Models of social action
Download as PPTX, PDF25 likes32,059 views
This document discusses various models of social action, defining them as processes for achieving goals with identifiable stages. It contrasts non-violent models, which focus on love and community involvement, with violent models that aim for radical societal changes. Additionally, it categorizes social action into institutional, populist, and Gandhian models, highlighting the importance of people's participation and the necessity for fundamental changes in social policy.
Models of social action
- 1. MODELS OF SOCIAL ACTION Presented by Rahul Mahida
- 2. Background • The literal meaning of ‘Model’ is the modality or style or pattern of doing a particular thing, which is replicable. Conceptually, a model is an aid to complex theoretical activity and directs our attention to concepts or variables and their inter-relationships. • A ‘model’ of social action means a peculiar way or process of achieving set goals with certain identifiable stages and characteristics. Stated differently, social action, in its process of achieving its objectives, adopts certain manner or modality, which is termed as ‘model of social action’. • Social action can be undertaken by the elites exclusively without the participation of the masses. It can also be carried out by the elites with a greater or lesser degree of participation of the clientele. • It can also be initiated and led entirely by the beneficiaries or the community people themselves. To exemplify, in one type or model, certain elite people initiate and conduct social action without involving the target population. Raja Ram Mohan Roy worked for social legislation against ‘sati-pratha’. • In another way or model, the target population takes up the total charge of the social movement in its own hands, though under the guidance of their leaders. For instance, freedom movement for our country was carried out under the guidance of Gandhiji.
- 3. Introduction: • The Social action model has been divided into two: The Non- Violent And The Violent and the violent model .It has also been stated that both the models of social action follow certain generic steps ,some of which have been listed in terms of two different scenarios represented by the Ben Carnion school of social welfare and the action for world development respectively. • Although the scenarios thus have common features, there are a number of basic differences as well between the two models of social action, two of which are as follows:
- 4. Kinds of Social Action (1) Non-Violent Model of Social Action • First of all is the question of values. As is evident by now, the non- violent model draws its inspiration from a totally different package of values, it does not talk of anger, hatred or enemy, but of love and struggle. It talks of winning over the opponent on the side of a right cause rather than hurling a blow of defeat to the person of an enemy. This is one difference that separates the two models. • There is another difference that deals with the nature and character of the functions of two models. Model 1, the violent Model appears to be a very radical one, but in fact represents only a centrist swing that aim at increasing the functionality of the welfare organization. Type 2, It merely insists that the existing decision makes of the welfare system should be replaced by a new set of people.
- 5. continue • The emphasis is on transfer of power to the poor from the hands of those who own it. The Violent Model thus works within the system, tries to rectify it, and to make it more functional than what it now seems to be. • Model 2 wishes to bring in a different type of society. It seeks to swing back, if it may, to the community organization model 1. Naturally, such model doesn’t work within the system, but tries to bring into existence a new society and a new typology of institutions. • its purpose is certainly not to make the existing system more functional but to replace it by a new set-up. • While the two systems, thus differ in value and character, they again agree on one basic issue. It is that both of them call for a drastic change in social policies that sanction and uphold the existing welfare system.
- 6. (2) Violent Model • Model ii is a product of existing social policy that seeks to provide justice and succour to the weaker sections, the exploited and the afflicted. • The findings of the last few decades have, however, proved that the system is not working and the existing social policy whose hand maiden is the welfare model cannot deliver the goods. • Social Action model I thus calls for a drastic change in the welfare system, transferring power and responsibilities of decision making from the welfare bureaucracy to victims of the system. The above goals can not be achieved, the protagonists of this model are sure, without a change in the structure and contours of our social policy.
- 7. Continue. • The violent model would similarly require a totally different siocial policy that will bring in a welfare society in place of the centralised welfare state that every nation, irrespective of its political hue, tries to build today. Here the welfare society means political decentralization. • It means a change in the pattern of community organization; adoption of simpler and more relevant technologies on the lines urged by schumacher and a complete de-institutionalization and de- professionalization of the welfare system. It places the village or the local community and not a paraphernalia of welfare instituition at the centre of the stage.
- 8. • Social Action provides a built-in mechanism in such a society which guarantees to every individual his or her right to protest and rectify a social situation that one finds oppressive. Social action in such a context, represent a basic social process. • Both the model of social action are emanating from two different types of community organizations. Thus, provide the basis on which the foundation of the new movement for social action is based. • The existing process of welfare administration is the one in which social action seeks to change policies which guide the destiny of welfare . Both models of social action would therefore, require a fundamental change in the social policy that guides this destiny.
- 9. Models of Social Action
- 10. 1. Institutional (state) Model of Social Action: It is the social action initiated by the state or government. Social action by the state generally takes an indirect form, and its aim is to benefit the people with or without their participation. The approach is parliamentary, representational, bureaucratic and elitist. The action is organised or sponsored within the framework of law and may be legalized subsequently. For example, government passes executive orders for regularization of unauthorized settlements of poor in urban settings and also implements programmes for community reconstruction, say, proper sewage, availability of safe drinking water, free immunization and health check-ups.
- 11. 2.Institutional-Social Model of Social Action: • It visualizes social action by non-governmental institutions which are aided or unaided by government. In this model, action is initiated either directly or with the support of the people. Even in certain cases, people’s active support is sought in due course of time. In the beginning the action is initiated for the people but subsequently it progresses with and through them. The inherent theme behind such type of social action is primarily ‘welfarist’ or providing relief and services to the needy. The action often takes place within the framework of law, such as, social action taken up by NGOs, say, sanitation drive in a slum area or a movement to re-admit school drop-out girls and boys in a community.
- 12. 3.Social Institutional Model of Social Action: • This type of social action may be organised by the citizens, self-help groups, elites, the deprived and others for their benefit but in its progression and development may seek support from formal groups and institution(s) which may like to espouse its causes. •4.Populist/Movement Model of Social Action: The fourth model relies entirely on popular social base and power. It rejects dependency and stresses self-reliance through collective effort, active participation, and continuing education. This is an ideal form of social action in which participants experience thinking, deciding and working together in helping themselves and in the process also strengthen their social base and power. It is an action of the people, for the people and by the people. This type of action may partake of some of the characteristics of a movement and may both be constitutional and extra-constitutional. It may be routinizing or self-terminating.
- 13. 5.Gandhian Model of Social Action: • Social action of the Gandhian tradition emerges as a class by itself because of its emphasis on spirituality, purity of means and ends, non-violence as a creed, austerity (limitation of want), and moral re-armament of people. Constructive thinking, mobilization, organization and action are the essential ingredients of this model. People’s power remains the basis in all the three types of social action of this tradition. This model has three sub-types: • Militant non-violent tradition: With non-violence still the base, this tradition or approach calls for political and revolutionary character to the social action. It aims at forceful intervention to bring about radical changes in the social system. • Gentle non-violent tradition: The Satyagraha done by Vinoba Bhave for satyagraha and village and community reconstruction explains gentle non- violent form of Gandhian social action. • Citizenship model of constructive work: This type of social action concentrates mainly on the grassroot level of social action (citizenship) through the means of education.
- 14. • The above five models of social action are interrelated phases of a process and its progression from the involvement of institutions to that of the people. These may be contributive, complementary, completing, and even counteracting depending upon their perception of the need situation, goals, approaches and respective roles of the institutions and/or people. These should however, not be treated in as ‘either/ or’ fashion, or as mutually exclusive. Initiative for an organised effort may spring from one model, only to be seized upon by the others, and to be routinized by the third. Social action is a process of continuing constituency work through education and whenever it is found feeble or absent, it needs to be ‘cultivated’
- 15. Social Policy and Social Development • Social Policy in India has come a long way during the last many years since the attainment of political independence. There was a time when the directive principles of state policy as embodied in the constitution were cited as the fountain spring of all national policies; more particularly of the social policy of the country. • In recent years ,However, especially after the declaration of national emergency in June, the 1975, the government was at pains to stress social policy much more than was done ever before, in order to give greater visibility to what they sought to do for the poor.
- 16. • In depth analysis of this experience brought forth a clearer understanding of the inter relationship of economic growth with social policy and social development . • This was reinforced by studies of experiment carried out about at the same time in other developing countries. Some of the salient features of these finding could be outlined as follows: i. Distribute Justice: Policy makers, more than the planning technocrats, were sensitive to people‘s expectations from the development plans. They know that it was not enough to be able to show progress in terms of the GNP alone. Developing country cannot afford to let entire wealth and income produced by the development plans flow back into current consumption. It is necessary for it to plough back a substantial part of increased wealth and income into investment for further growth.
- 17. Continue.. II. Institutional Change: The Other social policy implications of the technological change also become evident both on empirical grounds as well as on doctrinaire considerations. It was found that modern technology whether adopted wholesale from more advanced counties or adopted to suit local condition ,was itself not enough for modernization of the economy. III. Employment Promotion: During the earlier periods of plan, it was assumed that with progressively larger investment, employment would automatically be generated. IV. Human Resources: Orthodox planners were so much preoccupied with the so-called productive sector like agriculture and industry more industry and less agriculture that they paid very little attention the development of social services. This was done in the belief that development of social services could follow after generating enough resources in the economy.
- 18. Continue.. V. People’s Participation: If there is one principle which has been recognized in Indian planning from its inception , it is the importance of people’s participation. However, this remained rather ad hoc and minimal until the beginning of the second plan.
- 19. Presented by Rahul Mahida ThanksFor more content(related to social work and HRM/labour practice visit and follow https://www.Slideshare.Net/rahulmahida1