The ultimate aim of theory in any field of study is to provide a framework within which otherwise scattered bits and pieces of information can be interpreted and understood. Without such a framework, information tends to multiply rather than cumulate, and it becomes extraordinarily difficult to advance much beyond common sense in efforts to interpret materials.13
13. Unfortunately, most sociologists have been slow to recognize this. For many years now, efforts to construct comprehensive theories of human societies have been treated dismissively as efforts to build “grand” theory, when the real problem was the assumptions on which these theories were based and their inability to provide a foundation for the kind of multilayered theory that pro- tects against crude overgeneralization.
The study of human societies is no exception. Here, as elsewhere, a theoreti- cal framework is essential, both as a guide to research and as an aid in the interpre- tation of our otherwise fragmented store of information.
Ideally, theory should take the form of a set of highly specified equations that fit all of the relevant data. This is not possible, however, partly because of the extraordinary complexity of the relationships involved, partly because of the small number of well-documented cases, and partly because of the impossibility of manipulating the relevant variables experimentally. Nevertheless, it is possible to discern the basic outlines of a theoretical model that can account for many of the most important features of individual societies and thus provide the kind of com- prehensive framework for the discipline that macrosociology requires.
Figure 4.2 is such a model, specifying as it does the four major components of societal systems and their relations to one another and to three crucial extrasocietal determinants. As is evident, this is a more highly specified version of the general model shown in Figure 3.3. Phenotype has been divided into popula- tion, ideology, technology, and social organization, and environment has been broken down into biophysical and sociocultural components. In addition, tech- nology is identified as the critical interface between the biophysical environment and the other parts of the phenotype, and is shown as having a greater influence on social organization and ideology than either of them has on it. The thick, solid arrow linking the sociocultural system at Time 1 to the sociocultural system at Time 2 calls attention to the important phenomenon of autocorrelation that has
Time 1 Time 2
= Primary influences = Secondary influences
Genotypic properties of human populations: their gene pool and the information it contains
Genotypic properties of human populations: their gene pool and the information it contains Population The biophysical environment The sociocultural environment The biophysical environment The sociocultural environment Ideology
Technology OrganizationSocial
Population Ideology
Technology OrganizationSocial
Figure 4.2 First-stage ecological-evolutionary model of the determinants of the character- istics of individual societies
Determinants of the Characteristics of Individual Societies 77 been observed repeatedly in time-series studies of human societies. Correlations between measures of the same variable at successive points in time are usually so high that it is often difficult to assess the relative strength of other influences. This is especially true when the time intervals employed are relatively brief.
Autocorrelation needs to be recognized as something more than a method- ological inconvenience, as it is usually regarded; it is also a substantive finding with important theoretical implications. Above all, it is a reminder that there is a powerful social and cultural counterpart to the physical phenomenon of inertia and the biological phenomenon of homeostasis. Sociocultural systems tend to persist over time and resist change. Thus, the social and cultural characteristics of a society at any given time are never merely responses to current environmental and genetic circumstances and influences; they also include responses to circum- stances and influences operative in the past.
René Dubos (1968: 270), the noted biologist, captured this aspect of hu- man life in a remarkable way when he wrote, “The past is not dead history; it is the living material out of which man makes the present and builds the future.” This is why synchronic and ahistorical analyses of the kind that have been so popular in American sociology are so disappointing. No matter how skillfully they capture the interplay of current forces, they fail to do justice to the heritage of the past and its continuing influence on societies. (See Chapter 10 for an im- portant instance of this in the world today.)
Before we leave Figure 4.2, there are two other points to be noted. First, the model shown in the figure is not meant to be exhaustive; it is simply a first-stage model that can be expanded to handle greater detail as the need arises. In other words, it is a foundation on which to build, not a finished structure. For example, although the initial model lumps all elements of technology into a single compo- nent, it is helpful or even necessary for certain purposes to differentiate between the technologies of production and the technologies of transportation and com- munication. From a developmental standpoint, the former appear to be the more basic, but it is clear that significant feedback effects have also been at work. In a similar manner, more detailed specifications can be added to each of the other components of the model.
While it is important to recognize the necessity of adding greater specificity to the model when dealing with specific problems, it is even more important not to lose sight of the basic model and the map it provides of relationships among the major components of societal systems and the primary forces acting on them. Failure to develop this kind of map may well have done more to impede the advance of sociology than all of the discipline’s other failings and shortcomings combined.
Second, as the figure indicates, the influence of technology on other ele- ments of sociocultural systems is not always direct. Its impact on various aspects of social organization and ideology is often mediated by other elements of these same variables. By overlooking or ignoring these indirect effects of technology,
many have been misled into believing that social organization and ideology are the principal sources of change in societies.14
For those who find ecological-evolutionary theory attractive, the model shown in Figure 4.2 can provide an aid to research and to the analysis of indi- vidual societies. Above all, it identifies the most important elements that must go into such an analysis and the nature of relationships among them. While not all of the elements of the model have to be dealt with explicitly in every analysis of every society, all should be kept clearly in mind. In short, those who seek to explain the characteristics of individual societies should bring to the task:
1. a conception of human nature that is informed by the new sciences of genetics and primatology as well as by the unhappy results of utopian social experiments in the twentieth century that assumed human nature was highly malleable; 2. a sensitivity to the influence of the biophysical environment, both as a resource
for and a constraining influence on societal development;
3. a sensitivity to the influence of the sociocultural environment, again both as a resource for and a constraining influence on societal development;
4. an appreciation of the special role of technology as the interface between the biophysical environment and other aspects of sociocultural systems, as a fac- tor limiting the developmental possibilities of a society, and as a force influ- encing a society’s choices within the limits of the possible;
5. an appreciation of the importance of population size and its influence on all of the other components of societal systems;
6. a concern for the interaction of societal systems of social organization and ideol-
ogy and for the possibilities of feedback between them and between both of
them and technology and population; and, finally,
7. an appreciation of the impact of a society’s cultural heritage and a recognition of the importance of taking the longer historical view even when attempting “merely” to explain the contemporary scene.
This approach to macrosociology may itself sound utopian, but if the analysis thus far has been correct, neglect of any of these elements of the model is likely to lead
14. For example, if one hopes to explain the striking changes in the role of women in indus- trial societies in recent years it is not enough merely to invoke the new feminist ideology or the success of recent feminist organizations. The question remains, Why did the new ideology and new organizations arise when they did and why have they been so successful at this time? Was it simply a matter of more skillful leadership or better organization? Or was it the new technologies that have liberated women from bondage to the extended cycle of child-bearing and child-rearing and have allowed them to become competitive in the new workplace where brains are usually more valuable than brawn? This is not to suggest that technological innovation and change have been sufficient causes. Clearly, they have not. But they have been necessary causes, and very important ones at that. Ecological-evolutionary theory does not deny or minimize the contribution of social organizational and ideological variables in processes of social change; but it does encourage much greater attention to the facilitating role of technological innovation, which extends the limits of the possible in human societies and thus plays a critical role in most of the more radical transformations in human societies.
Determinants of the Characteristics of Individual Societies 79 to misinterpretations and faulty conclusions. As theologians have long recognized, sins of omission are no less serious than sins of commission; neglect of relevant vari- ables, or constants, can bias conclusions no less than faulty analysis or errors in logic. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the limitations and shortcomings of con- temporary sociology are due much more to the former than to the latter.