Role of Evolutionary Dimension in the Thought of Morgan, Marx and Durkheim - Essay Example

Role of Evolutionary Dimension in the Thought of Morgan, Marx and Durkheim. In anthropology, the Darwinian evolution dimension focuses on the study of human biology and behavior. It observes the interface between biology and culture. In addition, it aids the understanding of biological, evolutionary and demographic aspects of people and non-human primates. Prior to the rejection of these biological and evolutionary theories by Franz Boas, the evolutionary dimension is found in most social theories. It has played significant roles in the thoughts of Morgan, Marx and Durkheim in anthropology. Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) was a pioneer of American anthropology who is renowned for his comprehensive work on cultural evolution, as well as the kinship system (Fortes Meyer 32). Morgan was a proponent of the Darwinian social evolution theory. His investigation of various tribes in the United States led to an establishment that kinship systems were one of the major organizational concepts of cultural anthropology. His objective was to explain the diverse kinship systems in indigenous societies as varying stages in human evolution and social advancement. He developed a unilineal theory of evolution from primitive to modern, through which he perceived societies progressed. Based on his evolutionary perspective, development of human societies was divided into three major phases. Savagery entailed hunting and gathering while the barbarism phase consisted of agriculture, pottery and metal-work. The stage of civilization marked the beginning of the art of writing. Morgan came up with a link between social development and technological progress (Fortes Meyer 88). Savagery was connected with the discovery of fire, bow and arrow. Barbarism was associated with pottery, animal domestication, irrigated agriculture and manufacture of iron. Civilization was connected with the use of the phonetic alphabet. In addition, he attributed the cultural evolution to moral and mental improvements. He proposed that these improvements were linked to enhancements in the ways people produced food and to increases in the brain size. Morgan further studied the material basis of cultural advancement. He viewed material development not as a cause of social progress (and any social change), but rather as a prerequisite for it. He held that in the stages of savagery and barbarism people owned property communally. However, civilizations and political states developed together with the concept of private ownership of property. Thus, States secured the people’s rights to own property. His observation was that Western civilization was the pinnacle of human evolutionary progress. It represented humanity’s highest biological, technological and moral accomplishment. The Western civilization modeled the advancement of all other societies in the image of progress of the Western world. Lewis H. Morgan also proposed six stages in the development of family structures (Fortes Meyer 97). According to him the human society began as a ‘horde living in promiscuity’ with neither sexual prohibitions nor a real family structure. Incestuous relationships marked the next stage, then the phase of group marriage with prohibition of incest followed. During barbarism, a stage characterized by loosely-paired males and females manifested itself. Polygamy, associated with husband-dominant families, was introduced in the fifth stage. Civilization was distinguished by monogamous marriage (the last stage) where the husband and wife were of relatively equal status. This was the most advanced stage in human relationships. Each stage of human development had a correlate in patterns of subsistence, marriage and family organization. Morgan postulated that family units became gradually smaller and more self-contained as the human society advanced. Morgan devised a grand scheme of social evolution that concentrated on the development in the domains of technology, family and property (Fortes Meyer 120). His work was an imperative milestone in the development of the concepts of cultural evolution and social Darwinism. This was despite the fact that he regarded humanity as evolving from a common origin to a common destiny through the guidance of God, who was considered a Supreme Intelligence. His theory attracted favorable attention from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their materialistic account of human development. It was, however, sharply criticized by the followers of Franz Boas in the United States. Karl Marx (1818-1883) is known as the first and possibly the greatest modern sociologist. He is the most influential social activist. His work was influenced by Lewis H. Morgan’s model of social evolution on the basis of material concerns. Morgan postulated that human societies advance from more primitive to more civilized stages of development. Marx’s version of this ensued in transition of stages of development from primitive communism through feudalism and capitalism then to communism (Bloch Maurice 81). Using a model similar to Morgan’s, he predicted the demise of the state-supported capitalism. He regarded communism (a new political and economic system founded on the ideals of communality) as the next evolutionary stage of the human society. He held that human beings were social individuals who concurrently satisfied and forged their needs. They did this in the framework of historically particular social relations and created cultures. Marx describes world history and social evolution as a gradually growing buildup of social power. The social control of access to material such as food and fuel is the key to social power. This power would, at a given historical instant, release itself in a Communist utopia. The Marxist theory holds that the stages of human development are judged based on the modes of production which dominate each of them (Bloch Maurice 115). These are the forces of production, for instance, technology, natural resources and human labor combined with social relations of production. These social relations include class or property relations. However, Karl Marx did not see the stages of social development as progressive steps that every culture has to progress through. He, rather, viewed them as the advancement of historically contingent communities and their modes of production. The techniques of production form the base or infrastructure of a society. The basis of this production is mainly material. Through material production, people create fields, houses, roads and machines that enable them to live in the society. It is this base that dictates the superstructure (political and legal apparatus) and the ideology (philosophies, religions and ideals) which exist in a society at any one time. According to Marx, advancement of stages in this system is triggered by class struggles (Morrison Ken 56). Inevitably, change will transpire and consequently the classes will realign themselves. The ruling classes have vested interest in retaining their power and will strive to repel the change by all possible means. A primary tool of the ruling classes is the elaboration of mystification in ideology, which results in the deceptive consciousness of the lower class. Their efforts, however, are futile, in the long run. Social evolution can be decelerated, but not stopped. Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) is one of the founding fathers of the French social-cultural anthropology. Alongside Karl Marx and Max Weber, he is renowned as one of the principal founders of modern sociology (Morrison Ken 22). Like Boas in the United States, Durkheim set up a school of anthropology to which a great majority of French professional anthropologists still owe their origin. Durkheim was interested in religions across different cultures. He, however, was not interested in the evolution of religion. He postulated that religious beliefs and rituals functioned to integrate people in groups as well as to maintain the smooth functioning of societies. Maturity of Durkheim’s interests led him to become increasingly involved with the study of ethnographic data. Durkheim’s perspective about the human society is not that it is merely a group of people living in a particular geographical area. Rather, it is a collaboration of ideas, sentiments and beliefs that are usually realized through the individuals. He theorized that the society is like an organism. His primary claim is that it is a sui generis reality (Morrison Ken 69). This means that the society is a reality exceptional to itself and irreducible to its composing parts. According to him, the human society is created when individual consciences interact and join to create a synthetic reality. This completely new reality is greater than the sum of its parts. It supersedes in complexity, richness, depth and existence of any particular individual. Durkheim sometimes refers to this psychic reality as ‘conscience collective’, translated into English as ‘collective conscience’. Thus, the societal reality can only be understood in sociological terms. Its comprehension cannot be reduced to biological or psychological explanations. However, all elements of society, including religion and morality, are products of history. The fact that social life has this quality formed the base of another of Emile Durkheim’s claims. This was the declaration that human societies could be studied scientifically. According to the organic analogy, the scientific study of societies should include social morphology and social physiology. The claim that society could be studied scientifically was based on his belief that the elements of society lack a transcendent origin. They are part of the natural world. For this reason, Durkheim developed a new method which focusses on "social facts” (Morrison Ken 100). These are the elements of collective life that exist independently of and have the capability of exerting an influence on the individual. They are significant since they constitute and express the psychic reality (society). Through them, people acquire specific traits that they would never have possessed if they lived in total isolation. These traits include a language, values, religious beliefs, technology and a monetary system. Using this approach, Emile Durkheim published influential works on several topics. He is renowned as the author of ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’, ‘The Elementary Forms of Religious Life’ and ‘On the Division of Social Labor’. These works show his analysis of different social institutions accompanied by the different roles they play in the society. The institutions were beliefs and modes of conduct instituted by the collectivity. Consequently, Durkheim’s approach to understanding culture is often related to the theoretical framework of structural functionalism. In his functionalist study, he analyzed how cultural institutions kept a society in working order. For instance, various studies surveyed the rites of passage like initiation ceremonies. Through such ceremonies, groups of children belonging to the same age group would be introduced to new roles and responsibilities of adulthood. According to functionalists, any distinctive features of the rites of passage of a particular society were interconnected with how initiation ceremonies worked in the function of that society. As a functionalist, Durkheim based his methodology to conducting fieldwork on his theories. This involved living for long periods with the people he studied while carefully recording the details about their culture and social life. The resultant ethnographies depicted all aspects of culture and social life as interdependent parts of a complex model. In conclusion, this paper has comprehensively outlined the role of the evolutionary dimension in the thoughts of Morgan, Marx and Durkheim. Lewis Henry Morgan based his theory of human social development on the Darwinian social evolution theory. He theorized that societies progressed from being primitive to modernity in a unilineal model. Their development was observed in three distinct phases. These comprised of savagery, barbarism and civilization. In his theory, he developed a connection between social progress and technological advancement. Each stage of the human social progress was accompanied by distinct correlate patterns of subsistence, marriage, family and property organization. The thought of Karl Marx in anthropology was influenced by Morgan’s model of social evolution on the basis of material concerns. His upheld the view that the stages of human development ranged from primitive communism through feudalism and capitalism then to communism. According to him, the stages are judged based on the modes of production which characterize each of them. It is these modes of production that determine the base or infrastructure of any society. Class struggles prompt the advancement of stages in this system. Emile Durkheim focused on religions across different cultures in an effort to understand the social life of different societies. Religious beliefs and rituals worked to integrate people in groups. The formation of human societies was therefore not considered in the geographical aspect. Rather, a society emerged from a collaboration of ideas, sentiments and beliefs that are usually realized through the individuals. Through social facts, people acquired traits that they would never have possessed if they lived in total isolation. Work Cited Bloch, Maurice. Marxism and anthropology: the history of the relationship. Routledge, 2013. Fortes, Meyer. Kinship and the Social Order: The Legacy of Lewis Henry Morgan. Routledge, 2013. Morrison, Ken. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of the modern social thought. Sage, 2006. Read More