Social Science Proposal
A New History and Theory of Society
During 2023-2025 I will show SSF readers the evidence for 9 types of society over the whole course of human history. I will indicate why a 10th future society is possible and desirable. The aim is to document and archive the differences between types of society, and explain why societies emerge, stagnate, stabilise, survive, and succeed.
On some measures the histories could reveal to you which is the better society and which is the relatively worse society in its place and time. In the earlier societies it may be sufficient to know why a particular type of society was ‘necessary’.
Among ten types of society I identify three types that distinctly coexist today. My types of society in history have been described in different terms by other writers. I suggest to you a radically new way of categorising them. This leads into new theory.
All societies have certain things in common. The three simultaneous and indispensable forces that bind societies internally and thus ensure every society’s continuity (bordering, bonding, binding) will be identified and explored over a period of 40,000 years. In my book-in-preparation I aim to demonstrate how societies lose their potential dynamism when one or more of these three ‘BBB’ forces weakens.
The (ten) types of society emerged for a variety of reasons. Sometimes in some places the identifiable reason was the weakening of one or more of the essential internal forces of cohesion that are preconditions for the maintenance of societies. At other times or in other places there were other reasons. I identify these other reasons and incorporate them in the typology and general theory on which the book is founded.
I am able to explore multiple reasons for the unraveling of societies and the emergence of new societies because I begin with a fully defined ‘category’ schema which distinctly differentiates between ten types of society and straightforwardly illustrates the factor that is essential in rendering each type unique in history.
These are not ‘stages’. Each is reduced to a single internal ‘differentiation’ exclusive to the type. In every case this differentiation refers to specified forms of governance that characterises the society. It is always expressed as a simple binary ‘over’ relationship. For example, two early differentiations in history are ‘group over person’ and ‘person over group’. In later types of society the binary formulations refer not to persons or groups but to organisations, or mechanisms, or systems. ‘Over’ is defined differently for each of the types. ‘Power’ may not be the right word for what I have in mind.
For the purpose of verifying the existence and characteristics of these categories I use a checklist of concepts I have designed. I rely heavily on this checklist to select the most relevant histories and guide the synthesis through the periods and the places.
Firstly, I check whether the relevant unit of people can be called a ‘society’.
Secondly, I check whether the form of society’s governance is conducted through individuals, organisations, or systems, or, as is often the case, a mixture of all three.
I am looking for system dynamics. These are hard to find. For example, I look for systems in beliefs, traditional relationships, instinctual behaviours, and ancient and modern governing institutions. The evidence and theory I exhibit here will often show how and why societies strive for systems to facilitate governance throughout history.
My book will explain why I conceptualise early systems before the invention of organisations as functionally equivalent to modern ‘third party’ regulation. It will explain to you how and why revolutionary seventeenth century system dynamics in one society radically changed the world. Based on these history exhibits the book will set out what I mean by ‘system’ and how my theory of system differs from all others.
Thirdly, I check for evidence of how the balance between the interests of individuals and the interest of society is calculated during the processes of governance. Evidence presented here—through the histories—can show why and how the required balance or ratio is calculated differently in each category of society, and the equivalent nature of continual calculation and miscalculation in diverse societies across all categories.
Fourthly, I check for evidence of signs (signals) and symbols that represent the concepts and methods for organising the society, the governance, the system, and the interests. The histories may reveal how signs and symbols function in the abstract as codes for social action and interpersonal understanding, and the overlap of code with rules and law. My book aims to pin this down and look for historical equivalences by tracing the relevant global empirical phenomena from prehistory to modernity.
Fifthly, I check the extent to which society and its form of governance undergoes evolution and dissolution. I aim to define evolution as selecting among differentiation variables for survival. I will explain to you what I mean by the evolution of society, and how my explanation differs from other uses of the term in social science.
My book (or the subsequent one) will explain my interpretation of modern society in crisis. I will do this based on the patterns I have found in the history of society. I will demonstrate why it is not possible to understand contemporary crisis in an advanced society without knowledge of the societies and crises that came and went before.
I will project the patterns forward into the new machine age of artificial intelligence, taking into consideration the ‘early modern’ conceptualisations of governing as a form of system machinery. I propose a pathway for preserving the benefits our generation has derived from Type 8 Society, the modern Western society. I explore how forms of ‘automated’ governance can remove glitches in the mechanism so that good societies can adapt to changes, threats and opportunities in the world and the new technologies.
The histories presented for exhibition on Social Science Files are selected for the contribution they can make to a brisk and simple analysis-synthesis. I look for solid examples and broad comparisons that minimise the risk of becoming lost in detail.
In fact, most of the historical examples can already be found in the Social Science Files Archive whose construction (for this purpose) began at around this time last year.
The greatest influence on my thinking is still Max Weber. I sometimes publish posts about the ideas of Weber and other important social science theorists. Occasionally I write posts that present summaries of core subject matter within my New History and Theory of Society. The whole theoretical framework then comes together in the book.
Historical exhibits are in some shape or form extracts from books which at the time of posting seem to me the most credibly reliable, relevant, respected research in history and other social sciences, much of which is already identified in the Archive.
An area in which I have done my own historical research is seventeenth century England. What occurred there was pivotal in the creation of Type 8 society.
I explore 10 society types
person over person (individualised) (biology)
group over person (equalised) (foragers)
person over group (personalised) (chiefs)
centre over society (administered) (Uruk..)
group over society (participatory) (Rome..)
centre over periphery (externalised) (empire)
rank over status (stratified) (Medieval)
system over system (functional) (the West)
state over society (dominated) (the Rest)
mechanism over individual (automated)
The concepts and ideas in this post are original under copyright and must be attributed to ©2023 Michael G. Heller
The Great Parade (definitive state), by Fernand Léger (died 1955: a mosaic designed in 1953, painted in 1954, made into mosaic in 1958 for the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia.