaction to social deviation is sweeping compared to the organic Likud company where the reaction will be more specific. Here the question arises as to what is social deviance. From a structural point of view, social deviance is the same mechanism by which society maintains its borders and existence in the negative way. This mechanism is the sum of all the prohibitions that apply to the individuals and a corresponding punishment system. In a mechanical cohesion society the number of prohibitions is greater than in an organic cohesion society. The more organically cohesive the company is, the greater its openness. The openness can be classified into three types and they are:
1. Conceptual openness - the willingness to show tolerance for new ideas and patterns of thinking.
2. Social openness - the willingness to show tolerance and treat people as they are.
3. Emotional openness - the willingness to externalize feelings.
Another important concept is the critical content boundaries. The critical content limits are the sum of all the prohibitions that must not be crossed at all. In mechanical cohesion the limits are the widest in the three types of openness. Hence the trend is towards narrowing the critical content boundaries with the development of society. It is not necessary that the number of prohibitions be reduced at the same time in the three types of openness. It is very possible that first the number of prohibitions will be reduced in one type of openness, then in the second and finally in the third. Ideal in an organic solidarity society, the openness is almost complete in the three types of openness. Almost, and not completely, because complete conceptual openness would lead to the dissolution of the company. Those ideas for which changes are prohibited are the basis of a mechanical Likud that has remained since the beginning of the society's formation.
If with Marx we diagnosed a human critical mass that brings about social change, then with Durkheim it is an ideological critical mass that brings about social change. Europe in Durkheim's time went through a very large industrial revolution, a revolution that was the fruit of an intellectual momentum that led to the growth of the sciences and, as a result, the growth of technologies that enabled the development of industry. There was a transition from an agricultural society to an industrial society which reduced the possibilities of agricultural employment and increased the possibilities of industrial employment by several orders of magnitude. Society is no longer monolithic in its agricultural character and new types of professions began to be required in an increasing number. The society could absorb a larger number of people who do not act according to the consensus, without causing it any harm. The point of no return in the organic Likud company
It is the same place on the axis of the dichotomous continuum traditionalism - modernity, where the degree of openness to the issue is wide. In fact, the pattern of social change is a chain reaction that develops by itself, the starting point of which is the same place where any idea is raised that has an economic or social application, which requires the development of new professional skills. There may be two situations here, one situation is that of an idea leading to an idea and a second situation where several ideas are developed at the same time that can also intersect with it and create something completely new. This chain reaction reached unprecedented dimensions in the 20th century with the transition from the industry based on mechanical engineering principles to electronic engineering principles and with the development of the knowledge industry. A direct relationship between social openness and professional diversification is therefore requested, and an inverse relationship between it and the critical content limits. The greater the professional nuance, the greater the social openness to the issue and at the same time the smaller the limits of the critical content.
Teniz makes a distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. The Gemeinschaft rests on the natural will based on its part "on unity, on agreement, on tradition and on existing norms. The natural desire leads to behavior directed towards family and neighbor relations, its stability derives from its foundation on land ownership, its nature is organic. It constitutes a complete and perfect unit, exists from birth and is passed down from generation to generation (Kiman 160:1979). Gesellschaft rests on the rational will which is by nature artificial. "It is the fruit of thought, and is characterized by its reference to the future. The emphasis is on recognition and planning" (Kiman 160:1979). While in Gemeinschaft the emphasis is on the community as a whole, and is embodied in the sense of social partnership between the members of the community and the desire to preserve this feeling, in Gesellschaft the emphasis is on the individual, and is embodied in temporary engagements based on a specific interest, giving something in exchange for receiving something else of equal value. The orientation is future. The Gemeinschaft and the Gesellschaft are in reciprocal relations with each other. Unlike other social thinkers, Teniz does not have a deterministic statement regarding the transition from one type of society to another, as for example with Marx. The Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft can coexist with each other, in different power relations that can change from period to period. It should not be forgotten that Taniz worked and wrote during a period when capitalism was developing with great momentum, and therefore "the transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft stems from the development of the capitalist market and the fact that the work force of the worker forms the basis for determining the value of the product, and it also became a commodity" (Kiman 167:1999). Capitalism is a product of the development of economic concepts inherently linked to technological developments. The economic orientation of a society is thus an accumulation of economic conceptual concepts which, once they pass the threshold of their critical mass, change the nature of society from a Gemeinschaft to a Gesellschaft. Therefore, the more technological society becomes, the greater will be the desire to put a stronger emphasis on the individual than on the community. But let's not forget that there will always remain a core of Gemeinschaft within the Gesellschaft. There is a structural similarity here to Durkheim's approach. Even if the society is characterized by strong organic cohesion, there will remain a nucleus of mechanical cohesion, which basically means that every society will do as much as possible to maintain a common nucleus for all, even if the individual is given a large scope of action in which he can express himself and his desires. This is the same basic core without which society will fall apart.
Analysis of social and political revolutions
The history of the last few centuries was saturated with revolutions of various kinds, including state, economic, social, political and cultural revolutions. Many studies have been written in an attempt to describe and understand. Each study added its own layer, so that the resulting picture expands the panoramic view of these events and at the same time also enables the construction of new insights about them. A comparison between these insights provides the observer of the historical events with methodical universals in understanding the processes that led to the outbreak of these revolutions.
Kaminka, in his discussion of the essence of the concept of political revolution, cites the words of a group of researchers (Ellwood, Perto, Brooks, Adams) who claim "that a revolution is the conflict between classes or interest groups that advance and rise within society and between the rigid social structure or the elite that seeks to oust them" (Kaminka 362:1984 ). Political conflict by its nature does not break out all at once. It is preceded by a series of conflicts between those with different political power that cannot be resolved through negotiation or legal means, and the only way out for those who are dissatisfied with the existing reality is the use of violent measures in order to realize their goals. The total accumulation of the failed attempts creates a critical mass of frustrations and a sense of helplessness that lead to that violent eruption, which causes social and political governance orders to collapse and in their place a new political order is built.
The perpetrators of the revolution do not operate in a vacuum. They operate within a given company. "Revolutions require faith in man's ability and in the possibility of achieving considerable material improvement... they need the support of a wide sector of the population that is not usually inclined to rebel... it must be influenced by people's expectations, the kind of expectations that arise normally in advanced societies, which are suddenly stopped by a sharp decrease in the chances of skepticism ” (Kaminka 364:1984). The interest group, in its confrontation with the ruling group, may succeed in the struggle and improve its position without bringing about a social change worthy of government, and all that is done is nothing more than a violent change of government. The revolution itself occurs from the moment that the entire society internalizes the values of the new dominant interest group out of identification, thus creating a new social situation that did not exist before. Here was a leading group that brought about requested changes that the general public identified with and that could not implement this change, because it did not have this option. The social change took place because the public showed a willingness to absorb and internalize the new values it was interested in and externalized them by adopting the new normative codes derived from that political change that was brought to practical expression, by the new ruling elite that had just arisen.
The attempt to define the political infrastructure leading to a political revolution is characterized by Tilly (383:1984) by 4 conditions:
"1. The appearance in the arena of rivals, or coalitions of rivals presenting claims
Opposing exchanges aimed at taking over the government, which is operated at the given stage on
by members of the political unit.
2. Full support for these claims from an important sector of the population controlled by the government.
3. Unwillingness, or inability, of government agents to subdue the exchange coalition, or to displace support for its claims.
4. The establishment of coalitions between the members of the political unit and between the opponents who stand by their alternate claims."
In these conditions leading to the political revolution, there is some resemblance to Marx's approach, except that here it is not a class struggle but a struggle between interest groups. On one side is the group that controls the country and on the other is a group or several groups that disagree on its approach and goals. Those opponents who oppose the government, from the moment that question marks began to appear regarding the justification of the government's course for any reason and only from the moment that they internalized the idea that this is no longer possible and action is required, began to take steps to change the situation. The point at which its activities begin to affect the public, to the point of identifying with it, including population groups that have so far identified with the government, is the point of no return in the political revolution from which the government begins to understand that these wishes must be taken into account. In the best case, the government will engage representatives of these interest groups and adopt at least part of the interest group's plans. In the worst case, the government will be overthrown, a move that will sometimes be accompanied by acts of violence and it is the interest group that makes up the government. The point of no return is that point where the critical mass of all the change initiatives and those who join them from among the public as a whole and sometimes also, from among those who have supported the government until now, is built. A situation is developing here in which the government turns out to be incapable of governing and it collapses. Examples of social and political changes of this type are the French Revolution and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Iran.
Another type of revolutions are elite revolutions. Trimberger, in a comparative study he conducted between the revolution that broke out in Japan in 1868 and the revolution in Turkey in 1919, concluded that "an autonomous group of bureaucrats will wake up to organize a revolutionary movement and a counter-government, only when the regime it serves is facing a tangible danger from the outside , which threatens national sovereignty. Bureaucrats decide to be revolutionaries only when their own power and status is threatened by the possibility of a foreign takeover. Under these conditions, the bureaucrats have no choice but to stage a coup that has a limited purpose, namely the removal of the top of the government, since their taking over the existing regime and replacing it will not give them the power necessary to replace this enemy" (Trimberger 392-293:1984). What is happening here is a move in which a group of high-ranking government officials come to the realization that the political situation as it exists cannot continue any longer. Trimberger puts the emphasis on the question mark regarding the feeling of these personalities regarding their political existence. This is not an existential question in its physical sense, but the possibility that these people will be removed from their positions and lose all their strength and source of power in the country. They will lose their elitist status and become all human. At the same time, there is another possibility that these individuals will ask questions not about their personal situation, but about the country they serve. They are concerned about the continued independent existence of the state. In any case, their desire to act arises, when they feel that something very basic is at stake, and that an assessment must be made accordingly to prevent the occurrence, the meaning of which is terminal on the political level, whether it is the personal aspect, whether it is the political aspect, or whether it is a combination of them. Trimberger actually follows in the footsteps of Humans regarding the ability of leadership to bring about a desired political-social change for her. The power of this group is manifested when there is a grouping of an appropriate number of senior office holders, who by virtue of the positions in their hands are able to bring about all the changes they strive for. The point of no return for them is the same point where the total number of senior officials reaches the critical mass of the total number of people demanding change whose actions are all coordinated and integrated. From then on, the events gather a strong momentum of their own power and become more and more powerful like a snowball, until this elite replaces the old elite. At this point in time, the state's resources are in the hands of the new elite, allowing it to deepen the long-awaited changes in all levels of society. This deepening is done with the help of means of communication that are available to the new elite, what the elite does is to strengthen its political and social doctrine, so that every person will hear and internalize the new ideas and identify with it. In terms of social cognition, the masses are slowly approaching the world view of this elite and making it normative.
The reflection of social change in the press
Kotel in his article "Dale Carnegie the chemical version" claims that "medical definitions do not belong to the realm of pure science." They are also social, cultural and economic phenomena. They are not invented, but redesigned so that they gain public recognition. Researchers in the fields of medicine and mental health are responsible for this. Drug manufacturers and support groups - each of these factors is driven by different degrees of ambition, scientific knowledge, opportunism and good intentions" (22:25.10.99). In his words, Kotel refers not to the narrow medical aspect - the world of the specific content of the object of the definition, but to its broad aspect. It refers to the point of interface between medicine and society as a whole, to that field where medicine merges with sociology and anthropology. Anyone who practices medicine does not live in a medical world only, he lives in a community that consumes these medicines. Therefore, the total number of people and their interest groups are directly affected by the distribution of the drugs and the increase in their use, they are the ones who create the same critical mass of people that affects the entire society, in terms of its reference to the medical definitions and the extent to which the drugs are used. Over time, the medical definitions affect the public's medical consumption habits and the way people treat themselves and others. Kotel sharpens these aspects of medicine when he refers to the psychiatric field and claims that "cultural forces draw the boundaries between what we learn to think is normal and what we learn to think is pathological" (Kotel 22:15.10.99). A dynamic process takes place here at the cognitive level regarding the normativity of the definition of normality. This definition is conditioned by the cultural patterns accepted in society. It is this process that, upon completion, creates society's readiness to treat these or other people as sick or as healthy.
The consumption habits that we have diagnosed in the medical field as an expression of the public's readiness to adopt something new, are also reflected in household products. A product will be accepted in the market only when the consumer public is willing to adopt it and use it daily. For example, the CEO of "Strauss" Shlomo Liran described the introduction of yogurt to the market saying that "the uniqueness of yogurt is that it is a product made from live bacteria. In the past, when awareness of health food was not high, we could not talk about bacteria in the product, because we would have eliminated it completely, in 1992 we felt that the market was ripe and acted in this direction" (Barzilai-Sonnenfeld 22:21.1.1997). The change in the public's attitude towards the bacteria is what allowed the Strauss company to enter the market with a nutritional product that carries bacteria. It was only when the public learned that not all bacteria are disease carriers and that there are also bacteria that have the opposite effect, that yogurt could be put on the market. Another example of this is the color television. The first company to make color televisions was the RCA company. These televisions went on sale in 1954, but sales were weak because most programs were broadcast in black and white and their picture clarity was better than that of color televisions. Only after these technical problems were overcome, there was a change in consumer behavior and the market for color televisions began to flourish from the mid-60s" (Barzilai-Sonnenfeld 22:21.1.1997).
As long as the quality of black and white broadcasting was high, the consumer public did not find it appropriate to switch to color televisions. Technological development required time. Purchases when the improved televisions entered the market were hesitant. Only since this technology proved itself has there been a significant jump in the number of buyers of these televisions. The total number of purchases became overwhelming from the moment that the number of buyers passed that point of no return from which the number of black and white televisions continued to dwindle and the market for those consuming them went to zero.
Summary
From what has been said so far and based on historical experience, it can be seen that no ideology and no world view remains monolithic over time. There will always be those who will challenge the conventions, including the most religiously sacred ones, will ask questions and challenge social norms that seem to be set in stone. Those who doubt are outside the mainstream, little by little there are some among them who will drag to them a crowd of believers that may in many days grow to large-scale social dimensions and cause far-reaching social upheavals. This is the dynamic of social changes. Key concepts identified in this social dynamic are critical mass and point of no return. The critical mass refers to people and ideas. That is, there is a need for a certain threshold of a number of people who are willing to adopt and internalize unacceptable ways of thinking beyond which social change is inevitable and to that extent there is a need for a certain threshold of the backlog of ideas beyond which social change is inevitable. That threshold is actually the point of no return, which requires reference to that society in which this change takes place in terms of "before", "after". This form of growth of the critical mass is additive. Another group of people accepts the new ideas and another group internalizes these ideas and so on. The same goes for ideas. Adopt and internalize another idea and another idea and so on. On a continuum of time it will be possible to see that a given company receives different characteristics from its identification features in the past. At the same time, it must be remembered that there may be cases in which a company undergoes a very strong upheaval due to an unusual event of such magnitude that leaves an indelible mark on it. That society is actually experiencing a comprehensive trauma, recovery from which requires a period of time, during which the various individuals in this society learn to internalize new values and react according to what they find appropriate. The Sociology of the Depths makes it possible to carry out social and historical studies of communities and countries, whose historical depth is decades. You have something to give a new dimension to the accepted research patterns.
bibliography
1. Eisenstadt S.N. - "Similarities and differences in the analysis of social change" State, Government and International Relations 12 1978 108-123.
2. Barzilai - Sonnenfeld T. - "The first cries, the second wins" Ma'ariv Business Supplement 20.1.1997/20/21 XNUMX-XNUMX
3. Humans G.K. - The behavior of people in a group, published by Yadyo 1968, 507 p.
4. Missiles C. - "Does modernization foster a revolution?" In: Eisenstedt SN, Gutman E, Atzmon Y. (Editors) - State and Society (B) Issues in Political Sociology Publishing with an employee 1984 369-380.
5. Trimberger A.K. - "A theory of elite revolutions" in: Eisenstadt S.N., Gutman E., Atzmon Y. (Editors) - State and Society (B) Issues in Political Sociology Publishing with an employee 1984 389-406.
6. Kosar A. - "Social conflict and the theory of social change" in: Lisk M. (editor) - Issues in Sociology Published by Am Oved 1980 168-180.
7. Kotel M. - "Dale Carnegie the chemical version" Haaretz health supplement 25.10.99 22-23
8. Kimen C. - The classical sociological theory, Dekel publishing house, 1979, 208 p.
9. Kaminka Y. - "The concept of political revolution" in: Eisenstadt. S.N., Gutman E., Atzmon Y. (Editors) - State and Society (B) Issues in Sociology Publishing with an employee 1980 359-368.
Depth Sociology
Mazar Haim
Social change in its nature deals with what a society is going through in the cognitive level. What is happening in the collective subconscious isn't treated. Here takes its place The depth sociology. At this sublevel rises gradually the readiness of a society to accept new ideas which in time will show up in the collective cognitive level. This is the no-return point in which the history of this society has to be treated in terms of "before" and "after".
