Evolutionary theories

Introduction

Evolutionary theories are based on the assumption that societies gradually change from simple beginnings into even more complex forms. Early sociologists beginning with Auguste Comte believed that human societies evolve in a unilinear way- that is in one line of development. According to them social change meant progress toward something better. They saw change as positive and beneficial. To them the evolutionary process implied that societies would necessarily reach new and higher levels of civilization. L.H Morgan believed that there were three basic stages in the process: savagery, barbarism and civilization. Auguste Comte's ideas relating to the three stages in the development of human thought and also of society namely-the theological, the metaphysical and the positive in a way represent the three basic stages of social change. This evolutionary view of social change was highly influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of Organic Evolution.

Definition

Social change may be defined as the alteration or transformation at large scale level in the social structure, social institutions, social organization and patterns of social behavior in a given society or social system. Social change can also be defined as the alteration, rearrangement or total replacement of phenomena, activities, values or processes through time in a society
in a succession of events. The alteration or rearrangement may involve simple or complex changes in the structure, form or shape of the social phenomena. Sometimes it may mean the complete wiping out of the phenomenon and their total replacement by new forms (Calhoun et al, 1994).

Evolutionary Theory

Despite the wide variety in the possible directions change may take, various generalizations have been set forth. Because the lot of mankind generally has improved over the long term, by far the most numerous classes of theories of the direction of change comprise various cumulative or evolutionary trends. Though varying in many ways, these theories share an important conclusion that the course of man’s history is marked up ‘upward’ trend through time.

The notion of evolution came into social sciences from the theories of biological evolution. With the advent of Darwinian Theory of biological evolution, society and culture began to be regarded as undergoing the same changes and demonstrating the same trends.

It was conceived that society and culture were subject to the same general laws of biological and organism growth. Some thinkers even identified evolution with progress and proceeded to project into the future more and more perfect and better-adapted social and cultural forms.

Charles Darwin (1859), the British biologist, who propounded the theory of biological evolution, showed that species of organisms have evolved from simpler organisms to the more complicated organisms through the processes of variations and natural selection. After Darwin, ‘evolution’, in fact, became the buzz word in all intellectual inquiry and Darwin and Spencer were the key names of an era in the history of thought.

Herbert Spencer (1890), who is known to be the forerunner of this evolutionary thought in sociology, took the position that sociology is “the study of evolution in its most complex form”. For him, evolution is a process of differen­tiation and integration.

Those who were fascinated by this theory applied it to the human society and argued that societies must have evolved from the simple and primitive to that of too complex and advanced such as the western society. Herbert Spencer a British sociologist carried this analogy to its extremity. He argued that society itself is an organism. He even applied Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest to human societies. He said that society has been gradually progressing towards a better state. He argued that it has evolved from military society to the industrial society. He claimed that western races, classes or societies had survived and evolved because they were better adapted to face the conditions of life. This view known as social Darwinism got widespread popularity in the late 19th century. It survived even during the first phase of the 20th century. Emile Durkheim identified the cause of societal evolution as a society's increasing moral density. Durkheim viewed societies as changing in the direction of greater differentiation, interdependence and formal control under the pressure of increasing moral density. He advocated that societies have evolved from a relatively undifferentiated social structure with minimum of division of labor and with a kind of solidarity called mechanical solidarity to a more differentiated social structure with maximum division of labor giving rise to a kind of solidarity called organic solidarity.

Types of Evolutionary Theory:

There are three main types of evolutionary theory:

(1) Theory of Unilinear Evolution:

It postulates the straight-line, ordered or progressive nature of social change. According to this theory, change always proceeds toward a predestined goal in a unilinear fashion. There is no place of repetition of the same stage in this theory. Followers of this pattern of change argue that society gradually moves to an even higher state of civilization which advances in a linear fashion and in the direction of improvement. The pace of this change may be swift or slow. In brief, linear hypothesis states that all aspects of society change continually in a certain direction, never faltering, never repeating them.

Theories of Saint-Simon, Comte, Morgan, Marx and Engels, and many other anthropologists and sociologists come under the category of unilinear theories of social evolution because they are based on the assumption that each society does, indeed must, pass through a fixed and limited numbers of stages in a given sequence. Such theories long dominated the sociological scene.

(2) Universal Theory of Evolution:

It is a little bit variant form of unilinear evolution which states that every society does not necessarily go through the same fixed stages of development. It argues, rather, that the culture of mankind, taken as a whole, has followed a definite line of evolution.

Spencer’s views can be categorised under this perspective who said that mankind had progressed from small groups to large and from simple to compound and in more general terms, from homogenous to the heterogeneous. The anthropologist Leslie White has been a leading exponent of this conception.

Similar ideas were greatly elaborated by William Ogbum, who stressed the role of invention in social change. On this basis he gave birth to the famous concept of ‘cultural lag’ which states that change in our non-material culture, i.e., in our ideas and social arrangements, always lag behind changes in material culture, i.e., in our technology and invention.

(3) Multilinear Theory of Evolution:

This brand of evolutionism has more recently developed and is more realistic than the unilinear and universal brand of evolutionary change. Multilinear evolution is a concept, which attempts to account for diversity. It essentially means identification of different sequential patterns for different culture or types of cultures. This theory holds that change can occur in several ways and that it does not inevitably lead in the same direction. Theorists of this persuasion recognise that human culture has evolved along a number of lines.

Those who share this perspective, such as Julian Steward (1960), attempt to explain neither the straight-line evolution of each society, nor the progress of mankind as a whole, but rather concentrate on much more limited sequences of development.

It does identify some social trends as merely universal: the progression from smaller to larger, simpler to more complex, rural to urban, and low technology to higher technology but it recognises that these can come about in various ways and with distinct consequences. This theory is related to what is known as episodic approach, which stresses the importance of accidents and unique historical, social and environmental circumstances that help to explain a particular course of social change. Later on, the views of Leslie White and Julian Steward were named as neo-evolutionism.

Criticism of Evolutionary Theory:

Evolutionary scheme (gradual and continuous development in stages) of any kind fell under both theoretical and empirical attack in the last century. It was criticised heavily on many grounds but mainly for its sweeping or over-generalisation about historical sequences, uniform stages of development and evolutionary rate of change. The biological evolution, from which the main ideas of social evolution were borrowed, provided somewhat clumsy and unsatisfactory answers.

Such explanations came under attack for lack of evidence. Evolutionary scales were also questioned from a somewhat different, but more empirical source. The easy assumption that societies evolved from simple to complex forms, was mainly based on a scale of predominant productive technology turned out to be unwarranted.

The doctrine of ‘cultural relativity’ inhibited even static or cross-sectional generalisation, provided a new basis for satisfying the common features of societies. The evolutionary scheme also failed to specify the systematic characteristics of evolving societies or institu­tions and also the mechanisms and processes of change through which the transition from one stage to another was effected.

Most of the classical evolutionary schools tended to point out general causes of change (economic, technological or spiritual etc.) or some general trend to complexity inherent in the development of societies. Very often they confused such general tendencies with the causes of change or assumed that the general tendencies explain concrete instances of change.

Because of the above shortcomings, the evolutionary theory is less popular today. A leading modern theorist Anthony Giddens (1979) has consistently attacked on evolutionism and functionalism of any brand. He rejects them as an appropriate approach to under­standing society and social change. Spencer’s optimistic theory is regarded with some skepticism. It is said that growth may create social problems rather than social progress.

Modern sociology has tended to neglect or even to reject this theory, mainly because it was too uncritically applied by an earlier generation of sociologists. In spite of its all weaknesses, it has a very significant place in the inter­pretation of social change. The recent tentative revival in an evolutionary perspective is closely related to growing interest in historical and comparative studies

With reference to Gutenberg Movable type, what are the impacts of printing on scholarship in the 21st century

The century after the introduction of the printing press saw a steady evolution of basic standards and techniques to organize bodies of knowledge and information. Tabulation, alphabetical order, reference guides, and graded textbooks all emerged into common use in the 21^st century after the printing press. With uniform texts it became possible to index and cross-reference material by page numbers and line numbers, and to cite previous works by author, date, title, and publisher. This made it possible to refine and integrate ideas and texts through time by comparison and commentary. The ideas of citation and peer review are fundamental to scholarly progress.

Imagine in the days before books. We now take for granted the idea of easy access to multiple sources of stored experience, but printed books were the first medium that brought that concept within reach of ordinary people.  Before books, almost all transfer of knowledge was by word of mouth. The only way to learn ideas, stories, or skills was by direct personal contact with somebody who had created them or acquired them from somebody else. 

Several benefits and Impacts followed the invention of modem printing:

  Printing press has been a significant force in transforming an oral medieval culture to a literate one or one which focuses more on silent and private reading (McLuhan 2001, Havelock 2003, Ong 2009). However, other scholars such as Eisenstein (1983) argued that the development of the printing press did not change medieval Europe as it was literate before the invention of the printing press. Print did not bring about a monumental shift from orality to literacy, but rather changed the Society from one type of literate society to another. While there is still debate in this area, one can agree that the printing press technology has had a profound effect on literacy within Europe which certainly was transferred to other part of the world.

• The printing press allowed for the democratizing of knowledge as a greater number of individuals were provided access to more information. Through the printing press, written work was more uniform in its viewing format. The mechanization of the printing press achieved more regular spacing and hyphenation of the print. (Bolter, 2001). Prior to the printing press, the written word was individually scribed with no standard format, with inconsistent writing, grammar and handwriting.
• The printing led to more consistent spelling, grammar and punctuation. (McLuhan, 2001). Through this uniformity and reliability of the written work, readers were able to consistently interpret the writer’s thoughts and ideas. While the printing press did not have any significant immediate effects on societal literacy, over the next few decades as more information through the written word was accessible and disseminated, this technology advanced mass literacy as demonstrated through a drastic rise in adult literacy. Prior to the printing press, books were quite expensive as it was a laborious task to hand-scribe each book. As a result, only the wealthy upper elite class could afford such books and therefore the literate were mainly found at this class level.

Before the invention, it was the laborious manual method used for producing books, which were then very expensive, but beautiful, as there were paid copyists, calligraphers and illuminators, who gave considerable attention to aesthetics of books. With the mass production of books went their beauty as physical objects; edito­rial quality came to be considered as more important than physical charac­teristics. (Aguolu and Aguolu 2002)

• The invention of the printing press creating nearly identical books of quality at an economical price, books were now more affordable and available to the general public. It is estimated that by 1500 there were “fifteen to twenty million copies of 30,000 to 35,000 separate publications.” (McLuhan, 2001)
  Printing Press and Its “Impact” on Literacy (scholarship)
  The advent of the printing press over five hundred years ago may be described as one of the few major significant events in mankind’s history in terms of the greatest impact on literacy. Before paper and print were invented, oral communication was the only method in which information was gathered and distributed (Aguolo and Aguolo, 2002). Even though this bound the community together, it did not allow the community to grow and there were no methods of accurately storing and retrieving information. Further, if the community moved on or perished so did their historical records and knowledge. Although the following technologies involved the written word in the form of papyrus scrolls and manuscript codex as examples, it was still quite time consuming and limited to the upper literate elite class of society. When the printing press was invented there was a shift from the laborious manuscript making to the codex print allowing many copies of written work to be quickly created, in turn providing greater access to information for all and providing the framework for the gradual transformation of societal literacy.

the Contribution of any two Theorist of Anthropology to the Development of the Discipline.

INTRODUCTION

Historians of anthropology often trace the birth of the discipline to the 16thcentury encounters between Europeans and native peoples in Africa and the Americas. For Europeans, these peoples and their practices often seemed bizarre or irrational, yet to live and work with them, it was important to understand their cultures. This need for cross-cultural understanding was one of the roots of anthropology. The other was the emerging focus on evolution.

Anthropologists should have been at the forefront of public debate about multiculturalism and nationalism, the human aspects of information technology, poverty and economic globalization, human rights issues and questions of collective and individual identification.

Generally recognized as the founding fathers of modern anthropology, are Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward B. Tylor.

Two 19th-century anthropologists whose writings exemplified the theory that culture
generally evolves uniformly and progressively were Edward B. Tylor (1832–1917) and Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881).

This Assignment is going to discuss on the Contribution of two theorists to the development the discipline of anthropology these theorists are Edward B. Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan that give tremendous contribution to the development of anthropology. It is an introduction to the principal theorists and theories that shaped and continues to influence the modern anthropology.

Anthropology may have been born out of its largely colonialist background, anthropologists are now overwhelmingly inclined to support the value of other ways of life and try to support the needs of peoples formerly colonized or dominated by powerful nation-states.

Anthropology is the study of people throughout the world, their evolutionary history, how they behave, adapt to different environments, communicate and socialize with one another. The study of anthropology is concerned both with the biological features that make us human (such as physiology, genetic makeup, nutritional history and evolution) and with social aspects (such as language, culture, politics, family and religion)

Anthropology is the scientific study of the origins, the behavior and the physical, social, cultural development of humans. It is the study of humankind, past and present, in all it s aspects especially human culture or human development.

Edward B. Tylor (1832–1917, Great Britain)

Tylor maintained that culture evolved from the simple to the complex and that all societies passed through three basic stages of development: from savagery through barbarism to civilization.

“Progress” was therefore possible for all. To account for cultural variation, Tylor and other early evolutionists postulated that different contemporary societies were at different stages of evolution. According to this view, the “simpler” peoples of the day had not yet reached “higher” stages. Tylor believed there was a kind of psychic unity among all peoples that explained parallel evolutionary sequences in different cultural traditions. In other words, because of the basic similarities common to all peoples, different societies often find the same solutions to the same problems independently. But Tylor also noted that cultural traits may spread from one society to another by simple diffusion—the borrowing by one culture of a trait belonging to another as the result of contact between the two

Edward B. Tylor (1832-1817) established the theoretical principles of Victorian anthropology, in Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom (1871), by adapting evolutionary theory to the study of human society. Written at the same time as Matthew Arnold’s Culture and Anarchy (1869), Tylor defined culture in very different terms: “Culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”. Here culture refers to the learned
attributes of society, something we already have.

While Tylor focused on the insular, subjective life of “primitives,” Arnold thought that Victorians displayed a similar incapacity. Notwithstanding the evident differences between Arnold’s treatise on Victorian Britain and Tylor’s on human prehistory, both works focus on the problem of overcoming a narrow subjectivism and learning to comprehend the social body as a whole.

For Tylor, Anthropology was a “science of culture,” a system for analyzing existing elements of human civilization that are socially created rather than biologically inherited. His work was critical to the recognition of anthropology as a distinct branch of science in 1884, when the British Association for the Advancement of Science admitted it
as a major branch, or section, of the society, rather than a subset of biology, as had previously been the case.

While a foundational figure in cultural anthropology, Tylor thought about culture in radically different terms than we do today. He accepted the premise that all societies develop in the same way and insisted on the universal progression of human civilization from savage to barbarian to civilize.

Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917) is considered the founding father of British anthropology. Tylor was the first professor of anthropology at Oxford; he was active in establishing anthropological associations and institutions; and his ideas contributed to
the intellectual debates of the late nineteenth century sparked by Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

Tylor is representative of cultural evolutionism. In his works Primitive Culture and Anthropology, he defined the context of the scientific study of anthropology, based on the evolutionary theories of Charles Lyell. He believed that there was a functional basis for the development of society and religion, which he determined was universal. Tylor maintained that all societies passed through three basic stages of development: from savagery, through barbarism to civilization. Tylor is considered by many to be a founding figure of the science of social anthropology, and his scholarly works helped to build the discipline of anthropology in the nineteenth century. He believed that "research into the history and prehistory of man... could be used as a basis for the reform of  society."

Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881, the United States)

Lewis Henry Morgan is a unilineal evolutionist who claimed that societies develop according to one universal order of cultural evolution.

Morgan In his Theory, believed in a hierarchy of evolutionary development from “savagery” to “barbarism” to “civilization.” According to Morgan, the crucial distinction between civilized society and earlier societies is private property. He described “savage”
societies as communistic, contrasting with “civilized” societies, which are based on private property.

Although Morgan’s theory has been criticized for being speculative and ethnocentric, his evolutionary theory influenced the development of anthropology. First, Morgan outlined the importance of the study of social evolution and kinship systems for understanding the social organizations. Second, Morgan conducted cross-cultural research that attempted to be systematic and large-scale. Finally, Morgan organized anthropological data and formulated the evolutionary theory rather than simply collecting cultural data.

Lewis Henry Morgan, in his best-known work, Ancient Society, Morgan postulated several sequences in the evolution of human culture. For example, he speculated that the family evolved through six stages. Human society began as a “horde living in promiscuity,” with no sexual prohibitions and no real family structure. Next was a stage in which a group of brothers was married to a group of sisters and brother sister mating were permitted. In the third stage, group marriage was practiced, but brothers and sisters were not allowed to mate. The fourth stage was characterized by a loosely paired male and female who still lived with other people. Then came the husband-dominant family, in which the husband could have more than one wife simultaneously. Finally, the stage of civilization was distinguished by the monogamous family, with just one wife and one husband who were relatively equal in status. However, Morgan’s postulated sequence for the evolution of the family is not supported by the enormous amount of ethnographic data that has been collected since his time. No recent society generally practices group marriage or allows brother-sister mating.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the theory of Nineteenth-century Evolutionism claims that societies develop according to one universal order of cultural evolution. The theorists identified the universal evolutional stages and classified different societies as savagery, barbarian
and civilization.

The Nineteenth-century Evolutionists had two main assumptions that form the theory. One was psychic unity, a concept that suggests human minds share similar characteristics all over the world. This means that all people and their societies
will go through the same process of development. Another underlying assumption was that Western societies are superior to other societies in the world. This assumption was based on the fact that Western societies were dominant because of their military and economic power against technologically simple societies.

Reference

Moore, J.D. (2009) “Visions of culture: an introduction to anthropological theories and theorists” - 3rd edition, United Kingdom: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

Franz, B. (1896): “The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology.” Science

            New York: Free Press.

Raymond, W.  (1988) “History of Anthropological Theory” New York: Oxford University 

            Press Ltd.