Neoevolutionism
As neoevolutionism one is sociological flow refers to the development of societies based on the biological theory of evolution tries to explain, but from basic assumptions of classical social science evolutionism settles. Neoevolutionism is concerned with long-term, directed social change and with recurring patterns of development that can be observed in different cultures.
development
Origins in classical evolutionism
The social-scientific evolutionism of the 19th century was part of a way of thinking that was widespread at the time among European and Western intellectuals , who had been interested in researching long-term changes in nature and humans since the 18th century. A knowledge-sociological interpretation sees this widespread interest as an expression of the competition between the nobility and the bourgeoisie , in which the bourgeoisie, because they wanted to improve their own social position, looked at the changeability of social (and also natural) conditions.
In biology, it sprang from the biological evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin , with supplements in the form of the modern evolutionary synthesis remained a key element in building theory of biology is. In the social sciences, the classical evolutionists tried to describe and explain the development of societies using general evolutionary principles. They assumed a linear (“linear”) form of long-term development in which all societies would go through the same stages of development. Often one's own western civilization was seen as the most highly developed stage. In some cases (e.g. by Karl Marx ) predictions that believe in progress were made for further developments.
These theories were at the beginning of the 20th century from the historical particularism as un scientifically rejected who insisted that every culture has its own history and development. Evolutionary thinking, whether from the politically right or left, was generally discredited in the social sciences for decades. Based on this criticism, various social scientists reformulated the theories about long-term social change so that they met contemporary scientific demands.
Differences from classical evolutionism
The beginnings of neoevolutionism go back to the 1930s, after the Second World War, neoevolutionist theories were significantly further developed until they found their way into ethnology , anthropology and sociology in the 1960s . With its developmental models, neoevolutionism rejects many of the ideas of classical evolutionism. Neoevolutionist theories tend to be based on common assumptions, which are not shared equally by everyone:
- First and foremost, he opposes the largely unreflective notion of social progress that dominated previous evolutionary concepts. Deterministic positions that assume that events are completely predetermined by given causes are replaced by the category probability with reference to the influence of chance and free will . Neoevolutionism is similar to counterfactual history , which asks what could have happened if certain conditions had not been met or if they had not been met. Neoevolutionism sees this as evidence of its nondeterministic approach, which allows societies with comparable conditions to develop in different ways and in different steps. Instead of single-line concepts of evolution, multi-line, more differentiated models were developed.
- In close connection with this, neoevolutionists demand that one refrain from evaluating the object of investigation. Prophetic predictions are also rejected.
- Instead, the empirical evidence of their theories is of crucial importance for neoevolutionists. In contrast to the classic approaches, which were largely based on value judgments and assumptions , neoevolutionism relies on measurable and verifiable information in order to analyze the process of cultural evolution. The empirical basis of the development models and theories are evidence e.g. B. from ethnology , history , archeology and paleontology .
- Nevertheless, the majority of neo-evolutionist models also presuppose a development towards higher, more complex, but not predetermined stages. It is often assumed that a "primordial culture" can be reconstructed. The religious scholar Ina Wunn complains that the evaluative classification of underdeveloped to highly developed cultural forms is still assumed unreflectively by a large number of scholars, despite findings to the contrary. She advocates cultural relativistic models based on biological theories that allow cross-connections and "retrograde developments"; and, above all, no longer allow a hierarchical assessment of cultural phenomena.
Representative
- Ferdinand Tönnies (1855–1936) - Tönnies himself was not a neoevolutionist. His work is considered an important prerequisite for neoevolutionism. He was one of the first sociologists to pointed that social evolution, progress thinking and determination not necessary mean the same thing. Social development is neither goal-oriented nor ever completed. Modern societies could even be described as retrograde in a judgmental sense if they can only guarantee the satisfaction of individuals' needs at high costs.
- Leslie White (1900–1975) - author of The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome (1959). With the publication of White's writing, sociology and anthropology's interest in evolutionism was revived. White tried to develop a theory that would explain all of human history. The main idea of his approach is the aspect of technology : social systems would be determined by technological systems, wrote White with reference to the early work of Lewis Henry Morgan . A measure of social progress is the energy consumption of a given society. White distinguishes five steps in development. In the first, people used the energy of their muscles. The second is determined by the use of domesticated animals. In the third step, the energy from plants is used. Fourth, humans learn to use natural energy sources: coal , oil , gas . He saw the fifth step in the taming of nuclear energy . White's energy approach is somewhat similar to the Kardaschow scale later formulated by the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardaschow .
- Julian Steward developed the theory of social change. In "The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution" (1955, reprinted 1979) he formulated the theory of multilinear evolution. He examined how societies adapted to their environment. His approach was more differentiated than White's unilinear development. He questioned the possibility of a comprehensive theory of human development, but also emphasized that anthropology is not limited to the purely descriptive representation of individual existing cultures. He assumed that it would be possible to develop theories that analyze the typical , everyday culture that is representative of certain time periods or regions. Steward sees technology and economy as the determining factors in the development of a society, but emphasizes the influence of the secondary factors religion , ideology and the political system . Multilinearity consists in the fact that a society develops in different directions at the same time as these factors interact.
- Marshall Sahlins - author of "Evolution and Culture" (1960). Sahlins distinguished between general and specific developments in society. The general development is the tendency of cultural and social systems to increase the complexity , organization and adaptation to the environment . Since the different cultures and societies are not isolated from one another, there is a mutual influence and penetration of their properties. This leads to the special development of society as a concretization of the general development in a specific and unique way.
- Gerhard Lenski - with Power and Prestige (1966) and Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology (1974) Lenski extends the work of Leslie White and Lewis Henry Morgan. Like his masterminds, he sees technological development as the decisive factor and yardstick for the evolution of society and culture. Unlike White, who viewed technology as the ability to generate and use energy, Lenski focuses on the scope and use of information. The more information and knowledge, especially about the design of the natural environment, a given society has, the more advanced it is. Lenski highlights four phases in human development. At first, information was only passed on through genes . In the second stage, people learned to learn information through experience and to pass on what they had learned. The next phase was marked by the development of signs and logic . Finally, in the fourth phase, mankind learns to use symbols, they have developed writing and language Advances in communication techniques are reflected in the further development of the economic and political system, in the distribution of goods , in social inequality and in other areas of society Life. In parallel, Lenski classifies societies according to the level of their technology, communication and economy: 1) hunters and gatherers, 2) simple agriculture, 3) advanced agriculture, 4) industrial production and 5) special forms such as fishing-based societies.
- Talcott Parsons - the author of Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (1966) and The System of Modern Societies ( 1971 ) distinguished four sub-processes in the development of society: 1) The division within a society generates functional subsystems from the overall system. 2) When adapting , the individual systems develop greater efficiency in coping with their specific tasks. 3) Inclusion reintegrates elements that were previously excluded from a specific system. 4) The generalization of values strengthens the legitimacy basis of the now more complex system. Talcott Parsons illustrates these processes at three stages of development: Archaic societies differed from primitive societies in their ability to write . Modern societies also have knowledge of the law . Parson sees Western civilization as the high point of modern societies, and he declares the United States of America to be the most developed of Western civilizations.
- Shmuel N. Eisenstadt - Eisenstadt's starting point is thought to be close to Talcott Parsons. However, his research overcomes the Eurocentric interpretation of social development that dominated Parsons . The cultural program developed in the West is no longer viewed as a natural model of development for all societies, but only as the earliest model of the development of a modern society.
- Norbert Elias - with his main work On the Process of Civilization , Elias first presented a model of the development of social and personality structures in Western Europe from the 9th to the 19th century. This work, published in the 1930s, was not widely received until the 1970s due to the war. His aim was to open up a new path in social science research that overcomes the limitations of previous paradigms . As a result, he mainly worked on the theoretical and sociological principles of his new approach. Elias rejects static theoretical concepts, such as those he criticized by Parsons, in favor of dynamic models. One of his basic assumptions is that reality is constantly in motion, which affects all levels of the "great evolution": physico-chemical evolution , biological evolution and socio-cultural evolution . These levels differ in the increasing degree of complexity, new structures and regularities, etc. a. the rapidly increasing development speed. In his view, the social sciences in particular are therefore dependent on a model of long-term social change for the analysis of limited social phenomena. The “great evolution” model also explains why different sciences with different methodological approaches are necessary for these different subject areas - as well as their cooperation: Since each new level builds on the previous one, but something new is created at the same time For example, not to explain the development of humans without recourse to biological evolution, but not to reduce it to it either. Elias therefore calls on the social sciences to methodologically emancipate themselves from the natural sciences, while at the same time taking differentiated note of their results.
literature
- Fabian Deus, Anna-Lena Dießelmann , Luisa-Fischer. Clemens Knobloch (ed.) The culture of neoevolutionism. On the discursive renaturalization of people and society. transcript Verlag Bielefeld.d 2015. ISBN 978-3-8376-2891-3
See also
- Civilizational process according to Darcy Ribeiro
- Technological singularity
- World history
- Earth history , natural history
- Particularism
- Cosmology , chemical evolution
- History
- Sociobiology
Individual evidence
- ↑ Ina Wunn: The evolution of religions. Habilitation thesis, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Hanover, 2004. pdf version ( page no longer available , search in web archives ) Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . Pp. 7, 9-11, 299-304, (308ff), (387ff), 420, (424ff), 438-439.
