Sociologists, social theorists and philosophers of history have long sought to discern broad historical patterns in human history. Most such broad theories of history are alternatively cyclical, dialectical, progressive, or teleological, whereby societal change results either from a cycle of over-reaching and decay, from swings of a militaristic or dialectic pendulum, or from an inherent time’s arrow of progress or teleology. Others have proposed Darwinian models of societal evolution driven by variation and selection, applied at the institutional, national, or macro-cultural levels. [1]
By contrast, the thesis offered here posits that global society’s developmental change and metamorphosis in the present era arises from the pressure on the earth’s limited environmental carrying capacity of humanity’s population expansion and rising material living standard, combined with an indomitable human spiritual striving for knowledge and improvement in the quality of life, and together these two forces, the stick and the carrot, propel and lead society to increasingly redirect the direction of its growth away from extensive and toward intensive development, i.e. a shift in the axis of development from material expansion to informational intensification.
[1] See “Philosophy of History.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 22 June 2011. Web. 21 July 2011. Cyclical theories of history were held by the Ancient Greeks, and in China and the Islamic world. Cyclical theories were proposed in the Renaissance (Machiavelli and Gibbon) and in the 19th and 20th Centuries by Spengler and Toynbee, for example.
_____________________________________
My hypothesis begins the story of society’s evolution with the industrial revolution, and I have looked for earlier cycles of holistic development along the lines proposed here. From Fernand Braudel’s The Wheels of Commerce, (University of California Press: 1992) one perhaps can surmise a precursor cycle of materialistic, structural and spiritual development in Western civilization beginning with the end of the Renaissance and the 16th C. rise and build out of market capitalism, followed by the 17th C. socio-structural revolutions against feudal and church authority, and a baroque flowering of culture becoming decadent in the first half of the 18th C., but the evidence is only vaguely suggestive. Rather than try to generalize my hypothesis into a cyclical theory, I limit my discussion to society’s current adolescent metamorphosis.
Progressive theories.
Walter Rostow hypothesized that developing societies progress through phases of development, passing through discontinuous phase changes and a “take-off” stage into modernity, but his theory has been discarded as unuseful, and developing countries today are leapfrogging from the earliest to the most advanced developmental stages, at least economically and technologically, if not so much politically and democratically.
Francis Fukuyama, the End of History, sees progress in the story of western civilization up through liberal democracy, as I do, but he stops at the door of the information age when the market mechanism is accepted as governing the economic realm. In his latest book, Political Order and Political Decay goes on to discuss the evolution of liberal democracies since the 19th Century in granular detail, but avoids predicting the inevitability of progress or the defining a common ideal toward which all liberal democracies develop.
Dialectic theories.
Karl Marx introduces class struggle as the prime mover of history, and while I sympathize with his identification of a polar opposition between the forces of labor and capital, I see the opposition in different terms. I see the underlying polarity as between the forces of human spirit and those of materialistic capital, and I do not see these forces as relating dialectically so much as subject to the long-term progressive awakening and evolution, or lack thereof, of human consciousness. On the one hand humanity strives to improve its lot, an ultimately spiritual pursuit, and on the other hand capital flows to where it earns the highest return, drawn materialistically or gravitationally like water flows down hill. I see disembodied capital as a force unto itself, and capitalists, as merely its human agents, concentrating and thereby growing capital’s aggregate stock, because concentrated capital is less prone to being consumed. These spiritual and materialistic forces vie for control of government because governance sets the intermediating structure by which capital and human spirit share resources. When humanity awakes to its potentiality and its responsibility, it takes control of society’s governing institutions, and when humanity remains unconscious, capital takes charge. Big moneyed interests have the upper hand at present, but this can and should change before society’s adolescence runs its course, if my assumption of progress and adolescent transformation holds true. It is part of the business of our age for humanity to awaken as to its responsibility for self-governance and to take charge of the disembodied forces of capital.
Hegel saw progress governed by a pendulum dialectic that brought about an every deepening consciousness in humanity, integrating both cyclical and progressive models.
Teleological theories.
I share with Teilhard de Chardin his view that the world is progressing in its evolution of consciousness and is drawn into the future by ideals, although I do not go so far as he does to predict beyond the societal restructuring of the information age. Chardin’s view of an ultimate “omega point” where humanity achieves a cooperative unity of purpose is certainly concordant with my thesis of an evolving more rationalized, effective and harmonious societal structure.
Rudolf Steiner is another…
Parsons? Their theories were all either disproved or judged unverifiable and thereby marginalized.
Evolutionary theories.
Social Darwinists, e.g. Herbert Spencer, saw society as governed by natural organic forces, but recognized only a linear progress culminating in culture and technology. They do not take the argument to the higher level of evolving human consciousness and cooperativeness, as I do here, with implications for the evolution of society’s institutions.
Ernst’s Haeckel’s theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, like mine, sees a holism in all organic development, but as a scientific theory, his strict parallel proved false.
The enlightenment scholars, beginning with, Auguste Compte, but then continued by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Emanuel Kant saw both societal progress and individual enlightenment as integral to the history of humanity.
Fukayama and the end of history. But market liberalism has evolved: “Classical liberalism is a doctrine built around respect for the equal dignity of individuals through a rule of law that protects their rights, and through constitutional checks on the state’s ability to interfere with those rights. But over the past half century that basic impulse underwent two great distortions. The first was the rise of “neoliberalism”, an economic doctrine that sanctified markets and reduced the ability of governments to protect those hurt by economic change. The world got a lot richer in the aggregate, while the working class lost jobs and opportunity. Power shifted away from the places that hosted the original industrial revolution to Asia and other parts of the developing world. The second distortion was the rise of identity politics or what one might call “woke liberalism”, in which progressive concern for the working class was replaced by targeted protections for a narrower set of marginalised groups: racial minorities, immigrants, sexual minorities and the like. State power was increasingly used not in the service of impartial justice, but rather to promote specific social outcomes for these groups.” Fukayama in FT 110924
ChatGBT:
There are several principal theories of historical progress, which attempt to explain how human societies have evolved and improved over time.
One of the earliest and most influential theories was the idea of social evolution, which was first proposed by the Enlightenment philosopher, Montesquieu. According to this theory, societies progress through a series of stages, from primitive societies to more advanced ones, as they develop more complex social structures and institutions. This theory was later refined by other scholars, including Herbert Spencer, who argued that societies evolve through a process of natural selection, in which the most fit and adaptive societies survive and prosper.
Another important theory of historical progress is the idea of historical materialism, which was developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. According to this theory, historical progress is driven by economic and material factors, such as class struggle and the development of productive forces. Marx argued that the history of human societies can be divided into several distinct stages, each characterized by a different mode of production, such as primitive communism, feudalism, and capitalism. He believed that the eventual triumph of communism would represent the final stage of historical progress.
A third theory of historical progress is the idea of cultural evolution, which emphasizes the importance of ideas and cultural values in shaping the course of human history. This theory was first proposed by the anthropologist Franz Boas, and has been developed by later scholars such as Julian Steward and Leslie White. According to this theory, societies evolve not only through changes in their material conditions, but also through changes in their cultural practices, beliefs, and values.
Finally, some scholars have proposed more holistic theories of historical progress, which emphasize the interconnectedness of different factors, such as economic, social, cultural, and technological changes. These theories stress the importance of understanding historical progress as a complex and multifaceted process, which cannot be reduced to any single explanatory factor.
ChatGBT2:
Theories of historical progress attempt to explain the patterns and direction of change in human history. While there are many different theories, some of the principal kinds of theories of historical progress include:
-
Linear Progress: This theory suggests that human history moves in a straight line towards greater development, advancement, and improvement. This view has been associated with Enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and Condorcet. The idea of linear progress is closely linked to the notion of modernization, which emphasizes the spread of rationality, science, and democracy.
-
Cyclical Progress: This theory sees history as a cycle of rise and decline, with civilizations experiencing periods of growth followed by decay and collapse. This view has been associated with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and also with the philosopher Oswald Spengler. According to this theory, there is no ultimate direction to history, but rather a repeating pattern.
-
Dialectical Progress: This theory was developed by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and later refined by Karl Marx. It suggests that history moves through a process of conflict and resolution, with each stage leading to a higher level of development. Marx applied this theory to the development of human society, suggesting that the conflict between social classes drives historical change.
-
Evolutionary Progress: This theory suggests that human history follows the same pattern as biological evolution, with humans gradually developing greater complexity and adaptation to their environment. This view has been associated with Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin, and is closely linked to the idea of social Darwinism.
-
Structural Progress: This theory emphasizes the role of institutions, technologies, and social structures in shaping historical change. It suggests that history moves in response to changes in these underlying structures, rather than the actions of individuals or groups. This view has been associated with the French sociologist Emile Durkheim and the American historian William McNeill.