Ogburn, William



Preliminary Exam Summary; Section: Social Change

By Eileen Bevis

CITATION:

Ogburn, William. On culture and social change: selected papers. Edited and introd. by Otis Dudley Duncan. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1964. Ch. 2.

I. Ch 2: Social Evolution Reconsidered (1950)

ABSTRACT:

Theories of social evolution seemed to have hit a dead end by 1922, but Ogburn’s own account of social evolution from that time contained seeds of promise [he thinks], so here, thirty years later, he presents a new, improved [read: explicit] theory of social, er, that is to say, cultural evolution based on four explanatory factors: invention, accumulation, diffusion, and adjustment. In short, people invent things (material and non-material), either independently or by imitation/acquisition (diffusion); these things accumulate, increasing the potential for more inventions; the appearance of a new invention causes reactions in other parts of culture and, as society attempts to reestablish equilibrium through adjustment, society also evolves.

SUMMARY:

From about 1870 to 1920, there was a lot of discussion of “social evolution,” stimulated greatly by the newly developing theory of biological evolution. “It was hoped that the theory of social evolution would explain the origin and development of civilization as the theory of biological evolution had explained the origin and development of man” (17). What the social scientists wanted was an explanation, rather than description, of civilization, preferably an account as elegant and powerful as Darwin’s, which included only three main factors: “variation, natural selection, and heredity” (17). Social scientists emulated the biologists a little too closely, though, they confused evolution with progress, and they brought God into their accounts; as a result, these early attempts at a theory of social evolution failed (18). Hence, the question—“how does society evolve and how did our civilization come to be?”—remained, though being raised more often under the heading of “social change” by 1920s (18).

The common earlier answer/assumption is: “society evolved because man evolved”; civilization was seen as society, and society was seen as social behavior, and behavior was a function of biological structure, and biological structure, particularly brains/mental ability, was the product of biological evolution (19-20). [NOTE: “civilization was not seen as an accumulation of culture or as a conditioning environment in which inadequately organized infants were born”—relate to culture readings, current “psychoevolutionary” literature in Waite’s section]. This equating of civilization and mental ability involved a rather circular logic and was seriously deflated by Franz Boas’s work on the mind of primitive man and of races, as well as by the early version of Ogburn’s book, which stated that “there was no evidence that the genetic capacity for brain function of the whole population of Europe had changed any at all during the past 25,000 years” (based on sizes of brain cases) (20).

Nonetheless, Ogburn still thinks that the essential factors to explain social evolution were present in the earlier version of this book, though not made obvious. Thus, in this chapter he wishes to outline the problem and the theory more sharply and to integrate the factors more tightly (21).

He begins by asking, “What is it that is evolving?” Though we are tempted to answer “society,” society can be thought of as containing two elements: “inherited biological behavior”, which hasn’t changed much of late, and “culture”, which has changed (22). “Social evolution becomes then cultural evolution, and the evolution of groups since glacial times is part of the evolution of culture” (22).

Next Ogburn asks, “What then are the factors that explain cultural evolution?” and answers himself (23):

1. Invention: “a combination of existing and known elements of culture, material and /or non-material, or a modification of one to form a new one” (23) Inventions are the evidence on which we base our observations of social evolution; they are [also; hence?] the most crucial factor in cultural evolution. Inventions are made from a combination of mental ability[1], demand [akin to utility, strongest form is that of necessity], and the “cultural base”—the existence of other cultural elements out of which inventions are fashioned” (23).

2. Accumulation: “occurs when more new elements are added to the cultural base than are lost” (24). Presumably, inventions accumulate for the same reason they are made: utility (24). The accumulation process was speeded first by the development of speech and then by writing. By emphasizing accumulation as one facet of society (typical emphasis is on behavior), Ogburn claims to get a clearer distinction between constant biological behavior and varying, accumulative learned behavior in social change. In particular, it destroys the ethnocentric, egotistical myth that man created civilization and replaces it with the much truer idea that man inherited civilization (25). Thus, “different peoples are born into different accumulations of culture. Though they have the same inherited mental abilities, their operating mental abilities may vary enormously, according to the pile of culture into which they are born” (25). Accumulation tends to be exponential, since “the number of inventions is a function of the size of the cultural base” (25). [Note: sheer number of inventions produces more inventions, not ‘inventiveness’=mental ability.] As to change, it is most proper to say that “a people is the carrier of a culture that is growing either rapidly or slowly”, rather than that a people is more or less creative (27).

3. Diffusion: “the spread of inventions from one area to others, usually from the area of their origin” (27). Diffusion is promoted by the various communication and transportation inventions (27). Note: acquisition of inventions by importing them is just as legitimate in social evolution as making them; in fact, most inventions of a limited area are acquired this way (27-28). But diffusion is not just a source of inventions, it is also a major factor in the growth of culture (=rate of evolution) (28). Yet, one puzzle of diffusion is why there are “unequal levels of culture among different peoples and in different areas” (28). Answer: rate of accumulation, generally; more specifically, “location plus diffusion”—e.g. eastern Mediterranean as crossroads (=a focus of diffusion) compared to Sahara desert [=focus of sandstorms] (28). Diffusion is therefore a factor in the growth of world culture, particularly in early times.

4. Adjustment: occurs between two parts of society (29). Because the parts of culture are intertwined in varying degrees, “an invention occurring in one part and producing a change therein will also occasion a change in a part closely correlated” (29). Thus, the invention of the factory with steam-driven machinery produced a change in the family by taking work out of the home, especially women’s occupations (29-30). These changes, as evidenced by this example, are often inventions in the non-material part of the culture [meaning that when Ogburn refers to inventions usually, he means in the material part of culture?]. Some parts of culture, such as a stable, efficient government [rule of law, anyone??], a densely populated area, and wealthy economic institutions, contribute significantly to invention in other parts (30-31). Adjustment, like diffusion, is a source of invention, but is also more because it does not take place instantaneously but is made after a delay and is called a “cultural lag” (30). Lastly, “a society long stationary without any social changes is in equilibrium. The various parts, through trial and error, have become adjusted to one another. … There is no social evolution. But when a significant invention occurs in one part of culture, the balance is disturbed; change is set up in the other related parts as a process of adjustment to the new invention. Thus social evolution goes forward by inventions which produce a disequilibrium in society, which in turn sets up forces which seek a new equilibrium” (30). However, not all adjustments are successful (e.g. some groups of American Indians) (31).

These four factors not only explain better than inherited mental ability the development of our civilization, but also offer a general explanation of any one culture, such as that of China or India or Greece (32).

RELEVANCE:

Ogburn seems to be involved in several ongoing dialogues, though what will be relevant to social change prelim lit is still unclear. Here are some potentially relevant points:

- Ogburn draws heavily on anthropology to conduct his analysis of social=cultural evolution.

- “A change cannot be explained by a constant” (22)—inherited mental ability (which has not increased in the last 25,000 years, acc. to Ogburn) cannot explain the development of civilization. Inherited culture plus basic mental ability plus trade, on the other hand…

- “The functional relationship between the size of the cultural base and the number of new inventions, plus the tendency for cultural elements to accumulate, helps to explain how our civilization came from simple beginnings to what it is today. The view of culture as a growing accumulation is more realistic than the conception of it as behavior or as the creation of peoples” (27).

- How many other accounts of cultural change are included in this prelim section? Should we take Ogburn as representative of accounts of “cultural change” or did his “evolutionary” account get debunked, too? What would he say in response to the economic change/capitalism theorists? Can Ogburn’s ‘social evolution’ theory explain economic change, too?

II. Ch. 9: Social Trends (1957)

ABSTRACT:

The term “social trends” is put forth the most scientific term for long-term changes in time series data or in temporal phenomena.

SUMMARY:

Question: “Is the term “social trends” an improvement over ‘social movements’, ‘history’, ‘natural history’, ‘evolution’, etc. or is it just another label?”

Answer: “It is more precise and less general” and thus better fitted for scientific usage (102) [ahem, redundancy alert].

First usage of trends: course a river/events take.

First scientific usage of trends: curve fitting in time series data—one makes a trend line [think, regression line]. One is thus able to see annual fluctuations above and below the trend line [deviation from the “ideal”—Weber, anybody?]

Thus, “a trend, is like the course of a river, which is likely to be in one general direction but with various bends” (103).

Accounts of trends are impersonal and simply descriptive (not normative), thus, they are scientific (103).

Beware when extending this useful idea to descriptive (not measuring) accounts of qualitative phenomena. Where there is “no statistical measurement there is danger, however, of misstatements about trends which are based upon impressions an illustrations”; also, one must take care to distinguish a fluctuation around a trend from the trend itself (104).

To ward off this danger, a scientist should not attempt to determine a trend until “there have been several [5-6+] cycles of fluctuations in the time series around where the trend line will be” (a cycle is a fluctuation from above the trend to below and then up again above) (105).

Oh, and then Ogburn says he’s found something cool relating to social trends…

Hypothesis: social trends seldom change their direction quickly and sharply.

Proof: he fit trend lines to 300 time series data sets, drawing on various fields in U.S. and Europe going back several decades. Ah, but no results given and he doesn’t have space to set out causes for this persistence of trends. [So what do we do about this “very important characteristic of social trends” (106)?]

Ramifications: The projection of a trend line into the future is relatively trustworthy and provides a decent prediction of probability of the future. OOH, BUT (107):

a) the past trend should be of some duration

b) the further the projection is made, the greater the error

c) this projection is not a forecast of what the time series (fluctuations and all) will actually be, only what the trend line will be

So trend line projection is no good for exact predictions, but decent for non-exact predictions (e.g. population).

In conclusion, social trends tell us that:

(1) “there is much stability in society, even though there be a period of great and rapid social change”…i.e., revolutions are rare and evolution is the rule (108)

(2) “there is a sort of inevitability about social trends”—no individual or group is likely to stop a trend, though they may slow it down (with difficulty and only temporarily [e.g. Communist push against “child-centered” education, if you went to John Meyer’s talk(s) at Spring Institute]). Success if more likely to come to those who work for and with a social trend rather than to those who work against it [anything like ‘70s philosophy advocating subversion of the system from within?](109).

RELEVANCE:

Um, we all know how to fit regression lines now, so … maybe just note his distinction between the trend line itself and fluctuations around it, as well as his caveats about predicting the future, and keep in mind when interpreting graphs (as we did every class with Parish).

If Ogburn’s hypothesis is correct and trends don’t change all that sharply, then this short chapter lends relevance to the earlier chapter on social evolution as well as to macro-historical accounts and long-term case studies. Though if he likes the term “social trend” so much better than “evolution” seven years after he wrote that earlier chapter, what does he think about the earlier “evolutionary” account—with nary a trend line to be seen—at the time of writing this later piece?

-----------------------

[1] Note: there is more “inherited” mental ability in certain parts of the world now simply because there are more people—even if same percentage of Cro-Magnon and twentieth century Western Europeans were geniuses, there are more Europeans, hence more geniuses (23). “Learned” mental ability, in contrast, is disproportionately higher in modern societies.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download