Friedlander's Definition of Social Action is Inadequate for Developing Countries

Friedlander's Definition of Social Action is Inadequate for Developing Countries

In his book Social Action: A Foundation for Social Change, Friendlander defines social action as "the organized effort of a group of people to achieve a common goal that benefits society as a whole." This definition is well-suited for developed countries, where there is a strong tradition of civic engagement and a well-established network of social organizations. However, it is less applicable to developing countries, where the challenges facing society are often more complex and intractable.

In developing countries, social action often needs to be more radical and transformative in nature. It may involve challenging the status quo or working to change the political system. It may also need to address issues of poverty, inequality, and injustice. In these cases, Friendlander's definition of social action is too narrow and does not adequately capture the full range of activities that are necessary to bring about social change.

Here are some specific examples of how Friendlander's definition of social action is inadequate for developing countries:

• It does not account for the role of power in social change. In developing countries, power is often concentrated in the hands of a small elite. This makes it difficult for ordinary people to have their voices heard and to achieve their goals. Social action in these contexts often needs to be focused on challenging the power structures that are holding people back.
• It does not take into account the diversity of challenges facing developing countries. The challenges facing developing countries are often complex and interconnected. For example, poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation are often mutually reinforcing. Social action in these contexts needs to be holistic and address the root causes of these problems.
• It does not recognize the importance of culture in social change. Culture plays a powerful role in shaping the way people think about and respond to social problems. In developing countries, culture is often a source of strength and resilience. However, it can also be a barrier to social change. Social action in these contexts needs to be sensitive to the cultural context and find ways to build on the strengths of the culture while also challenging its harmful aspects.

In conclusion,

Friendlander's definition of social action is inadequate for developing countries because it does not account for the role of power, the diversity of challenges facing these countries, and the importance of culture in social change. A more comprehensive definition of social action for developing countries would need to take these factors into account.

What do you think? Do you agree with Friendlander's definition of social action? Or do you think it is inadequate for developing countries?