of social groups, and the wider, collective historical process(Smith, 1998:30). “Man is a member of a community, ‘part of a whole’, his actions social because they are collective(Smith, 1998:30). Thus for Ferguson, social change through social action is not seen as the product of the actions of individuals alone. Instead, it is the efforts and social of the society as whole that is responsible for social change. There is nothing of Smith’s individualism in Ferguson’s concept of the unanticipated effects of social action, or the facile optimism that separated historical meaning from the human subjects which themselves constituted history(Smith, 1998:30-31). Ferguson thus argues, in contrast to what Smith advocates, that social change is brought upon society by the social actions of the community as a whole. Ferguson does not see the social actions of individuals as responsible for social change. In his perspective, society functions as a whole, not on an individual level. Therefore, social change should be seen as something created not by individual efforts, but the collective effort of the community as a whole. The fall of communism in Eastern and Central Europe is an example of how social action led to social change. The people revolted against the corruption and economic despair, and thus led to the demise of communism. Through Smith’s perspective, one can view this social change through the social action of individuals who were seeking to serve their self-interest which resulted in the good of society. From Ferguson’s point of view, revolt of the masses against the state can be seen as the community or society functioning as whole to invoke social change through the social action of revoltion. The thinking of Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson differs in that they view society differently. For Smith, he looks at the structures of society at the individual level. In contrast, Fergu...
