THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL CHANGE: EDUCATION AS A CHANGE

AGENT IN NIGERIA

ABSTRACT
This paper explores the intricate relationship between education and
social change within the context of Nigeria. It begins by defining the
multifaceted concept of social change, examining its drivers and
characteristics. The core of the analysis focuses on positioning education
as a primary catalyst for societal transformation. Through various
mechanisms—such as the transmission of knowledge, cultivation of new
values, facilitation of social mobility, and empowerment of individuals—
education holds the potential to reshape Nigeria's socio-economic and
political landscape. However, the paper critically assesses the systemic
challenges that curtail the efficacy of education as a change agent in the
country. These include inadequate funding, curriculum irrelevance,
infrastructural decay, inequities in access, and a decline in teaching
quality. The paper concludes by specific arguing that for education to
fully realize its potential as a transformative force, Nigeria must embark
on deliberate and sustained reforms focused on strategic investment,
curriculum modernization, and the promotion of equitable access for all
citizens. This write-up posits that a revitalized education sector is the
most viable path toward sustainable development and positive social
change in Nigeria.

Keywords: Education, Social Change.

1. INTRODUCTION
Education is an agent or instrument of social change. Social
change is an intrinsic part of human societies. It refers to the
significant and lasting transformations that occur within social
structures, cultural values, institutions, and societal norms over
time. These changes can be driven by various factors, including
technological innovations, economic shifts, political upheavals,
cultural movements, and notably, education.
The Importance of understanding social change in Nigeria
stems largely from the fact that there are unresolved social
problems in Nigeria which are occasioned by constant changes in
social structure, social relationships and social institutions. And the
sociological theories which are supposed to provide a theoretical and
practical guide on how to resolve these problems, both in time and
space, are puny and unthinkingly applied. Therefore, a study of this
nature is significant in many ways in that, it will reveal the strengths
and weaknesses of various theories of change and their
complementary tendencies in building a robust theoretical solution
for the problems confronting sustainable social, economic, political
and environmental development in Nigeria.
In addition, this study would assist in improving the
understanding of the dynamic nature of social change, its driving
forces and inevitability in the current global integration of socio-
cultural, economic and political conditions. The study will help social
scientists, academicians, politicians and professional development
planners to design better policy interventions and socio-political
reforms. It would also help the Nigerian government, at all levels, to
formulate policies that would enhance the efficacy of managing the
internal and external forces of change in order to bring about
desirable socio-economic development for the populace in the
contemporary world.

2. What is Social Change?

Defining the term ‘social change’ is highly controversial particularly
among sociologists. This is because the object is a social
phenomenon, a social process that tends to have diverse dimensions
and facets, unfolding at different levels of generality (Morariu and
Ignat 2011). However, Social change can be defined as the
transformation that occurs in the various levels of human interaction
in a social environment. Put differently, the social change appears
when there is a momentous shakeup in social and cultural elements
that form an enduring network of relationships in which interaction
between people, organizations, communities, and nations became
restructured (Ololube, Dudafa, Uriah, and Agbor 2013). Indeed,
social change is either positive or negative in nature. Positive social
change connotes desirable development and improvement in the
entire or some parts of societal institutions which include culture,
economy, education, family, international affairs, law, population,
politics and religion, which invariably enhance human and social
conditions (Ololube 2011; Ololube, Dudafa, Uriah, and Agbor 2013).
While a negative social change depicts dysfunction in the entire or
some parts of social structures and institutions which in turn
destabilize human and social development.
Consequently, the occurrence of social change in any society
(developed or developing) has a significant impact on the social,
economic, environmental and political conditions. Socially, social
change often alters the social elements (i.e. norms, values, culture,
and behaviour patterns) and social arrangements (roles, status,
structure and institution). Economically, social change impacts on
the process of industrialization, commerce, and trade formation, as
well as work, human and material administration. Politically, social
change influences the political organization and administration of
power, resources and governance. Environmentally, social change
alters the way natural and mineral resources are being managed and
utilized by the people. In essence, social change changes people’s
behavioural patterns, how they think, and their attitudes of
legitimacy and authority. It also alters social structures, economic
systems and social values (Giddens and Duneier 2000).
In Nigeria, for example, a lot of modifications have occurred in
the social structures (ie. The shift from three regions to thirty-six
states, agriculture-based economy to oil-based economy, military
rule to democratic system of government etc.) and cultural patterns
(ie. The gradual shift from the traditional African culture to
Western/European culture) over time; some of which have generated
series of social problems like bribery and corruption, child labour,
family instability, election irregularities, examination malpractices,
unemployment, religious conflict, environmental degradation,
poverty, insecurity etc. in contemporary Nigerian societies.
Meanwhile, the existence of social change in Nigeria has promoted
civilization, acculturation, formal education, industrialization, public-
private partnerships, globalization as well as technological
advancement. Therefore, social change in Nigeria and perhaps in
other developing countries has brought about positive and negative
transformations.
2.1. Characteristics of Social Change
Obviously, social change has some characteristics that distinguished
them from other forms of social events. An extensive review of the
literature showed that there are four main characteristics of social
change. These four characteristics are briefly explained with some
insights from Nigerian society in order to explain various social,
economic and political dynamics of social change in Nigeria between
1960 and 2015. Against this background, the first characteristic that
was identified in the literature lies in the belief that social change
occurs everywhere naturally- since human society is never static and
social, political, economic and cultural changes occur repeatedly-
nevertheless, the rate of change varies from time to time and place
to place. For example, Nigeria and other Third World countries with
limited access to up-to-date technology and information
communication systems might experience a slow process of change
compared to the United States, United Kingdom and other developed
countries where there is unlimited access to advanced information
communication technology. The second characteristic of social
change is the notion that change can be intentional yet often
unplanned. For instance, the Structural Adjustment Programme
(SAP) which was introduced in the 1980s by the World Bank and IMF
as a strategy to recuperate funds from owing countries of the South
(developing countries) was a deliberate action, however the way SAP
would affect the socio-economic development of other developing
countries was perhaps not envisioned along with the strategy.
Hence, social change can have general impacts on entire social
institutions, communities, societies or nations.
The third characteristic depicts that social change often generates
controversy. For example, the motion from developed countries
(United States, Canada and so on) that homosexual rights (i.e. same-
sex marriage) should be accepted in Nigeria and other developing
countries has caused controversy involving the government,
military, religious leaders, and the society at large. In addition, the
fourth characteristic posits that some changes matter more than
others do. For example, the invention of personal computers was
more important than Cabbage Patch dolls. This is because the
computer serves many more vital purposes for human development
than the latter.
2.2. Causes/Agents of social Change
Social change refers to significant alterations in the patterns of
culture, social structure, and social behavior over time. It’s an
ongoing, universal, and often unpredictable process. These changes
can be intentional or unplanned, and they frequently generate
controversy. A change in the population could be unavoidably
influenced by the movement of people from rural areas to urban
areas, where jobs are easier to find or into previously uninhabited
areas where natural resources are plentiful (causing population
decrease in rural areas and population increase in urban areas). The
city of Lagos is a comical example of this social reality. Population
density is Lagos State, Nigeria has engendered the idea of division of
labour, speciality and competition among people living in the area.
This scenario tallies with the postulation of Durkheim who argued
that when the population of a society increases or becomes denser;
the only viable way in which the people can survive is through
resource/task sharing, specialization and complementarity of roles
(Motoi 2017). More so, the losses and gains of cultural components
are vital proxies of social change. The erosion of Nigeria’s cultural
values due to colonialism cum neocolonialism, capitalism and its
affiliates; democracy, borderless economy and ICT revolution
became incompatible with local realities and negatively plunged the
country into diverse socio-economic and political crises. This is
correct to an extent as argued by Mimiko: For him,
The social fabric was completely devastated and a new culture of
violence was implanted. Traditional African systems of conflict
resolution were destroyed and, in their places, nothing was given.
The democratic process, rudimentary though it was, with great
potential as accompanies every human institution, was brutally
uprooted and replaced by the authoritarianism of colonialism. A new
crop of elites was created, nurtured, and weaned on the altar of
violence and colonialism armed with the structures of the modern
state to continue to carry out the art and act of subjugation of the
mass of the people in the service of colonialism (Mimiko, 2010 cited
in Arowolo, 2010).
The above assertion revealed that colonialism serves as a vehicle
for the implantation of cultural imperialism in Nigeria. This is also
supported by many pieces of evidence to show that colonialism is an
imposition of foreign rule over the indigenous traditional political
setting and foreign dominance and subjugation of African people in
all spheres of their social, political, cultural, economic and religious
civilisations (Arowolo 2010). One of the most profound consequences
of colonization, as shown by scholars, is the political and economic
rape of the colonies which led to what can be regarded as an
unbridgeable cultural gap between the nations that were the
beneficiaries of colonization and those that were the victims of the
colonial assault (Omobowale 2013; Arowolo 2010). The era of
colonial pillage and plunder led to the relative stagnation and often
precipitous decline of traditional cultural pursuits in the colonies
(Arowolo 2010). In the current dispensation, notwithstanding,
peoples’ cultures have been changed through invention (production
of new products, ideas and social patterns), discovery (seeking
something that has never been established before, or finding
something new in something that already exists) and diffusion
(circulation of ideas and objects from one society to another).
Similarly, social tension, social unrest and conflict (between two or
more races, religious sects, social classes, political parties,
communities etc.) can cause social change. As a result of social
unrest or conflict, the general population becomes uneasy, restless
and discontented. For example, the Niger-Delta militancy created
huge public tension in Nigeria and this forced the federal
government into granting amnesty to Niger-Delta militants through
an amnesty programme. Furthermore, the need for adaptation within
social systems may result in social change (Greenwood 2008). For
example, the development and adoption of Green Practices in many
Nigerian manufacturing companies serve as an adaptive response to
climate change. Moreover, another viable source of social change is
environmental factors such as earthquake, diseases and climate
shifts and other situations produced by people, such as pollution or
the overuse of natural resources. Any of these factors could produce
a change in the economic base and social ties of a group. For
instance, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in
2010, that climate change has pushed approximately 240 million
people (i.e. one person out of every four) in sub Saharan Africa (SSA)
out of adequate food security and a quality lifestyle into
malnourishment, hunger and extreme poverty (Ozor, Umunnakwe
and Acheampong 2014). In another dimension though on a lower
scale, it is significant to note that the increasing environmental
pollution in the Lagos metropolis of Nigeria has forced a majority of
the residents, specifically those living in polluted environs, to
develop a culture of coping with pollution with concomitant socio-
economic implications (Solaja, Omobowale and Alliyu 2015).
Of great significance is the gradual shift in industrialization, social
and economic opportunities from the developed countries to the
developing countries in recent times. This shift has generated
development in bilateral ties between and among countries of the
world (such as US-Cuba, US-China, Sino-Africa relations, to mention a
few) and a number of multinational corporations in developing
 countries. For example, China’s share of exports from Africa
increased from 3% in 1998 to 15% in 2008, and it had already
outplayed the United States as Africa’s largest trading partner since
2009 (Whalley and Weisbrod 2011). Significantly, social change has
occurred in Nigeria due to the ‘westernization consumerist ideology’
that projects the assumption that man’s wellbeing is best achieved
by amassing extreme wealth (legal or illegal) as quickly as possible,
in that African social value and culture are being shaped to the
benefit of capitalist system, with emphasis on the idea that
economic growth is suitable for the development of human and
society. The western ideology has often been used in a normative
way to indicate that foreign-made goods are of a high standard, and
have better features, with longer life-span than locally made goods.
As such, an average Nigerian would prefer to buy everything (new or
old) made overseas and refuse to buy anything made in Nigeria. This
act has gradually institutionalized a status quo which can be called
the Tokunbo phenomenon and the second-hand economy in Nigeria
with concomitant socio-economic and environmental implications
(Omobowale 2013). Western consumerist ideology, therefore, is a
particular way of life, considered as superior and advanced
identifiable with the West.

2.3. Major Perspectives on Social Change

The development of social change theory by classical and
contemporary sociologists has been based on two distinct
viewpoints which dominate the theoretical circles to date. Some
theorists take a change in structure (the establishment of new
institutions), composition (inter-group migration) and function
(specialization of labour, industrialization, authority relations) as the
phenomenon to be explained (Mesure 2009; Chiribuca 2004). While
other theorists believe that stability or the re-establishment of some
stable state (social inequalities) are worthy of examination
(Vlasceanu, Miroiu, Paunescu, and Hâncean 2011). These two views
were clearly exemplified by Rusu (2008) as the systemic approach
and the modern, process-oriented, dynamic or constructivist-
approach. However, the simple truth arising from the two divergent
approaches on social change is that it gives the paradigm of social
change the feature of Trifunctionality (the theoretical propensity to
describe, explain and evaluate social changes).
2.4. Classical perspectives on social change
The classical sociological thinkers of the 19 th and early 20th centuries
laid the groundwork for understanding social change. Their theories
 often reflected the dramatic transformations (Industrial Revolution,
urbanization, rise of nation-states) occurring in their time, leading
them to develop grand narratives of societal evolution. The majority
of the classical works on social change were published in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Comte’s analysis of the
evolution of human society marked the beginning of classical
studies on social change. According to comte, human society is a
living organism hence, it is dynamic in nature and social change
occurs as a result of the constant progress in intellectual or
knowledge production. Comte’s assumption is largely based on the
view that human thoughts, knowledge and intellectual properties
are principal factors that drive scientific advancement and other
forms of progress that had been transmuting human society from
one stage to another. Comte emphasized that since human society
is practically a social organism, all the fragments of human society
are symbiotic, in the sense that any change that occurs in one of
the fragments will facilitate significant changes in the entire social
organism and, by extension, propel the movement of human society
across the three essential stages of civilization namely; theological
(refers to the period when people are yet to discover the natural
causes of various phenomena and they attribute them to a
supernatural or divine power), metaphysical (refers to the period
when people believe that an abstract power or force determines
social events) and positive/scientific (refers to the period when
people base their explanations about social events on observation,
experiment and comparison). Based on the above views, Comte
strongly argued that all forms of social change that occur in human
societies are engineered by their social progress which can be
divided into two categories; progress in scientific knowledge and
economic knowledge. In contrast, the notion that social change
occurs as a result of social progress had been disputed on the
grounds that not every social evolution depicts social advancement.

2.5. Contemporary perspectives on social change

Building on the classical foundations, contemporary perspectives
expand the scope of analysis, incorporate new dimensions of social
life (e.g., gender, environment, media), and often synthesize or
critique earlier theories. The contemporary perspective on social
change was pioneered by the dependentist, modernist and post-
modernist scholars. Proponents of the contemporary perspective on
social change include Parsons (1991), Sorokin (1957), Merton
(1949), Dahrendorf (1959), Bourdieu (1972), Giddens (1984),
Smelser (1995), Alexander (1998), Habermas (1998), Beck (2000),
 Bauman (2001), Cohen (2003), and Baudrillard (1992). These
scholars variously conceptualized social change from different
perspectives, however, the heart of their arguments focused on the
dynamics of scientific knowledge, division of labour and culture of
the society which is closely connected to the classical point of view.
Realistically, proponents of the contemporary social change
theories have exclusive and opposing ideologies from that of the
classical scholars as it relates to what could bring about social
change and how it can be managed in the modern-day societies. For
instance, Parsons (1991) believed that the main causes of social
change are differentiation and integration. According to him,
differentiation arises in as much as human societies continue to
develop, and the existential needs of people begin to increase;
society strives to meets the needs by creating new social
institutions and joining them with the existing ones so as to function
as a system. As a whole system, Parsons further argued that when
human societies become more modern, the adaptations among the
various social institutions could designate growing distinctions, but
the functions they perform remain uninterrupted. Hence, human
societies frequently ensure the maintenance or modification of their
social institutions regardless of external influences. In the same
vein, Smelser (1995) submitted that modifications or alterations in
social structure could be expedited through differentiation within
and outside the system itself. In the view of Merton (1949), changes
within a society occurred due to the failure of the social system to
work correctly. This scenario can emerge from several factors,
however, he stresses the effect of conflict between cultural goals
and institutional norms in bringing about internal change in society
(Merton, 1949).

2.6. Synthesizing Classical and Contemporary Theories of

Change
The theoretical tour of social change began with the classical
evolutionary theorists. The evolutionary theorists like Auguste
Comte, Saint Simon, Frederick Hegel, Herbert Spencer and Emile
Durkheim who launched the theorizing exercise of social change by
transposing the ideological stance of biological evolution theory
(from a simple process to complex processes) propounded by
Charles Darwin in 1859 into the social sciences being confident that
society and culture experienced changes similar to the laws of
biology and organism growth (Mesure 2009; Badescu 2005). The
evolutionary proposition presents a linear conception that all
societies move from a simple stage to a complex stage of social
progress. Since that was the way social changes occurred in the
Western world. This assumption simply means that every society will
inevitably move from a simple to a complex stage, as expressed in
Europe. However, it is to be pointed out that evolutionary theory has
been seen to suffer some serious drawbacks; mainly the conception
of being ethnocentric in the sense that it uses Western societies as
the standard of construction. Equally, it has been pointed out that, it
is not in all cases that social evolution represents social progress.
Also, critics have pointed out that evolutionary models do not tell us
why societies like Great Britain have declined from the heights of
imperial power or why the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece and
Rome flourished, declined and ultimately became material for
courses in ancient history and classics.
In the effort to explain the rise and fall of human societies,
cyclical theorists like Oswald Spengler (1918), Arnold Toynbee
(1946), Vilfredo Pareto and Pitirim Sorokin (1948) submitted that
social change appears in three stages of a life cycle namely, growth,
development and decline. The West is believed to have passed
through its maturity in the 18th century and is now moving in the
direction of decline. While this proposition is quite convincing as an
explanation of history, it says little about any challenge a particular
society may expect in response to changes in its environment.
However, the revolutionary/radical theorists’ like Karl Marx and Ralph
Dahrendorf are of the opinion that social change occurs basically by
a succession of modes of production, being tense with ambiguities of
an economic and social nature (Popescu 2009; Valade 2006; Marx
1964). Conflict theorists were criticized for focusing mainly on the
role of social tensions, or dysfunctions of a predominantly economic
nature, ignoring the role played by technological progress or
external influences in the area of social dynamics such as
population, inequalities etc.
The structural-functionalist theorists like Bronislaw Malinowski,
Radcliffe-Brown, Talcott Parsons and Robert. K. Merton set to answer
some of the criticisms levelled against the conflict theory of change,
by submitting that social change occurs as a result of population
growth, changes in technology, inequalities among classes and
status groups, and efforts by different groups to meet their needs in
a world of scarce resources. In this view, there is no prediction of
rising and fall or uni-linear social change like it is found in early
evolutionary conception or even classical Marxian theory. The main
criticism advanced against the functionalist perspective is that it
focuses less on social change and conflict. And it was equally
criticized for its failure to give adequate account for the sources and
causes of social change. However, modernization theorists appeared
to give account for sources and cause of social change which
functionalists failed to do.
To modernization theorists, “societies develop in fairly
predictable stages through which they become increasingly
complex” (Johnson 2007). More emphatically, Walt Whitman Rostow
claimed that every society must undergo a sequence of five stages
(The traditional society, The preconditions for take-off, The take-off,
The drive to maturity and the age of high mass-consumption) and
ascribed the dominant agent of development to technological
progress and industrialization (Popescu 2009). The most viable
criticism of modernisation theory is the mistake of treating less
developed countries (LDCs) as homogeneous (i.e. as having the
same characteristics). With this, the theory fails to understand that
value systems and institutions tend to be culture-specific. For
example, Nigeria and Ghana may be neighbouring countries but
their cultures are quite different from one another and may each
require different development strategies. Some sociologists,
therefore, argued that each LDC needs to be analysed and
understood independently. In light of this, it is important to note that
all these classical approaches have been the subject of
disagreements and have been attacked by many sociologists which
drives us to contemporary theories of change.
As part of contemporary theories, dependency theory emerged
to attack the modernization theory which held that all societies
progress through similar stages of development. Dependency
theorists like Walter Rodney, Bauer Prebisch and Andre Gunder Frank
believed that developed countries are responsible for impoverishing
the less developed countries. Thus, social change occurs due to
deteriorating trade terms in the periphery regions which favoured
countries belonging to the core regions of the world. As such,
dependency theory argued that a marginal number of
underdeveloped nations are dependent for their trade and
investment on the core of industrialised countries, which maintain
the advantages of trade for their own interest (Morariu and Ignat
2011; Giddens 2010). The integration into an increasingly globalised
capitalist economy has limited the potential for improvement in the
living standards according to the culture of underdeveloped
countries (Morariu and Ignat 2011). The dependency theory is
criticized for failing to interrogate the applicability of externally
imposed development initiatives (Mantuhu 2011). This situation
perhaps informed some theorists (especially free-market economists
like Bauer and Wolf) to criticize the dependency theory on the basis
 of corruption, lack of competition, sustainability, and domestic
opportunity cost.
In expanding the scope of dependency theory, Immanuel
Wallerstein subsequently developed the world-systems theory,
premised on the relations between developed countries (core
nations) and less developed countries (peripheral nations), shaped
by political, economic, historical and geographical factors (Morariu
and Ignat 2011). Wallerstein argues that in understanding social
change the world capitalist economic system should be analysed as
a single unit, comprising four overlapping elements:
i. A world market for goods and labour;
ii.The division of the population into capitalists and workers;
iii. An international system of formal and informal political
relations among the most powerful countries, whose
competition with one another helps shape the world
economy;
iv. The carving up of the world into three unequal economic
zones (core, periphery and semi-periphery), with wealthier
zones exploiting the poorer ones.
The world systems theory was criticized on the grounds that it
focused on the economy and not enough on culture, and for being
too core-centric and state-centric. Similarly, the positivists criticize
the approach as too prone to generalization, lacking quantitative
data and failing to put forth a falsifiable proposition. While the
orthodox Marxists see the world systems approach as deviating too
far from orthodox Marxist principles, in that it does not give enough
weight to the concept of social class.
In the same worldview, globalisation theory (a derivative of
world systems theory) responds to modernisation theory by seeking
to account for present-day development. Globalization theorists
stressed the global integration of complex social systems, with a
strong emphasis on the economic and cultural transactions as
drivers of social change (Capello şi Resmini 2011; Lechner 2009).
Baltasiu (2009) and Lechner (2009) argued that global
communication and the increased access to information are now
transforming the complex social systems which generate visible
consequences on the social, economic, political and cultural levels,
in every country, creating the premises of the emergence of a global
culture and development of a global consciousness. The duo
analysed globalisation from two perspectives:
i. Horizontal globalisation, as an external process, dealing with the
geographical expansion of the modern world system;
ii. Vertical globalisation, referring to the unification of spaces,
determined by the spiritual integration of societies, in other words,
the spiritual fulfilment of man.
Furthermore, globalization theory has been criticized for the
scepticism of the appealed benefits of globalization (Manfred 2009;
Ritzer 2010). Also, anti-globalization theorists’ (mostly economists
and policymakers) believed that globalization is a process of bringing
prosperity to few people and not to the majority of people all around
the world. Their claim of causation was supported by the success of
the Asian tigers as a result of their own policies, and the failure of
many of the African states as a result of the opposite policies
(Bradhan 2003).
Having reviewed some classical and contemporary theories of
change above, it is pertinent to stress that classical theories of
change focused on two main perspectives, i.e. social evolution and
social revolution which were built on the general assumption that
social change was common to all societies, irresistible and it
occurred in an undeviating manner (unilinear, multi-linear and
universal dimensions) with a fixed life-cycle. However, contemporary
change theories see social change as a multi-dimensional
phenomenon. Therefore, proponents of contemporary theories of
change are of the view that any theory must contain three main
elements that should stand in definite relation to one another. The
elements are:
1. Structural determinants of social change, such as population
changes, the dislocation occasioned by war, or strains and
contradictions.
2. Processes and mechanisms of social change, including precipitating
mechanisms, social movements, political conflict and
accommodation, and entrepreneurial activity.
3. Directions of social change, including structural changes, effects,
and consequences.
4. Methodology
The paper employs the use of an explanatory research design
in which information is gathered from published articles, journals,
newspapers, as well as texts on social change as of 2019. The
articles used in this paper were sourced from reputable databases
such as Google Scholar, directorate of open access journals (DOAJ)
and science direct. Also, the paper focused on the empirical
literature that explained the classical and contemporary theories of
change; on the one hand, and studies that analysed the forms of
sociocultural, political and economic change in Nigeria between
 1960 and 2019; on the other hand. The data gathered from the
literature is thematically presented in the paper for easy the
interpretation of the process of social change in Nigeria.

3. Theoretical discussion on Education as a Change Agent in

Nigeria
Among the various factors that influence social change, education is
arguably the most powerful and strategic. It shapes individuals’
perspectives, equips them with skills, and influences societal
attitudes and behaviors. In Nigeria, education serves as a vital
instrument for transforming the social landscape in many ways. The
idea of education as a change agent in Nigeria can be thoroughly
examined through several sociological and educational theories.
These frameworks help us understand how education is supposed to
bring about change and why it often falls short in the Nigerian
context.
From a functionalist and modernization perspective, education
is an indispensable engine for national development. It is envisioned
to foster social cohesion by instilling shared values (national unity),
drive economic growth through human capital development (skill
acquisition, innovation), and propel society towards a modern,
progressive future by diffusing scientific knowledge and rational
thought. In theory, education should lead to upward social mobility,
reduced poverty, and a more enlightened citizenry capable of
demanding good governance. This theory perfectly describes
modern Nigerian social evolution where many states still struggle to
catch up with a changing business environment due to lack of
adequate energy, water supply, good roads, health care centres and
other social amenities and infrastructure, to bring about a better
social structure in the society. In a simple sense, it can be argued
that the lack of basic amenities and ineffective government policies
to properly integrate the fragmented cultural elements into a whole
according to their logical significance will continue to hinder the
process of desirable socio-economic development with concomitant
implications on human and social improvement.
The greatest Implication of this is the upsurge in social
problems like corruption, declining quality of education,
environmental pollution/degradation, family problems (increased
divorce and family abuse/struggle), gender discrimination,
governmental abuse of power, limited energy supplies, poverty,
racial discrimination, unemployment, and weakening social
institutions (Ololube, Dudafa, Uriah, and Agbor 2013). Moreover,
cyclical theorists are of the view that every society has a
predetermined life cycle of 120 years, i.e. growth, development and
decline years (each stage lasting 40 years), and after passing
through all these stages of the life cycle returns to the original stage
and starts the cycle again.
With this theoretical stance, Nigeria as a country now stands at
62 years, yet it seems to be having certain features across all the
three stages of the cyclical theory of change. Nigerian social settings
are powered by leaders with limited creative skills, who often see the
country’s population size (less than 200 million) as a challenge and
factor impeding national development even with the huge amount of
revenue (money) earned from crude-oil trade and natural resources
embedded in the country. The Nigerian government (federal, state
and local) continues to maintain the ideology that population size is
the cause of the pervasive nature of poverty in Nigeria. In Nigeria,
studies have shown that the proportion of people living below a
dollar per day stands above a hundred million (Afolayan, Ikwuyatum
and Abejide 2008) with a significant number of people losing their
children to illness brought about by hunger, lack of shelter, being
sick and not being able to see a doctor among other social problems.
Meanwhile, some countries like India and China are not as resource-
rich as Nigeria with a population that is thrice that of Nigeria, yet
they are making remarkable progress in the human and social
development process. For example, China continues to be a
momentous and dynamic development player in Africa. From 2000
to 2005, China-Africa trade rose from $10 billion to $25 billion and
had reached US$198.49 billion by 2012 (Whalley and Weisbrod
2011). Whereas Nigerian governments are fraught with corruption,
they are strategically weak in ensuring tax compliance, and the
majority of Nigerians are involved in tax avoidance and evasion. This
phenomenon portrays the individualistic thinking, serving of selfish
interests and corruption that exists between the government and the
people. In the same context of corruption and contradictions at
individual and government levels, the burdensome taxes, dynastic
disputes among the ruling elites, the extortionist policy of the
various governments and rampant maladministration of government
serve as drawbacks and decline forces which may lead the Nigerian
society back to where it started years back if care is not taken.
The current Nigerian social settings can also be pictured from a
modernization perspective. In the sense that, the recurrent contact
between relatively modernised societies and the relatively non-
modernised societies acts as a trigger of social change towards a
single direction, shaped by the model of the modernised society.
Nigerian social structure has been moving from time to time toward
foreign and Non-African ways (Olagbaju 2015). The acceptance of a
democratic system of government in Nigeria which arose from the
need to maintain mutual economic, social and political relationships
with the developed countries has brought about the double tragedy
of change (social progress and social problems) in modern Nigerian
society. The social progress is the notch of enlightenment (which
appears in terms of the introduction of democracy, self-freedom,
material growth, security etc.). While the social problems are the
accompanied social milieu (such as poverty, marginalization,
political corruption, cultural devaluation, insurgency, environmental
pollution, unemployment, homosexuality, dependency and many
other social issues) with varying degrees of consequences for
Nigeria’s development pursuit (Ololube, Dudafa, Uriah, & Agbor
2013).
Consequently, dependency and world-system theorists
commented that moving Nigerian social structures and culture in the
same direction with developed countries will continue to cement
Nigeria’s dependency on foreign developed countries. The
proponents of these theories argued that poverty in low-income
countries like Nigeria stems from their manipulation by wealthy
countries and multinational corporations based in wealthy countries;
in their view “global capitalism locked in a downward spiral of
exploitation and poverty” (Giddens 2010). It is also argued that the
relations between developed countries (core nations) and less
developed countries (peripheral nations) shaped political, economic,
historical and geographical factors which do promote exploitation,
dependency and poverty in peripheral regions (Wallerstein, 2000).
For instance, many wealthy states (United Kingdom, United States,
Russia, Germany and recently, Asian Nations.) established factories
and companies in Nigeria, using local cheap labour and raw
materials in order to minimize production costs and maximize profits
with minimal government interference (especially in pollutant
industries) and repatriate profits to their home country. This, in
effect, affected the Nigerian government (federal, state and local) by
accumulating profits that are necessary to pursue industrialisation
and desirable development. As a result, the Nigerian government is
constantly lured to sign or adopt foreign-baked policies and
conditionalities (i.e. same-sex marriage, deregulation, subsidies
removal, trade liberalization, etc.) in the attempt to borrow from the
wealthy ones, thus increasing the country's economic, social and
political dependency wherein the need for social change becomes
both obvious and inevitable.
 Following this view, globalisation theorists are progressively
relevant in accounting for social-economic gaps such as gender
inequality, level of democracy, and so on, among the countries and
regions of the globe. For instance, the acceptance of information
communication technology and the integration into the global
economic system have continued to put Nigeria under the watch and
control of powerful countries of the world (United States, United
Kingdom, Russia, France, Germany etc.). This situation has equally
put the country in a subordinate position in which social, economic
and political institutions can no longer stand or act on their own.
Without an iota of doubt, the dimension of social change in Nigeria
seems to be following the Neopopulism perspective. Neopopulism
perspective has its root in political science. Although the perspective
is still relatively young, its popularity is growing, particularly in
understanding the dimension of social change in Nigeria. According
to the Neopopulists, the rising rate of dependency and exploitation
facing developing countries- Nigeria inclusive, will give rise to the
redistribution of political power, economic dominance and/or cultural
leadership away from what are seen as corrupt, greedy, over-
centralized, urban-based oligarchies in favour of empowering, "the
common people," particularly those who live in rural or small-town
areas (Pantelimon 2015; Payne 2011; Vladimir 2000; di Tella 1965).
This fact can simply be inferred from the voting pattern and
behaviour of many Nigerians during the April 2015 elections where
the call for 'change' overshadowed that of 'power' even though, the
recent political change is yet to be felt by the masses.

4. Conclusion and Summary

In conclusion, social change is a dynamic and ongoing process that
shapes societies over time. In Nigeria, education emerges as one of
the most potent and transformative agents of social change. It has
the power to elevate individuals, promote economic growth, foster
social justice, and catalyze cultural shifts. However, realizing this
potential requires concerted efforts from government, communities,
and international partners to address existing challenges and
harness opportunities. Investment in education is not merely about
literacy or skill acquisition; it is about nurturing a conscious,
empowered citizenry capable of driving Nigeria toward a more
equitable, progressive, and sustainable future.
In addition, the family pattern is getting more nuclear and less
extended in Nigeria. This is due to the growing rate of the neo-local
mentality among the majority of newly married couples in Nigeria
The culture of carrying money around as well as spraying money at
occasions has equally changed in the era of the cashless economy.
All these evidence-based issues buttress the primary assumption of
evolution theories that social change is an inevitable, natural and
irreversible phenomenon. Hence, the modern Nigeria social setting is
not an exception.
The trend of social change in Nigeria appears in a multi-
dimensional pattern deviating from a linear process of change as
projected by the majority of classical theorists. This is because the
dimensions of social change in Nigerian society cut across different
sectors of the economy and society. For instance, the deregulation
exercise that took place in the telecommunications sector brought
about consequential changes in political administration, healthcare
delivery, education, economy, as well as the social condition in
Nigeria. However, the social realities of social change in
contemporary Nigerian societies have both positive and negative
impacts on human and social development. While some sectors of
the economy (ie. Communication and technology, education,
political participation, financial management, culture diffusion) are
experiencing positive improvements (employment opportunities,
infrastructural amenities, environmental management,
transparency, unity, social and internet security), others are rather
witnessing negative changes which cannot be explained in detail by
using a linear approach or classical theories alone.
Based on this reality, this paper supported the argument that
classical theories of change reflect the dominant thinking of men in a
particular socio-historical setting, most of which are speculative and
somewhat subjective when compared with contemporary analysis.
True, Durkheim and Sorokin used some empirical indicators but
these were exceptions. The others failed to quantify their research
by using scientific methodology and empirical data in their studies.
Also, the concepts adopted in building classical theories of change
can be said to have surplus meanings; they are vague and
somewhat ambiguous. Again, some of the classical theorists failed to
account for the extraneous or intervening variables that come to
play in the process of change. This may be due to the fact that
proponents of classical theories were social philosophers and not
social scientists. Thus, theories as objective, scientific, and positive
explanations of human behaviour were not developed. Most were a
historical comparison on a broad macro-level of analysis.
Therefore, education remains the cornerstone for social change
in Nigeria—an essential tool for building a society that values
development, justice, and human dignity.
References
Afolayan, Adejumoke, Ikwuyatum, Godwin. and Abejide, Olumuyiwa.
2008. Dynamics of International Migration in Nigeria (A Review
Literature). Paper presented as part of the African Perspectives on
Human Mobility Programme Funded by Mac Arthur Foundation.

Arowolo, Dare. 2010. "The Effects of Western Civilisation and Culture

in Africa." Afro Asian Journal of Social Sciences 1 (1) Quarter IV.

Bachman, Ronet and Schutt, Russell. 2007. The practice of research

in criminology and criminal justice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Baltasiu, Radu 2009. The Anthropology of Globalization.

Transformations and Attractions (De) code. Publisher Little Wallachia
Bucharest.

Badescu, lonut. 2005. Universal Encyclopedia of Sociology. Vol 1.

Founders. Publisher Little Wallachia Bucharest.

Bradhan, Pranab 2003. "Crouching Tiger, Lumbering Elephant: A

China-India Comparison." In Markets and Governments, edited by
Kaushik Basu, Pulin Nayak, and Ranjan Ray. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.

Chiribuca, Dan. 2004. Modernity post-communist transition and

reconstruction in Romania. Eikon, Clu-Napoca: Publisher Dacia.

Capello, Roberta, Rasmini, Laura and Fratesi, Ugo. 2011.

Globalisation and Regional Growth in Europe: Past Trends and Future
Scenarios. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Cohen, David. 2003. Our Modern Times. Massachusetts: The MIT

Press.

Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society.

California: Stanford University Press.

Di Tella, Torcuato. 1965. “Populism and Reform in Latin America.” In

Obstacles to Change in Latin America, edited by C. Veliz. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Dike, Victor. 2008. Leadership, politics, and social change: Nigeria
and the struggle for survival.

http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org/articles/20/1/Leadership-
Politics-and-Social-Change-Nigeria-and-the-Struggle-for-Survival/
Page1.html. Accessed November 3, 2015.

Dois, Willem. 1996. “Social interaction and cognitive development.”

In Psychology. Social. Contemporary look, edited by A. Neculau. Iaşi:
Polirom.

Durkheim, Emile. 2001. Division of labour. Bucharest: Albatros

Publishing House.

Durkheim, Emile. 1884. The Division of Labor in Society. New York:

Free Press.

Durowade, Oluwadare. 2002. Social Structure and Social Change in

Africa. In The Social Structure of Contemporary African Societies,
edited by O. Moses Shoremi, and A. Adewale Oyekunle. Kraft Books
Limited, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Eme, Okechukwu Innocent and Ibietan, Jide. 2012. “The Cost of Boko
Haram activities in Nigeria.” Arabian Journal of Business and
Management Review, OMAN Chapter 2 (2):10-23.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. California:

University of California Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 2010. Sociology, translated by O. Gheorghiu.

Publisher All Bucharest.

The government of Romania. 1998. Emergency Ordinance on the

deprived areas. Published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part 1,
no. 378 of 20 August.

Giddens, Anthony. And Duneier, Mitchell. 2000. Introduction to

Sociology (3rd edition). New York and London: W.W. Norton and
Company, Inc.

Greenwood, Ronni, Mitchell. 2008. “Intersectional political

consciousness: Appreciation for intragroup differences and solidarity
in diverse groups.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 32: 36-47.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1998. The Postnational Constellation.
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Huntington, Samuel. 2003. “The Change to Change: Modernization,

Development and Politics.” Comparative Politics 3 (3): 283-322.

Johnson, Allan. 2007. The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. Use the

Language Guide Sociology. Bucharest: Humanitas.

Korotayev, Andrey and Zinkina, Julia. 2014. “On the structure of the
present-day convergence.” Campus-Wide Information Systems 31
(2/3): 139-152.

Lechner, Frank. 2009. Globalization: The Making of World Society.

Singapore: Utopia Press.

Manfred, Steger. 2009. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction.

Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1964. Pre-Capitalist Economic Foundations. London:

Lawrence and Wishart.

Marx, Karl. 1848. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Signet

Classic.

Matunhu, Jephias. 2011. “A Critique of Modernization and

Dependency Theories in Africa: Critical Assessment.” African Journal
of History and Culture 3 (5): 65-72.

Mesure, Simmons. 2009. Auguste Comte. In The history of

sociological thought, edited by Gilles Ferreol. Laşi: Greats European
Institute.
Mimiko, Oluwafemi. 2010. “Would Falola Frustrations Suffice?
Tradition, Governance Challenges and the Prospects of Change in
Africa.” In Toyin Falola: The Man, The Mask, The Muse, edited by Niyi
Afolabi. North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.

Morariu, Corina and Ignat, George. 2011. “Social-Economic

Theoretical Connections: Theories of Social Change.” Journal of
Social Economy 1 (1): 26-48.
Mutekwe, Edmore. 2012. “The impact of technology on social
change: a sociological perspective.” Journal of Research in Peace,
Gender and Development 2 (11): 226-238.

Olagbaju, Opeoluwa. 2015. “The Pursuit of Social Change in Nigeria:

The Language Education Alternative.” Developing Country Studies 5
(9): 63-67.

Ololube, Prince, Dudafa, Johnny, Uriah, Oboada and Agbor, Comfort.

2013. “Education for development; Impediments to the globalization
of higher education in Nigeria.” International Journal of Educational
Foundation and Management 1 (2): 109-130

Ololube, Prince. 2011. Education and society: an interactive

approach. Owerri: Springfield Publishers.

Omobowale, Olumuyiwa. 2013. The Tokunbo Phenomenon and the

Second-hand Economy in Nigeria. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Ozor, Nicholas., Umunnakwe Polycarp and Acheampong, Ernest.

2014. “Challenges of Food Security in Africa and the Way Forward.”
Development: the future of global governance. Society for
International Development (SID) 56 (3): 404-411.

Pantelimon, Victor. 2015. “Populism and Neo-populism as the Main

Characteristics of the XXI Century Politics.” South-East European
Journal of Political Science. Gender politics in Post-communist
Countries. Vol. III. No. 1.

Parsons, Talcott. 1991. The Social System. London: Routledge.

Payne, Malcolm. 2011. The modern theory of social assistance,

translated by Theodora E. D. Ene. Laşi: Polirom.