Talcott Parsons, a leading structural functionalist, offered a theory of social change rooted in his AGIL (Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, Latency) model, viewing society as a system striving for equilibrium. For Parsons, social change was primarily a process of 'differentiation' and 'adaptive upgrading.' As societies evolve, institutions become more specialized (differentiated) to perform specific functions, leading to greater complexity and efficiency (adaptive upgrading). For example, the family differentiates from an economic unit to primarily a social-emotional unit, while specialized economic institutions emerge. This process, he argued, allows societies to better adapt to their environment and achieve their goals.

While Parsons' theory provides a systematic and comprehensive framework for understanding how societies maintain stability and evolve gradually, it is often criticized for not being an entirely adequate theory of social change. Its strengths lie in explaining incremental, evolutionary change and the mechanisms by which societies maintain order and integrate new elements. It highlights the interdependence of social institutions and the functional prerequisites for societal survival.

However, its major limitations make it inadequate for explaining many forms of social change. Critics argue that Parsons' theory has a conservative bias, focusing heavily on equilibrium and stability, and thus struggles to account for rapid, revolutionary, or conflict-driven change. It tends to view conflict as dysfunctional rather than a potential catalyst for transformation. The theory is also often seen as teleological, implying a predetermined path of development towards a more complex, differentiated society, often mirroring Western industrial models. It struggles to explain the origins of change, often treating it as an external disturbance, and overlooks the role of power, inequality, and human agency in driving societal shifts. Therefore, while valuable for understanding certain aspects of social evolution and stability, Parsons' theory falls short in providing a comprehensive explanation for the full spectrum of social change, particularly radical transformations and those driven by internal contradictions and power struggles.