• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The Evolution of Societies
The year 2009 has been dubbed Darwin’s year. The theory of evolution has never been so popular, but it’s opponents — creationists and intelligent designers — are also as vociferous as ever. If creationists came from their bible classes, where did evolutioncome from?Evolution did not burst Athena-like from the forehead of Charles Darwin (1809 —1882) in 1859. Besides holding off on publication for nearly twenty years, he himself traced evolutionary ideas to Aristotle and Empedocles. But closer to Darwin, his owngrandfather Erasmus Darwin (1731 — 1802) and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 — 1829) both proposed hypotheses of the transmutation of species — something that was quiteanathema to the prevailing literal protestant readings of the bible. Indeed the very term,evolution, did not arise among students of plants or animals (which the literalists held were created and fixed by God in the year 4004 BC), but rather among Enlightenmentstudents of man and society. A closer reading of history shows that there was (and is)not one theory of evolution, but theories of evolution — and relatively few of themconcerned with the biological world.
 Before the Enlightenmen
It is not well known, but already in the 14th century the North African Islamicscholar ibn Khaldun (1332 — 1406) put forward the view of societies as living organisms which experience birth, growth, maturity, decline and death due to universal causes.One of his most incisive analyses was that of the relationship between settled andnomadic societies, which shift and adapt, with nomads repeatedly conquering farmingcommunities before being assimiliated and the new society in turn becoming plunderfor the next wave of nomads. This cycle of nomad and peasant lasted for nearly threethousand years until the spread of rifling and standing armies broke the predominanceof the horse in warfare. In his non-progressivist analysis ibn Khaldun was far ahead of 
 
European thinkers by a good half-millennium.Meanwhile, most European thinkers maintained that man and his societies were ina state of decline from the golden age of the Garden of Eden. This also meshed withancient Greek mythologies of ages of gold, silver and bronze followed ultimately by themean age of iron, where all things are debased. It was only in the 18th century thatprogress began to seem so certain that theories of the decline of society began to bereplaced by theories of evolution. However, these early theories of evolution used theterm as a synonym for progress and development, not simply for gradual change fromone form to another. This concept of progress still represents common usage of the termevolution.
 Evolution and Enlightenmen
Evolution in the sense of progress also helped Europeans make sense of thecolonial world they were building through the Age of Discovery. In the 17th century Thomas Hobbes’ (1588 — 1679) view of man’s primeval condition as “solitary, poor,nasty, brutish, and short” is a good summary of the then prevalent view of the savage —i.e. non-European. All that was good in man was the result of the slow development outof this lowly state. This view, of the progression from brute to citizen, was almostuniversally held. But questions arose as to the how and why of progress. Why, in somelands, the people are progressive and civilized, while in others they are poor and brutish.Usually John Locke (1632 — 1704) is presented as the lighter counterpoint toHobbes’ dark, brooding commentary on human nature. Locke presents man as
tabularasa
, made what he is by environment. But in truth, at least on the field of evolution, both espouse the same progressivism. While Hobbes presents the state and law civilizing man, Locke views education as that power. Both are examples of that class of explanations dubbed environmentalist where man’s environment effects hisevolution. Usually the so-called biologist explanations are opposed to this position,
 
 where differences among peoples are attributed to biological differences (often race andracism). The fact is neither of these positions have much to do with evolution in themodern sense of variation, selection and heredity, but an overview is nevertheless inorder, to understand the common-sense progressivism that still informs much of ourEuropean thinking today.Giambattista Vico or Vigo (1668 — 1744) is best known for his
 Scienza Nuova
(1725) where he argues that there exists a natural law of human social development,albeit informed by a divine providence, which repeats itself cyclically. This natural law sees each civilization moving through three ages: the divine, the heroic, and the human.In the first age metaphor is the master trope of language, in the second metonymy andsynecdoche support the development of feudalism and monarchy, and finally, in thethird age, irony is reflected in democracy. Although Vico’s ‘evolutionism’ is marked by three universal phases and natural law, it’s cultural, metaphysical emphasis is far fromgeneral Enlightenment trend, which was far more materialist and utilitarian.Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu (1689 — 1755) was a far more typicalrepresentative of Enlightenment evolutionism. His position was that the most importantfactor in the evolution of society and temperament was the climate. He is thus usually presented as an exemplary geographical determinist, indeed a meteorologicaldeterminist. This is a slight over-simplification, but it serves. Besides this climatic axis,he also discerned a second axis of cultural progress, introducing the famous threephases of savagery, barbarism and civilization. Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune (1727 — 1781) was another Frenchenlightenmenteer. Better known for his economics theories, he also subscribed to theidea of universal, tri-phase sociocultural development in subsistence and rationality:hunting, pastoralism and agriculture. It seems that Turgot equated the quantity of people supported by a given area of land with the rationality of that socio-economicorder. Nevertheless, he did not view hunters or pastoralists as inferior
 per se
, merely not
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...