The co-evolution of the spheres

How do societies develop and change over time?

There is no shortage of what Germaine Greer (in a highly enjoyable column for the Guardian) once called “big idea books”: books which attempt to identify the one single factor which, above all others, has directed the course of human history and determined the rise and fall of nations and empires, etc.

Authors including Thomas Friedman, Jared Diamond and Malcolm Gladwell have all done very nicely out of such books in recent years. A few years before that there was a fashion for identifying cod or nutmeg or coffee as the commodity that was responsible for the modern world as we know it. The granddaddy of “big idea books”, though, may be the Communist Manifesto, with its ringing declaration that:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

David Harvey, in his book The Enigma of Capital (which I wrote about on my politics blog last month), describes these as “dangerously oversimplistic monocausal explanations”. Instead, he argues that society develops through “co-evolutionary” processes across a number of distinct, though interrelated, spheres:

  • Technological and organisational forms.
  • Social relations.
  • Institutional and administrative arrangements (such as property rights and forms of government).
  • Production and labour processes.
  • Relations to nature.
  • The reproduction of daily life and of the species.
  • “Mental conceptions of the world” (ethical and moral standards, cultural norms, belief systems and people’s understanding of the world).

Each of these is related to, and influenced by, the others, but none can be entirely explained in terms of the others. Instead, “complex flows of influence … move between the spheres[,] … perpetually reshaping all of them”.

So, for example, the development of modern capitalist societies had technological aspects, and new technologies then had a major impact on social relations, relations to nature and how we look at the world. In turn, the development of new organisational forms (such as the factory) then encouraged new forms of technological development.

This seems to provide a framework for assessing each “big idea” book that comes along. One reason the “big idea” will seem convincing is that the writer almost certainly has identified genuine processes at work in the world. However, these processes probably relate only to one or two of the spheres of activity set out above. By placing the “big idea” within that context, we can hang on to what is good and helpful about it, without accepting the “totalising” claims that may be made.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Culture and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The co-evolution of the spheres

  1. Very interesting! Of course, Tolstoy already railed against “great men” (in his case Napoleon) as an explanation for epic historical events (in War and Peace. And historians such as Hobsbawm wrote very much within this broad framework, avoiding simplicity.

    A good demonstration of this model in a microcosm is a book I read last year: N.A.M. Rodgers’ The Command of the Ocean. Each period in the history of the British navy was covered by three consecutive chapters: operations, administration, social history. By the time you have read all three, you begin to get a sense of the interdependency of men, machines, red tape, technology, food production, economics, trade, politics and religion (not to mention conincidences) in shaping the development of that wonderful world-within-a-country, the pre-Victorian British navy.

    If that’s true of the history of the British navy, it may at least be inferred that it’s true of almost anything else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s