چکیده:
The transformations and changes of human societies on a macro scale as an undeniable fact have always been the concern of philosophers of history and thinkers of social sciences. On the how and manner of the changes of societies with a dynamic approach, three models of evolution, circular and degeneration have been proposed so far. The evolutionary model claims that all or the fundamental parts of a society go through successive stages of growth and development in the process of time and without interruption, and reach a degree of perfection and maturity. The present article aims to compare the views of Talcott Parsons and Professor Motahhari on social evolution by relying on the comparative method in order to gain a deep understanding of what social evolution is and its social and cultural implications. The findings of the research show that these two views are similar to each other in issues such as the belief in the independent existence of the society, the integrated approach to the twin roles of the individual and the society (structures) in the bio-social process and the evolution of the society, the multi-linearity of the path of social evolution. While, these two views disagree with each other regarding what social evolution is, the evolution index, the evolution factor, and its purpose.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Thinkers who have focused on studying the continuous and systematic processes of societal changes have so far identified three general patterns in the course of the historical transformations of societies: First, the evolutionary pattern, which believes that this order, in addition to its continuous nature, has a direction and an upward course, and societies are always, albeit at different rhythms, moving in a path of gradual progress and advancement, and based on indicators, each stage is relatively more developed than the previous stages.
It must be said that his theory of social evolution has not been shaped by paying attention to the continuous process of the transformations of human societies, but rather his work is "ordering and organizing the various types of structural transformation and the sequence of its forms" (Parsons, 1966: 111; Ritzer, 1995: 144), and from this perspective, his evolutionary theory is not considered among the instances of conventional social evolution theories.
The reason for the difference in view between these two thinkers can be found in the difference in the nature of social evolution from their perspectives; on the other hand, it becomes clear that in order to investigate the extent of the realization of the pattern of progress and development in a society according to Parsons' view, attention must be paid to the indicators derived from structural elements; whereas according to Master Motahhari's view, the indicators derived from cultural aspects such as faith, reason, and awareness are intended.
(
, 
, 
)
