Breaking down the question
The command is examine, and the instruction any two theories gives you a choice while in detail sets the expectation. This is not an invitation to skim four or five theories superficially; it rewards depth over breadth. Select two theories you can develop thoroughly, expound each with its key thinkers and mechanisms, and — because the word is examine — evaluate as well as describe.
Social change means significant alteration over time in the structure, culture and institutions of society. The theories that explain it fall into recognisable families, and the two most productive to contrast are the evolutionary theory, which sees change as gradual progress from simple to complex forms, and the conflict theory, which sees change as the product of struggle and contradiction. Choosing two that oppose each other lets you draw out their strengths and weaknesses by comparison.
How to approach it
Announce your two chosen theories at the start and justify the choice briefly — for instance that they represent contrasting visions of how and why societies change. Then devote a substantial, self-contained treatment to each: its central claim, its principal exponents, the mechanism of change it proposes, and a critical appraisal. Depth is signalled by naming thinkers precisely and explaining the process, not merely labelling it.
Reserve genuine space for evaluation, since examine demands it. For the evolutionary theory, weigh its optimism and ethnocentrism; for the conflict theory, weigh its explanatory power against the charge of economic determinism. The full landscape of change theory is developed in our notes on theories of social change. A closing comparison that sets the two side by side lifts the answer from two descriptions into a genuine examination.
Model answer
Social change refers to significant and lasting transformations in the structure, institutions and culture of society over time, and sociologists have proposed several theories to explain its direction and causes. Of these, two stand out for the sharpness of their contrast: the evolutionary theory, which portrays change as gradual and progressive development, and the conflict theory, which portrays it as the outcome of struggle and contradiction. Examining both in detail reveals two fundamentally different understandings of how societies move.
The evolutionary theory, the earliest sociological account of change, holds that societies develop progressively from simple, undifferentiated forms towards complex, differentiated ones, much as organisms grow. Auguste Comte gave it an early formulation in his law of three stages, according to which human thought and society advance through theological, metaphysical and positive phases, each more rational than the last. Herbert Spencer developed the theory most fully, drawing an explicit analogy between society and a living organism. Just as an organism grows from a simple homogeneous structure into a complex one with specialised, interdependent organs, so society evolves through increasing structural differentiation, its institutions becoming more numerous and more specialised while growing more integrated. Spencer described this movement as one from the simple to the compound and from the military to the industrial type of society, driven by a process akin to the survival of the fittest.
The evolutionary theory has real merits. It was the first to treat social change systematically and comparatively, it rightly identified differentiation as a genuine long-term tendency, and it supplied a framework within which whole societies could be compared. Yet it is open to serious criticism. It is ethnocentric, for its classical exponents placed contemporary Western industrial society at the summit of development and judged all others by their distance from it. It assumes a single, unilinear path through fixed stages, whereas societies in fact change in diverse directions, a point that led later anthropologists to propose multilinear evolution. It is deterministic and teleological, treating change as an inevitable unfolding towards a predetermined end, and it neglects the role of conflict, agency and diffusion. Above all, its faith in continuous progress is contradicted by the historical reality of decline, breakdown and reversal.
The conflict theory offers a radically different account, locating the engine of change not in gradual adaptation but in tension and struggle. Its most influential exponent is Karl Marx, whose theory of dialectical and historical materialism holds that the driving force of history is the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production, expressed as class conflict. Each mode of production — ancient, feudal, capitalist — generates within itself opposed classes whose interests are irreconcilable. As the productive forces develop, they come into contradiction with the existing property relations, the class struggle intensifies, and the old order is overthrown and replaced by a new one. Thus society advances, in Marx's account, from feudalism through capitalism towards socialism, change coming not smoothly but through crisis and revolution. Later conflict theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf broadened the theory beyond economic class, locating conflict in the unequal distribution of authority within institutions, so that struggle over power, not only property, drives change.
The conflict theory too has notable strengths. It grasps that change is often abrupt and transformative rather than gradual, it foregrounds inequality and power as motors of history, and it accounts for revolution and social movements that evolutionary theory cannot explain. It has, however, its own limitations. In its Marxist form it is charged with economic determinism, reducing the complexity of social life to the mode of production and underplaying the independent force of ideas, religion and culture — the very point of Weber's rejoinder. Its prediction of the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the transition to socialism has not been borne out, and by emphasising conflict it can underestimate the consensus, cooperation and stability that also characterise social life.
Set side by side, the two theories illuminate each other. The evolutionary theory sees change as gradual, orderly and progressive, arising from within through differentiation; the conflict theory sees it as sudden, contested and revolutionary, arising from contradiction and struggle. The one is optimistic and consensual, the other critical and antagonistic. Each captures something the other misses — the reality of long-term differentiation on the one hand, the reality of conflict and inequality on the other — and a full understanding of social change draws on both rather than treating either as complete.
In sum, the evolutionary and conflict theories represent two of the most detailed and influential accounts of social change. The first explains the slow, cumulative growth in the complexity of societies; the second explains the abrupt, struggle-driven transformations of history. Examined together, their contrasting strengths and weaknesses show that social change is neither purely gradual nor purely revolutionary, but a process in which adaptation and conflict both play their part.
Examiner's perspective
Because the question invites any two theories treated in detail, examiners reward depth and evaluation over a hurried survey of many. The strongest scripts choose two contrasting theories, expound each with named thinkers and a clear mechanism — differentiation for the evolutionary, class contradiction for the conflict — and appraise both critically. A closing comparison that sets the two against each other converts description into genuine examination.
The common failing is to describe three or four theories superficially, ignoring the instruction in detail, or to narrate the two chosen theories without any critical evaluation. To reach the top band, limit yourself to two, develop each fully with its exponents and process, weigh strengths against limitations, and conclude by showing what each contributes to a rounded understanding of change.