Full Title:
The Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equation of Human-Social Formations ‘Meta-Evolution’.
In his book Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Robert Wright has comparatively much of ‘‘‘psychohistorical’’’ relevance to say in describing the «genos» of the generic ‘multi-village’ “chiefdom” stage of human-social formation, some of its «species», and even a few of its individual instances / «monads» --
“Three centuries ago, when
Europeans in North America encountered the
chief of the Natchez Indians, they couldn’t help but notice his high
self-esteem. One Jesuit priest observed
that he “knows nothing on earth more dignified than himself.”
“And, since the chief knew
nothing in the heavens greater than the sun, it seemed only natural to deem
himself “brother of the Sun.” This logic
made sense to the sun-worshiping Natchez
people, who vied for proximity to the chief's divine aura. Upon his death, those who had the honor of
accompanying him into the afterlife would
swallow enough tobacco to lose consciousness and then be ritually strangled.”
“From a modern vantage point,
it is hard to relate either to the chief or to his followers. Few politicians today consider themselves gods
or demigods — or, at any rate, few would admit it. And few citizens aspire to spend eternity in
the company of politicians.”
“It’s tempting, indeed, to
dismiss the Natchez
people as a bizarre aberration. But they
were actually pretty typical—typical of human beings living in a particular
phase of cultural evolution: the chiefdom, in which numerous
villages are
subordinated to firm, centralized political leadership, and that leadership is
distinctly institutionalized.”
“So far as we can tell from
the archaeological record, all the ancient state-level
societies were preceded in cultural evolution by chiefdoms. So far as we can tell from the ethnographic
record, the leaders of chiefdoms
have routinely claimed special access to divine force. And, remarkably, their
people have typically considered this claim plausible.”
“We know from chiefdoms observed over the
past few centuries that chiefs go to great lengths to underscore their chiefliness. Some Polynesian chiefs turned their entire faces into ornate
works of art, enduring a painful, tattoo-like engraving process that leaves the
skin looking like the leather on a fancy cowboy boot. Other chiefs have force-fed their wives into
obesity, creating vivid testament to their affluence. Unfortunately for archaeologists, fat cells
and engraved skin don't fossilize well. But
other common forms of chiefly
self-advertisement are more enduring, such as monumental architecture, often
built in tribute to (and as a reminder of) the chief’s distinguished lineage.”
“Hence the huge mounds built
in North America as tombs for past chiefs. Or the pyramid-like temples on Tahiti, or the
earliest ziggurats in Mesopotamia. The giant stone heads on Easter
Island, up to ten meters tall, also suggest social organization
beyond the Big Man level. Using these
and other hallmarks of a chiefdom,
archaeologists have found a clear pattern: After agriculture first spreads across a
region, chiefdoms
tend to follow.”
“This doesn't mean that
farming is a prerequisite for a chiefdom. Natural
abundance, and attendant population density, will occasionally do the trick. As we’ve seen, the Northwest Indians were on
the verge of chiefdomhood.
And the Calusa of Florida, also coastal
hunter-gatherers, were a full-fledged chiefdom, whose leader dispatched an armada of
eighty canoes (not enough) to battle Ponce de Leon.”
“Nor, on the other hand, are
we saying that chiefdoms
s inevitably follow fast on the domestication of plants and animals. In the
jungles of Amazonia or New
Guinea, farming doesn’t become very productive very fast. But given a friendly environment and a
millennium or two, widespread agriculture does seem to propel social organization
into the age of chiefdoms.”
“Thus, farming and cattle
ranching come to England
around 4000 B.C., and within a thousand years “megaliths” — orderly
arrangements of boulders, as at Stonehenge — start
appearing. The same pattern — first
farming, then chiefdoms
— is found earlier in continental Europe.
(Julius Caesar would happen upon chiefdoms when he ventured into Germany
and Gaul.)”
“In Mesoamerica—Central
America and the south of modern Mexico—farming
villages were
common by 2,000 B.C., and within a thousand years, immense stone heads, in the Easter Island genre, had been carved. And so on. Chiefdoms, the scholar Randolph Widmer has written, “were
at various times the most common form of society found throughout Europe,
Africa, the Americas, Melanesia, Polynesia, the Near East, and Asia.” Around the world, with the multiple invention
and rapid spread of agriculture, cultural evolution marched on. Chiefdoms sustained the basic trend toward larger and more complex social
organization.”
. . .
“... other hallmarks of chiefdoms: ... a large village (home of the paramount chief) among smaller ones; large, central food storehouses; diverse technology; sheer population size,
along with signs of sharp status differences.
Especially suggestive -- since status is typically hereditary in chiefdoms -- is the lavish
burial of an infant [M.D.: burials of deceased children of the chief]: graves with alabaster statues and copper ornaments,
as in the Middle East, or, in Mesoamerica, basalt-column tombs loaded with
jades. ... .”
[ Robert Wright, Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Pantheon
Books [NY: 2000], pp. 78-80; 365n, text-color
emphases added by M.D.; Violet text-color marks passages narrating signs of the growth
of the social forces of production.
See http://nonzero.org/toc.htm
].
In terms of historical ‘‘‘Real time’’’, the Whole-Number
model-epoch from t =
3 to t = 4, during
which the highest forms of human social formation all extant together are believed
to have been the ~ single-family “bands”, the ‘multi-band’ “camps”, the ‘multi-camp’ “villages”, and the ‘multi-village’ “chiefdoms”, lasted from circa
5,500
B.C.E., to the emergence of the first ‘multi-chiefdom’ “city-states” [e.g., Sumerian], circa 3,100
B.C.E. -- a duration of ~ 2,400
Earth-years.
Suppose, as the next, consecutive emergence in this ‘Qualo-Peanic’ ‘self-«aufheben» succession’ / ‘consecuum-cumulum’
of human-social emergences, that the ‘‘‘population’’’ of the “villages” «arithmos» — the ‘‘‘population’’’ of which
each individual
“village” is
a unit /- «monad» — reproduces itself
with expansion,
grows, at least in certain localities of the planetary biosphere / emergent “noosphere” [cf. Vernadsky;
Chardin].
Then, as the ‘monadic population’
-- as the «arithmos»,
or ‘‘‘number’’’ -- of the “villages”-as-«monads» grows and ‘densifies’
itself in those localities, a condition of ‘‘‘critically’’’ high “villages” density may
arise, which we term the ‘self-envelopment’,
or the ‘self-surroundment’
of the “village”
«monads», the ‘self-environment’ of the “villages”, or the ‘envelopment- / surroundment-
/ environment-by-likes’, created, for the “villages” «arithmos», by the “villages” «arithmos».
This new condition would arise, first and especially,
within the ‘centerward’, or the ‘coreward’ sub-population of “village” «monads», of each
of the key / core such localities, also termed the ‘meta-meristemal’ / ‘‘‘vanguard’’’
social-relations-innovation ‘‘‘nucleation zones’’’.
This thus means that there has arisen a new condition of “villages” densely
surrounded by [other] “villages”
at the heart of each such locality, a condition expressed, in the F.E.D.
“First Psychohistorical Algebra”, via a multiplication analogy: villages2 = villages x villages.
This condition would have thereby supplanted,
in intensity / ‘intensivity’, within these key / core loci, the ‘precedingly-dominant’
condition of the ‘surroundment’ of the “village” «monads» by their immediate-predecessor, ‘inverse-consecutive’
«monads»,
namely, by the «monads»
of the «arithmos»
of “camps”,
some of whose “camps”
«monads» these
“camps”-surrounded
“villages”
would have been converting
into new “villages”,
as part of the process of the expanded self-reproduction of “villages”.
Yet a new innovation in the human-social settlement / governance
patterns’ ‘‘‘taxonomy’’’, or ‘‘‘systematics’’’, of ‘socio-ontology’ is
thereby seeded.
The former condition was dominated by and characterized
by ‘merely-hybridizing’ reactions / inter-actions, by ‘ontological conversion’, via ‘hetero-actions’,
of “village” «monads» with / upon some immediate
predecessor, “camp” «monads», and with / upon some
of [any] still-persisting earlier-predecessor «monads» — i.e., with “band” «monads» — as yet unassimilated
into any higher ‘‘‘degree’’’ of ontological ‘self-involution’ / ‘self-internalization’
/ ‘self-complexification’.
The new condition — in the ‘ontological innovation
nucleation zones’ — is dominated by and characterized by ‘self-hybridizing’
interactions, ‘self-interactions’, or ‘intra-actions’, of
“village” «monads» with [other] “village” «monads», which
become more and more frequent / increasingly ‘self-frequentized’, as
the ‘‘‘population density’’’ of “village” «monads» grows therein.
The formerly-dominant modes of monadic interaction — of ‘ontological
other-conversion’, or ‘hetero-conversion’ — had partially converted the
still-extant “camp” ‘socio-ontology’ / human ‘socio-mass’
into “village”
‘socio-ontology’ / human ‘socio-mass’, as well as converting part of any
still-extant “band”
‘socio-ontology’ / human ‘socio-mass’ into “village” ‘socio-ontology’ /- human ‘socio-mass’
[ ‘human socio-mass’ means the sum of the mass of
living human bodies plus the mass of humans-made artifacts /- products / goods
/ commodities / physical plant / capital-plant and equipment / fixed capital / social
infrastructure extant at the same time ].
This process of ‘ontological hetero-conversion’
of [part of] the remaining «monads»
of the precedingly-self-manifested «arithmoi» — of the “camps” «arithmos», and of the “bands” «arithmos» — is ‘auto-catalyzed’
by, and ‘[ac]celerates’' itself, in proportion to the presence of, and to
the density of / ‘physical-spatial concentration’ of, the therefore [‘‘‘self-]expanding’’’ “villages” «arithmos».
However, as the — therefore and thereby growing — ‘physical-spatial
concentration’ of the «monads» of the “villages” «arithmos», in the key / core ‘‘‘nucleation
zones’’’, crosses a “critical mass” / ‘‘‘critical density’’’ threshold, the
process of the ‘ontological hetero-conversion / assimilation’,
of earlier-manifested monadic
sub-populations into the growing “villages” monadic population, shifts.
It shifts into a new and, ‘socio-ontologically’, previously
unprecedented process, of the nascent ‘ontological self-conversion’ of [part of] the burgeoning “villages” «arithmos» ‘socio-ontology’,
by that very
burgeoning “villages”
«arithmos» ‘socio-ontology’,
into yet a different, describable as ‘self-hybrid’, ‘socio-ontology’: its ‘self-conversion’
into the human ‘socio-ontology’ of a new, ‘self-involutively higher’, previously-nonexistent, previously unexampled ‘‘‘onto-logical type’’’,
a new qualitative increment [ denoted by Dv ] of ‘socio-ontological’ innovation in the
history of human-social formation(s).
That is, the ‘self-frequentization’ of this new mode of
action — of ‘‘‘self-inter-action’’’, or ‘‘‘intra-action’’’ — of “villages”
with “villages”, then, as it
exceeds its critical frequency /- density threshold, precipitates the irruption
of yet a new, previously unknown, previously unheard-of, previously non-extant,
previously non-existent ‘meta-fractal’
scale / level / layer of human settlement / governance patterns and practices,
namely, that of the — multi-“village”
— “chiefdom”,
or “tribal”, human-social
formation(s).
A “chiefdom”,
grasped as a human-social formations
unit / «monad», is a ‘meta1-«monad»’,
‘meta1-
unit’, or ‘super1-
unit’, relative to a “village”, grasped also as such a human-social formations unit / «monad»; is a ‘meta2-«monad»’,
relative to a “camp”,
grasped also as such a human-social formations
unit / «monad», and is a ‘meta3-«monad»’,
relative to a forager “band”,
grasped also as such a human-social formations
unit / «monad»:
chiefdoms = ‘meta3-bands’
= ‘meta1-meta1-meta1-bands’
=
‘meta1-meta1-camps’ =
‘meta1-villages’.
Each typical “chiefdom” is a meta-“village”, made up out of
a [local-][sub-]«arithmos»
of “villages”,
i.e., made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of “village” «monads», by means
of their coalescence into a new level of ‘internity / externity’, i.e., by
means of a dialectical,
‘self-«aufheben» self-internalization’ of that local, predecessor «arithmos» of “villages” as predecessor
manifold of «monads».
This ‘self-«aufheben» self-operation’ — of an «arithmos» of “village” «monads», as collective / holistic
human-social ‘‘‘subject’’’ / agent of [self-]action, acting upon / operating
upon / operating within itself, via its “village” «monads» operating among themselves — gives
rise to an ontologically, qualitatively, behaviorally new and different,
previously unprecedented «arithmos»,
one that has individual
“chiefdoms” as
its «monads»:
the «arithmos»
of the — multi-“village”,
‘meta-village’ — “chiefdoms”.
The ‘subject
/ verb / object identical’ of “villages” squared, “villages” ´
“villages” --
or ‘villages< villages >’ [“villages” of
“villages”]
-- i.e., the ‘self-reflexive functioning’
of “villages”
acting upon “villages”
-- still possibly reproduces the “villages” «arithmos»-of-village-«monads», but also possibly
produces something new and unprecedented:
“chiefdoms”;
the “chiefdoms”
«arithmos»-of-chiefdom-«monads».
Formulaic
Summary for “Chiefdoms” Emergent. ‘Ideographized’
/ ‘ideogramized’, “shorthand”
summary of the narrative rendered above [in the following formula, f denotes the human social formations ‘socio-ontological
category’ of the “chiefdoms”
«arithmos»]:
< b + c + qcb + v > →
< b + c + qcb + v >< < b + c + qcb + v > > =
< b + c + qcb + v >2 =
< b + c + qcb + v > + D< b + c + qcb + v > =
< b + c + qcb + v + qvb + qvc + qvcb + f >.
No comments:
Post a Comment