Sociocultural Systems: Principles of Structure and Change Macrosociology: Four Modern Theorists A Commentary on Malthus" 1798 Essay as Social Theory Great Classical Social Theorists In the Classical Tradition: Modern Social Theorists Dr. Elwell's Professional Page
|
rbert Spencer's Evolutionary
Sociology Jared Diamond | |
The Implicit Ecological-Evolutionary Theory of Jared Diamond By Frank W. Elwell An excerpt from Sociocultural Systems: Principles of Structure and Change
Diamond is a public intellectual who has made social evolution accessible to a broad public; while he is not a social theorist his work is very consistent with ecological-evolutionary theory as developed by Gerhard Lenski and Marvin Harris among others. While noting that Diamond does not label his analysis as ecological-evolutionary theory, Gerhard Lenski (2005) states that “most of the chapters in Guns, Germs, and Steel provide valuable further tests of the principles on which ecological-evolutionary theory is based” (145).
Diamond posits that characteristics of the environment—physical,
biological, and social—play a dominant role in sociocultural stability
and change in human societies. What he demonstrates is that these
environmental characteristics largely condition what is possible in
production and population, and that these environmental and
infrastructural factors combined affect not only individual
sociocultural systems, but the world-system of societies as well.
Diamond first focuses on what he calls “ultimate factors” in explaining
the vast differences in social development among societies. These
ultimate factors are all environmental in nature: geography, soil
fertility, plant and animal availability, and climate.
Other factors that lead to inequalities between societies according to Diamond—population, production, social organization, ideologies—all come into play in his analysis as “proximate causes,” strongly influenced (if not determined) by environmental “ultimate factors.” But the differences are ones of semantics: the social scientists and the biologist all begin with environmental-infrastructural relationships and focus upon how these factors profoundly affect the rest of the sociocultural system. How then does Diamond explain the great inequalities between sociocultural systems in the modern world? What explains the patterns of wealth and poverty we see between societies?
Jared Diamond’s short answer to these questions is that the speed and
course of sociocultural development is determined by the physical,
biological, and social environment of that system (25). It
is to a slightly longer version of Diamond’s answer, specifically how
these factors are directly related to population size and density,
division of
labor,
and technological development, that we now turn. About 10 thousand years
ago according to Diamond, agriculture originated independently in five
areas of the world: the Near East (or the Fertile Crescent), China,
Mesoamerica, the Andes, and the eastern United States.
While there are several other areas that are candidates for this
distinction, in these five areas the evidence for independent
development is overwhelming (98). Most other areas developed agriculture
as a result of diffusion from other societies, or through the invasion
of farmers or herders. Others failed to acquire agriculture until modern
times. Through the use of environmental variables, Diamond attempts to
explain this pattern. Why did the domestication of plants and animals
first occur where and when it did? Why did it not occur in additional
areas that are suitable for the growing of crops or the herding of
animals? Finally, why did some peoples who lived in areas ecologically
suitable for agriculture or herding fail to either develop or acquire
agriculture until modern times? “The underlying reason why this
transition was piecemeal is that food production systems evolved as a
result of the accumulation of many separate decisions about allocating
time and effort” (107). Like
Marvin
Harris and
Gerhard
Lenski before him, Diamond
posits that the transition was not the result of conscious choice but
rather was the result of thousands of small cost/benefit decisions on
the part of individuals over centuries.
Echoing Harris, Diamond posits that many considerations go into this
decision making process, including the simple satisfaction of hunger,
craving for specific foods, a need for protein, fat, or salt. Also
consistent with Harris, Diamond states that people concentrate on foods
that will give them the biggest payoff (taste, calories, and protein) in
return for the least time and effort (107-108). Throughout the
transition, hunting and gathering competed directly with food production
strategies for the time and energy of individuals within the population.
It is only when the cost/benefits of food production outweigh those of
hunting and gathering that people invest more time in that strategy
(109).
What finally gave food production the advantage? It was not that food
production led to an easier life-style. Studies indicate that farmers
and herders spend far more time working for their food than do hunter
and gatherers (109). Nor are they attracted by the abundance, as most
studies indicate that peasants and herders do not eat as well as hunter
and gatherers either. Rather, Diamond posits several factors that led
some hunter and gatherers to gradually make the shift.
The primary factor was perhaps a decline in the availability of wild
foods; with the receding of the glaciers, many prey species became
depleted or extinct. A second factor enumerated by Diamond is an
increasing range and thus availability of some domesticable wild plants.
“For instance, climate changes at the end of the Pleistocene in the
Fertile Crescent greatly expanded the area habitat of wild cereals, of
which huge crops could be harvested in a short time” (110). A third
factor, according to Diamond, was an improvement in the technologies
necessary for food production, specifically tools “for collecting,
processing, and storing wild food” (110). The fourth factor, mentioned
prominently by Diamond, (and Malthus) is the relationship between
population and food production. A final factor noted by Diamond is the
expansion of territory by food producers. This expansion is made
possible by their much greater population densities and certain other
advantages enjoyed by food producers when compared to their hunting and
gathering
neighbors
(112). Diamond calls this relationship autocatalitic,
population and food production rise in tandem—a gradual increase in
population forces people to obtain more food, as food becomes more
plentiful, more children are allowed to survive. Once hunters and
gatherers began to make the switch to food production their increased
yields would impel population growth, thus causing them to produce even
more food, thus beginning the autocatalitic relationship (111). This is
all perfectly in line with the theories of T. Robert Malthus and Ester
Boserup.
While Diamond has not turned over any new ground in his analysis of the
neolithic revolution, he has certainly produced a far richer description
of the domestication process. Diamond explains in interesting detail how
the early domestication of plants could proceed without conscious
thought on the part of early farmers.
Plant domestication, Diamond explains, is the process by which early
farmers selected seeds from plants that were more useful for human
consumption thereby causing changes in the plant’s genetic makeup. But
it is not a one-way process, once humans begin to select certain seeds
over others they are changing the environmental conditions of the plants
themselves, changing the conditions upon which certain plants will
thrive and propagate their seed (123). Plants that produced bigger
seeds, or a more attractive taste for humans, would initially be chosen
in the gathering process and would be those that were first planted in
early gardens (117). Then, the new conditions would favor some of these
seeds over others (123). The conditions of the garden as well as the
unconscious and conscious selection of the farmer over which seeds to
sow the following spring gradually changed the genetic structure of
domesticated plants so that domesticated varieties are often starkly
different than their wild ancestors.
Through this process, Diamond notes, hunters and gatherers domesticated
almost all of the crops that we consume today; not one major new
domesticate has been added since Roman times (128). Further, only a
dozen plant species account for over 80 percent of the world’s annual
crop yields. “With so few crops in the world, all of them domesticated
thousands of years ago, it’s less surprising that many areas of the
world had no wild native plants at all of outstanding potential” (132).
Animal domestication, Diamond explains, is the process by which early
farmers selectively bred animals that were more useful for humans
thereby causing changes in the animal’s genetic makeup. There are 148
wild, large, herbivorous mammals that were available for domestication,
Diamond reports, but only 14 were ever domesticated.
These included the “major five” (sheep, goats, cattle, pig, and horse)
and the “minor nine” (Arabian and Bactrian camel, llama and alpaca,
donkey, reindeer, water buffalo, yak, Bali cattle, and the mithan)
(160-161). Diamond asks: Why did so few of the 148 become domesticated?
Why did so many fail? Because, Diamond answers, not just any wild animal
can be domesticated; to be successful a candidate must possess six
specific characteristics, lack of any one of which would make all
efforts at domestication futile (169).
The first factor required for successful domestication is the diet of
the animal. To be valuable, the animal must consume a diet that
efficiently converts plant life to meat. This plant life also has to be
readily available. A second factor is growth rate, to be worth raising
the animal must grow relatively quickly; animals that take 10 to 20
years to reach mature size represent far too much of an investment for
the average farmer.
A third factor is the problem of breeding—many animals have problems
breeding in captivity, requiring range and privacy that stymies
domestication efforts. A fourth factor is disposition, many animals have
nasty dispositions toward humans and are far too dangerous to
domesticate as a result. A fifth characteristic is tendency to panic;
many species are far too nervous and quick to flight when confronted
with a threat.
The sixth and final characteristic that is necessary for a domestic
relationship with humans regards herd structure. “Almost all species of
domesticated large mammals prove to be ones whose wild ancestors shared
three social characteristics: they live in herds, they maintain a
well-developed dominance hierarchy among herd members; and the herds
occupy overlapping home ranges rather than mutually exclusive
territories” (172).
Eurasian people, befitting their large landmass and environmental
diversity, started out with many more potential domesticates than people
on other continents. Australia and the Americas, you will recall, lost
most of their potential domesticates either through climate change or
the actions of early settlers to these lands. A second factor is that a
far higher percentage of the Eurasian candidates “proved suitable for
domestication” than in Africa, Australia, or the Americas (174-175).
Why did food production first appear in the Fertile Crescent? The
primary advantages of this area is that it enjoyed a Mediterranean
climate of mild, wet winters, and long summers, ideal for crop
production. It also possessed a number of wild ancestors of crops that
were already highly productive and growing in large stands in the wild
(136). A third factor behind the origin of agriculture in the Fertile
Crescent was that it contained four large herbivores that fit the
profile of domestication as well several plants that were suitable for
domestication. “Thanks to this availability of suitable wild mammals and
plants, early people of the Fertile Crescent could quickly assemble a
potent and balanced biological package for intensive food production”
(141-142). Other early originators had similar (though not quite so
varied) biological advantage as well as physical and climatic conditions
suitable for agricultural production. Because of the paucity of wild
plants in the New World that were suitable for domestication, and the
almost complete lack of big herbivores for meat or traction, the coming
of agriculture to these areas was much delayed, and once started was
much slower to develop.
One cannot readily imagine people choosing agriculture over hunting and
gathering in their cost/benefit decision making when their only
available domesticates were sump-weed or squash. In such cases,
agriculture would remain a supplement to the basic hunting and gathering
life style for much longer periods. Diamond posits that the environment
of Eurasia not only
favored
early domestication but also the
spread of agriculture from pristine areas of origin to other societies.
Recall that most societies do not develop agriculture on their own, but
rather receive it through conquest or other cultural contact. The
Eurasian continent has several advantages over Africa and the Americas
in this regard. The foremost reason for the rapid spread of crops in
Eurasia, according to Diamond, is that the Eurasian continent has an
east-west axis—the bulk of the land mass stretches east to west rather
than north to south. Similar latitudes, Diamond reasons, share the same
seasonal variations, length of days, and often climate (1997, 183).
Thus, plants first cultivated in one area, adapted as they are to such
factors of latitude as growing season and length of day, can easily be
cultivated in areas east or west of the original site.
The axis of the Americas and Africa, on the other hand, are north-south.
Corn that was first domesticated in the Mexican highlands with its long
days and long growing season could not readily spread to areas of the
eastern United States or Canada. To be grown in these new latitudes,
corn had to be genetically modified (or re-domesticated) for these
climates through a very long process of human selection (184). There are
also other geographical barriers to the spread of agriculture, barriers
that will also come into play in the diffusion of other technologies
among societies. Such barriers as desert regions, tropical jungle, and
mountains played a far more prominent role in preventing or slowing down
the spread of agriculture in the Americas and Africa than in Eurasia,
where the barriers are far less formidable.
Diamond calls the acquisition, timing, and spread of agriculture the
ultimate cause of the world inequalities in the 15th century,
but not one of the proximate causes. These proximate or immediate causes
were the superiority of Eurasian technology, particularly their guns,
steel swords and armor; the centralized political governments of
Eurasian nations that allowed the marshaling of armadas of ships and
armies; and the more lethal germs carried by the conquerors. How are
these proximate factors related to agriculture?
Diamond claims that there is an autocatalytic relationship between
intensified food production, population, and societal complexity. First,
food production allows for a sedentary life-style, thus allowing for the
accumulation of possessions as well as the creation of crafts. Second,
intensified food production can be organized to produce a surplus, which
can then be used to support a more complex division of labor as well as
social stratification (285). “When the harvest has been stored, the
farmers’ labor becomes available for a centralized political authority
to harness—in order to build public works advertising state power (such
as the Egyptian pyramids), or to build public works that could feed more
mouths (such as Polynesian Hawaii’s irrigation systems or fishponds), or
to undertake wars of conquest to form larger political entities” (285).
Thus, societal complexity can then stimulate further intensification of
food production.
With population growth, Diamond maintains, wars begin to change their
character as well. With intensified food production and high population
densities, as with states that produce a surplus of food and have a
developed division of
labor, the defeated can be used as slaves or the
defeated society can be forced to pay tribute to the conquerors. During
the hunting and gathering era, where population densities are low,
conflict between groups often meant that the defeated group would merely
move to a new range further removed from the victors. With non-intensive
food production and consequent moderate population level, there is no
place for the defeated to move; in horticultural societies with little
surplus, there is little advantage in keeping the defeated as slaves or
in forcing the defeated area to pay tribute. “Hence the victors have no
use for survivors of a defeated tribe, unless to take the women in
marriage. The defeated men are killed, and their territory may be
occupied by the victors” (291).
The most direct line from the ultimate cause of agriculture to a
proximate cause is the relationship between raising livestock and lethal
germs. “The major killers of humanity throughout our recent
history—smallpox, flu, tuberculosis, malaria, plague, measles, and
cholera—are infectious diseases that evolved from diseases of
animals…”(196-197). Eurasian farmers were exposed to these germs from a
very early time, thus many developing immunities to the diseases. Though
Eurasians were mainly resistant to these diseases, they remained
carriers. Thus native populations of the Americas, Australia, and
Polynesia were often decimated before guns and steel were used to
subjugate them.
In summary, because food production was far more advanced on the
Eurasian continent, there was great competition, diffusion, and
amalgamation among the states that evolved on this continent. These
states became far larger in population, more resistant to the diseases
carried by domesticates, more sophisticated in terms of technology, and
more centralized politically than the tribes, chiefdoms, and early
states they came into contact with in the New World, the Pacific
Islands, Africa, and Australia. Thus, when worlds collided one barely
survived. Though coming from a tradition based in the biological
sciences and developed almost in isolation from social theory, Diamond’s
work exploring the many relationships between environment, population,
and production—as well as the impact of these relationships on the rest
of the sociocultural system—is perfectly consistent with the principles
of ecological-evolutionary theory.
For a more extensive discussion of Diamond’s work read from his books.
Also see
Sociocultural Systems: Principles of Structure and Change
to learn how his insights contribute to a fuller understanding
of modern societies.
Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human
Societies. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Elwell, F. W. 2013. Sociocultural Systems: Principles of Structure
and Change. Canada: Athabasca University Press.
Lenski, G. 2005. Ecological-Evolutionary Theory: Principles and
Applications. Colorado: Paradigm.
To reference The Implicit Ecological-Evolutionary Theory of Jared
Diamond you should use the following format:
Elwell, Frank W. 2013. "The Implicit Ecological-Evolutionary Theory of
Jared Diamond,” Retrieved August 31, 2013 [use actual date]
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Essays/Elias1.htm
©2013 Frank Elwell, Send comments to felwell at rsu.edu
|