The Birth of Evolutionary Thought in Social Sciences

When Herbert Spencer published his groundbreaking essay “Progress: Its Law and Cause” in 1857, he introduced a radical new way of understanding human societies. This eccentric British scholar – a failed railway engineer, technical editor at The Economist, and former lover of novelist George Eliot – proposed that evolution represented the universal principle of change from simple to complex forms. His definition encompassed everything from cosmic beginnings to geological formations, biological organisms, human civilizations, and even abstract social constructs.

Spencer’s timing proved fortuitous. Just two years later, Charles Darwin would publish On the Origin of Species without once using the term “evolution” – a word he only adopted in 1872 from Spencer’s popularization. While their concepts differed significantly (Spencer saw evolution as universal and progressive while Darwin viewed biological change as random and directionless), Spencer’s framework dominated social thought for decades. His four-stage model of social evolution – from simple nomadic bands to doubly-compound civilizations like Rome and Victorian Britain – became foundational, though scholars fiercely debated the precise markers between stages.

The Anthropological Challenge to Evolutionary Theory

By the early 20th century, anthropologists grew skeptical of these grand evolutionary schemas. Bronisław Malinowski and others questioned why evolutionists relied on contemporary “primitive” societies as proxies for ancient stages rather than archaeological evidence. The answer lay in archaeology’s infancy – meaningful excavations only began in the 1820s with Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign and subsequent decipherment of hieroglyphs. Without radiocarbon dating (developed in the 1940s), early archaeologists could only make speculative connections between artifacts and historical events.

This evidentiary vacuum allowed cultural anthropologists to reject evolutionary models as speculative fiction. The mid-20th century saw a dramatic reversal, however. As archaeological data accumulated exponentially, social scientists – particularly American “neoevolutionists” – sought to quantify social development. Anthropologist Raoul Naroll pioneered this approach in 1955 with his Social Development Index, scoring preindustrial societies on settlement size, labor specialization, and organizational complexity. Subsequent studies showed remarkable consistency (87-94% agreement) despite differing methodologies.

The Backlash Against Quantification

By the 1960s, measurement faced growing opposition. Marshall Sahlins, who began as an evolutionist, came to view such frameworks as ideologically suspect amid Vietnam War protests. Younger anthropologists, shaped by civil rights and feminist movements, condemned developmental indices as ethnocentric exercises that invariably ranked Western societies highest. Critics like Michael Shanks and Christopher Tilley argued these metrics served Western imperialism, justifying interventions from carpet bombing to economic exploitation.

Academic battles turned vicious. By the 1990s, Stanford University’s anthropology department famously split into evolutionary and cultural factions that refused to interact – a process dubbed “Stanfordization.” This polarization left social science unable to address fundamental questions about global power dynamics, particularly why the West came to dominate world affairs.

Defining and Measuring Social Development

To explain Western dominance, we need measurable criteria for social development – a society’s ability to master physical and intellectual environments. Following Einstein’s principle of making things as simple as possible but no simpler, I propose four core metrics:

1. Energy Capture: From daily caloric intake to industrial power, energy utilization underpins all social complexity. Modern Americans use 83,200 kcal/day compared to prehistoric hunter-gatherers’ 4,000 kcal.

2. Urbanization: The organizational capacity required to sustain large cities reflects societal sophistication. Ancient Rome’s million inhabitants demanded systems far beyond simpler societies.

3. Information Technology: Communication capabilities, from writing systems to digital networks, enable coordination and knowledge preservation.

4. Military Capacity: The ability to project organized violence remains, regrettably, a key marker of social power.

Applying these metrics reveals striking patterns. Figure 3-6 (log-linear scale) shows Western scores leading for 90% of the period since 14000 BCE, but with the East surpassing the West from 541 to 1773 CE. The Industrial Revolution’s explosive growth appears less as a sudden rupture and more as acceleration in a long-term trend.

The 40-Point Ceiling and Global Synchronization

Linear charts (Figure 3-7) reveal intriguing details. Both Western Rome (1st century CE) and Song China (1100 CE) peaked around 43 points before declining, suggesting a preindustrial developmental ceiling. More remarkably, major downturns in both East and West appear synchronized – the 6th century collapse of Rome coincided with crises in Asia, while 14th-century plagues and climate change affected both regions similarly.

This challenges both “long-term lock-in” theories (which assume permanent Western advantage) and “short-term accident” explanations (viewing Western dominance as recent and contingent). Successful theories must account for:
– Western lead from 14000 BCE
– Eastern supremacy from 541-1773 CE
– Synchronized collapses
– The Industrial Revolution’s timing

The Future of Western Dominance

Projecting 20th-century growth rates (Figure 3-8) suggests Eastern societies may regain global leadership by 2103. Like Scrooge confronting his gravestone, we must ask whether this future is inevitable or can be altered by present actions. Answering requires understanding not just current dynamics but the 16,000-year patterns that brought us here.

The subsequent chapters will trace this epic history, revealing how energy capture, organizational capacity, technological innovation, and military power interacted across millennia to shape our world – and may determine its future.