Discussions of historical theory tend to be disheartening because either
assumptions about Darwinism throw everything out of whack, or else (not
the fashion these days, though) some kind of Hegelian spiritual history
throws everything out of whack in reverse, so to speak. The problems with
Hegel are well known. Those with Darwin less so, it seems.
WARNING: If you think Darwin had a theory of human evolution, reading
further will be pointless.
We might consider a kind of 'antinomy of historical reason': there must be
a science of history. vs. there cannot be a science of history. This often
revolves around freedom/necessity issues. This contradiction resembles
Kant's Third Antinomy and it is no surprise therefore that a way
out of the contradiction ('somehow both are correct') might resemble
Kant's deliberations on this Third Antinomy. More on that in a moment, but
there is a variant of this thinking, which goes: evolution applies to
history vs. history does not evolve. It is not clear what this means,
but the basic issue would seem to involve some form of macro
evolution that isn't genetic ?!!
Hayden White is entirely correct to say Toynbee isn't really a cyclical
theorist. It has tended to obstruct discussion of his thinking. However, a
latent kind of fuzzy cyclical thinking is present especially in
Spengler, after all, who sees the 'decline of the West' as some kind of
inevitability.
I am also glad White references Lewontin et. al. on the 'evolution of
society' as seen in Runciman. But this is basically the Darwnian/sociobiological
debate all over again. (Cf. article in History and Theory, Feb.
2005)
Please note that the suggestion of the antinomy applying to some notion of
'evolution' is confirmed by the debate between these parties in the last
issue of H&T!!
Societies don't evolve, societies do evolve. What is the resolution of the
contradiction? Actually it is fairly simple: evolution isn't simply
genetic, and there must be some form of non-genetic macro
'evolution' either visible in history or somehow related to history and
the descent of man. We can swiftly deduce what it might be if we consider
that is man is already free, he would be 'evolving' passively, and vice
versa. So we can measure the transition from evolution to history in terms
of 'degrees of freedom'. Note how Hegel came close to this but got
entangled in his strange theology.
Another way to see this is to consider hypothetically
1. We do say that early man evolves
2. But we denied this for history
3. we must ask, When does evolution stop and history begin??! On
a given day, hour minute? Obviously not. The transition should be an
interval.
Question 3 doesn't make sense at first, and yet it makes complete sense.
It is simply another version of our antinomy. The solution would seem to
be that both are correct. 'Evolution' stops, and 'History' begins, not at
a particular time, but over time, and this is itself the historical
evolution we are looking for!!
Note that in this sense evolution is both already over, and not yet over!
And that what is true for history must also be true of earlier evolution
(since both are history and evolution).
Reconsider the descent of man in this light. History must have begun in
the Paleolithic, by definition in this approach.
Having derived the existence of a form of historical evolution
(!), can we detect it in the historical record? Yes, indeed we can.
The only way for evolution/history to be both at work is for them to
alternate in cyclical degrees of action, and this should be detected as
an intermittent series.
Presto, this series is visible in history and is open to interpretation as
an 'evolution of freedom'. We have derived my eonic effect from
scratch, and once we know what to look for the answer is swift. Look
at the data for the Axial Age in this light.
Please note that the 'evolution of freedom' can be interpreted in many
ways. The most classic is via the idea of degrees of
self-consciousness, which can produce a compatibilist version of the
freedom/necessity paradox.
Thus in this view, evolution is ambiguous: evolution stopped long ago,
evolution has not yet stopped. That is the degree of freedom is a factor
and the 'end of evolution' is all at once a cousin to the idea of the 'end
of history'.
So we see a lot of things falling into place. It is important to consider
that evolution is only secondarily genetic, at least for man. Sociobiology
has led its proponents into nothing but harebrained confusion about
adaptational scenarios applied to the wrong level. It is not use, however,
saying that sociobiologists get it wrong, but Darwin got it right. You
can't have it both ways.
The idea of purely genetic evolution dies hard,
but we have derived the necessity of some other kind of evolution, and
until we come to grips with the limits of the equation of evolution in
general with genetic evolution in particular we get confused as with
the sociobiologists.
In this sense Lewontin et. al are entirely right to critique sociobiology,
but they don't go far enough. The point is that Darwin's natural selection
is the problem. It just doesn't work to make it the driver of either man's
descent or of history.
