Breaking down the question
The question asks you to "explain the relevance" of cultural lag, so it has two obligations: state clearly what Ogburn meant by the idea, and then show why it remains a useful lens for understanding social change. Relevance means both explanatory power and contemporary applicability.
The concept turns on a simple but powerful distinction between material and non-material culture, and on the observation that the two do not change at the same pace. Grasping that unevenness — and its consequence, a period of maladjustment — is the analytical core. A well-chosen contemporary illustration is what converts a textbook definition into a strong answer.
How to approach it
Open with Ogburn's distinction between material and non-material culture and a precise definition of cultural lag as the interval during which the second fails to keep up with the first. Then explain why this matters for the study of social change: it identifies a source of tension, dislocation and social problems. Wider frameworks are set out in our notes on theories of social change.
Devote the second half to relevance, using vivid modern examples — digital technology, biomedicine, the environment — and then add a brief critical note so the answer is balanced rather than merely expository. Close with a measured verdict.
Model answer
The idea of cultural lag was developed by William F. Ogburn to explain the uneven and disruptive character of social change. Ogburn divided culture into two parts. Material culture comprises technology, tools and physical artefacts; non-material culture comprises the values, norms, laws, beliefs and institutions through which a society regulates its life. His central observation was that these two elements do not change at the same speed. Material culture, driven by invention and accumulation, tends to advance rapidly, while non-material culture adjusts more slowly. The interval during which values, laws and institutions have not yet caught up with technological change is what Ogburn called the cultural lag.
The relevance of the idea for understanding social change lies in the way it locates the source of much social disruption. Change, in this view, is not a smooth, harmonious process but one that generates strain, because the different parts of culture fall out of step. The lag produces a period of maladjustment in which old norms no longer fit new material conditions, and social problems arise until the non-material sphere adapts. The concept thus draws attention to the tensions, dislocations and conflicts that accompany rapid technological advance.
The idea remains strikingly applicable to contemporary society. Digital technology has advanced far faster than the laws, ethical norms and institutions needed to govern it, producing lags around privacy, data protection, misinformation and online harm. Advances in biomedicine and reproductive technology outpace the moral and legal frameworks required to regulate them. The gap between industrial capacity and environmental regulation has contributed to the ecological crisis. In each case the pattern Ogburn described — a rapid material change followed by a slow, contested normative adjustment — helps make sense of the resulting confusion and reform.
The concept nonetheless has limits. Critics charge it with technological determinism, since it privileges material change as the driver to which the rest of culture reacts, understating the way values themselves can prompt technological development. The distinction between material and non-material culture can be difficult to apply cleanly, and deciding what is genuinely "lagging" often involves a value judgement. Change, moreover, sometimes runs the other way, with new ideas preceding new technologies.
Even so, cultural lag retains real value. It offers a clear, testable account of why social change is uneven and disruptive, directs attention to the mismatch between technology and institutions, and remains a serviceable tool for analysing the strains of a rapidly modernising world. As a partial rather than complete theory of change, it continues to illuminate the friction that accompanies technological advance.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners expect Ogburn's material and non-material distinction to be stated accurately, and cultural lag to be defined as the interval of maladjustment between them. Answers that stop at definition, without demonstrating relevance, remain in the average band.
The mark is won by candidates who apply the idea to convincing contemporary cases — digital privacy, biotechnology, the environment — and then temper their account with a brief critique of its technological determinism. A balanced verdict, treating cultural lag as a useful if partial explanation of uneven change, signals the analytical maturity the command word invites.