Riggs, Fred (2006). The Prismatic Model: Conceptualizing Transitional Society. Elsevier Ltd.

Vol. 15,17-60.

I. Introduction

In the recent years, much effort, both practical and scholarly, has been devoted to
examining the process and problems of economic development in non-industrialized
societies. Concurrently, there has been some – though much less - study of “administrative
development” in these countries. We still lack a clear understanding of the forces that lead
to administrative transformations, to changes from traditional, status-oriented
bureaucracies to “modern” patterns of governmental organization in which the ideals of
“efficiency” and “effectiveness” can become operating principles.
Riggs points out that there is a lack and indeed any consensus on what characteristic of
the administrative situation in transitional societies is, on possible stages or sequences in
the process of administrative transformation, on relationships between administrative
change and corresponding process of economic, political, social, and cultural development.
There is even disagreement on the relation between administration and culture – whether
administrative behavior is uniquely determined by cultures or corresponds to general levels
of sociopolitical integration.

Clearly, if we are to progress in our understanding of this subject, to say nothing of our
efforts to help governments modernize their administrative systems, we must devote more
attention to the conceptual and theoretical basis of our work. This book inquires into some
of these underlying assumptions.

It is becoming popular to refer to the countries seeking to speed up their own

industrialization as “transitional societies.” To talk intelligently about conditions in a
“transitional” society, we need concepts for the characteristics though to prevail there. In
theory of Economic Development, we can use such indices as levels of per capita income or,
perhaps more precisely, in terms of Rostow’s theory of Stages of Economic Growth, of
“preconditions” or “take-off,” in which conditions of crucial variables are said to occur.
Whether or not Rostow’s theory is empirically sound, it does give the economist a set of
models, which can direct his research to significant variables in economic development.

II. Summary

This is how Fred Riggs describes the word. Sala has no separate or independent life in
his analytical system. It is an essential component of prismatic society. The prismatic
society's functions are carried out through the sala mechanism. Because the number of
prismatic societies is relatively considerable, Riggs has given it the highest priority. The
prismatic societies, according to Fred Riggs, have three distinct characteristics. Overlapping,
heterogeneity, and, eventually, formalism are the three.
 Overlapping is a key characteristic of prismatic-sala societies. Overlapping means to
expand outside of one's own country to cover a portion of it. The following is how Riggs
explains the phrase. "The extent to which formally differentiated structures of a diffracted
society coexist with undifferentiated structures of a fused society," the statement adds.
Riggs wants to claim that the structures of diffracted society each have their own definite or
obvious tasks or functions, and that there is no overlap.
The fused form of society, on the other hand, has only one set of structures and, as a
result, there is no overlap, meaning that one cannot interfere with the other. Prisma tic
societies, on the other hand, have certain distinct characteristics. In such societies, new
structures are built to fulfill people's changing needs. The old structures, on the other hand,
continue to exist side by side. As a result, both old and new structures coexist.
Modern structures are those that have recently been built. Both sorts of constructions
accomplish their objectives. However, there may be occasions when there is a conflict
between old and new, or traditional and modern architecture. It is unavoidable. The roles of
these two sorts of organizations will inevitably overlap, according to Riggs. This category
includes Asian and African governments that were once colonies but gained independence
in the second part of the twentieth century.
Another element of the prismatic-sala concept of society is heterogeneity.
Heterogeneity is an important element of this form of society. There are many various types
of systems, cultures, practices, and perspectives coexisting. This type of characteristic is
common in transitional societies. There are a variety of social developments, social cultures,
and religious faiths, as well as conflict among them. There are educated and sophisticated
classes on the one hand, and uneducated or less educated ones on the other.
The educated and intellectual class lives its life in Western style and Western culture.
This class has no sympathy for indigenous culture. On the other hand, the indigenous group
leads its life according to old culture and life style. The influence of this heterogeneity very
often falls upon the administration. The state authority cannot ban any group or culture and
the public administration is allowed to cope with this heterogeneity. The sala is also formed
in the background of this heterogeneity.

Finally, there is formalism. According COD, formalism is excessive adherence to

prescribed forms or excessive concern with form rather than content. Riggs uses the term in
the following manner. He says: Formalism is “the degree of discrepancy or congruence
between the formally prescribed and effectively practiced, between norms and realities” If
there is difference or discrepancy between the formal aspects and the effectiveness the
system will be treated as formal.

III. Evaluation

In comparison to fused and diffracted societies, the author claims that prismatic
societies are more formal. According to him, officers or administrators in a prismatic society
stick to the literal interpretation of rules and statutes, and this attitude frequently impacts
the normal operation of public administration, as well as the public's interests.
 Several things can be linked to formalism's popularity. Administrators are often uninterested
in welfare activities, as well as the preservation or advancement of people's interests and
welfare. Officers' primary concerns revolve around the concept of service, specifically how
to maintain service and advance in rank. Administrators in prismatic societies are prone to
corruption, and in attempt to hide it, they try to become increasingly formal.
He aptly observes “Thus formalism generally joins with the process of official corruption.”
The love of the administrators for formalism or excessive formality has sometimes been a
great hindrance to rapid progress of society. Analysis of the prismatic society reveals that, in
many cases, the formalistic attitude of the bureaucrats stands on the way of progress.

The author goes on to say that senior officials' authority and ministers' relative
weakness create a favorable environment for corruption to flourish. Taking advantage of the
minister's weakness, the sala officer engages in corrupt actions in order to boost his own
community or ethnic group. A prismatic society's public administration is characterized by
its weakness and partiality. The bureaucracy is all-powerful, with no regard for
accountability to anyone. Sala has traits of nepotism and poor management.
The prismatic society is continually in transition, which means that internal social changes
are constantly occurring and the ecology or environment is so active that the Weberian
bureaucratic model appears to be completely irrelevant. To put it another way, in the
Riggsian paradigm, bureaucracy is not a factor in public administration. However, this is
incorrect. The sala plays an important function in prismatic society. The role or relevance of
sala is depicted in the Riggsian model. We believe that, while ecology and the environment
play a big role in prismatic society's administrative system, the relevance of sala or
bureaucracy cannot be overlooked.
The prismatic society can never be the permanent feature of any geographical area.
Prismatic means a society in transition. But the economic, political and social character of a
state may undergo rapid changes. Particularly under the impact of globalization or
liberalization the economic, political and social conditions of every state is rapidly changing.
We can say that pragmatism is a temporary feature of a state. The political socialization is
rapidly progressing and no single feature can be a permanent one.
He has primarily depicted prismatic society's darker features. However, such communities
may have certain favorable aspects. Riggs was heavily inspired by Western institutions and
procedures while describing the nature of a prismatic society. This is one of his flaws. When
Riggs asserts that there is no coordination among the many departments or institutions in a
prismatic society, he is true. However, even in diffracted cultures, the same phenomenon
will be discovered. Critics have argued that Riggs' viewpoint is merely oversimplified.

IV. Conclusion

In Riggs’s view all modern societies are diffused so far as their functions are concerned.
In other words, they perform various types of functions. It is applicable to all modern and
non-modern societies. When the function is criterion the societies may conveniently be
called fused. He further says modern societies are functionally diffracted. Diffraction means
the process by which a beam of light or other system of waves is spread out as a result of
passing through a narrow aperture or across an edge. In between fused and diffracted
societies there is a third type and it is prismatic. The term prismatic conveys the following
meaning. Prismatic means relating to or having the form of prism and the word prism
denotes a solid geometric figure whose two ends are similar or equal. It is a transparent
object in this form.

In his revised version Riggs has said that some societies perform certain specific
functions and these societies are termed “functionally specific”. Of course there may occur
minor changes in the function. But generally the society’s functions are confined within
limits. Let us now see what is meant by “fused” society in his view, when the societies are
functionally diffused they are called “fused” societies. If the societies are functionally
specific they are called diffracted. There are some societies which are in-between fused and
diffracted-these are called prismatic.