International Development: Shaping the mosaic
From evolution to development, changing everything to remain equal
By Fonju Ndemesah
Just like slavery, colonialism and racism, the concept “development” has undergone many transformations due to the writings of early anthropologists and sociologists. Many scholars have portrayed how the works of early anthropologists and sociologists have helped to legitimate doubtful ideas such slavery, colonialism and racism. As Inkeles (1964) well puts it, a “social science scientist usually “carries “models” of society and man which greatly influence what he looks for, what he sees and what he does with his observations by way of fitting them, along with other facts, into a larger scheme of explanation”.
In fact, the “larger scheme of explanation” produced by early sociologists and anthropologists helped to legitimate the idea of “development” as a linear process - “Man and society was seen progressing up definite steps of evolution leading through ever greater complexity to some final stage of perfection”. The evolutionary thinkers “treated society as if there were imminence inherent in man’s social development which requires that each stage appear in turn to play its role according to “natural law” (Inkeles, 1964). Development thus became a “natural law” in front of humanity as will be portrayed by pioneer anthropologists and sociologists.
Socio-cultural evolutionism
In the lines below, we are going to fit in the blocks of the evolutionist thinkers in shaping the concept of development. We are going to base this section on the division given by Alex Inkeles in his book Introduction to sociology. This is done to render the rather complex sociological theories compatible with the scope of this article. We acknowledge the simple nature of this division since broad headings such as classical evolutionism, neo-evolutionism, socio-biology could be used in place of , “unilinear”, “quasi-evolutionary”, “cycle theory”, “universal theory”, “multi-linear theory”.
Uni-linear theory
The Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun before the birth of sociology equated society to living organisms that experience cyclic birth, growth, maturity, decline and ultimately death. Early Social evolutionist such as Jean- Baptist Say (1767-1832) said evolution starts with “horde sauvages”, ignorant of law and keen to satisfy only his elementary needs, then passes to inferior civilization then to what he calls “civilisations superiores, characterized by industrial productions (Rist, 1996). Lewis Morgan, considered the father of American anthropology, differentiated three stages of evolution: savagery, barbarism and civilization. Morgan and Tylor elaborated the theory of “unilinear evolution”. They tried to specify cultures according to fixed system of growth of humanity as a whole. These scholars brought into the concept of progress the idea of sequence, stages and the classification as more “primitive” or more “civilized”.(Inkeles, 1964).
August Comte and Spencer view the society “as a kind of organism subject to the process of growth, from simplicity to complexity, chaos to order, from generalization to specialization, from flexibility to organisation”. The works of August Comte considered as the father of sociology harbor the seeds of uni-linear evolution. He, for example, showed “three great stages through which all societies must go- through: conquest, defense, and industry. For each, he enunciated a parallel step in the development of man’s though.”
Marx in line with the visions of Comte, Morgan and Spencer, believes that society must pass through “a fixed and limited number of stages in a sequence”.
Scholars like Durkheim and Tonnies are regarded as “Quasi- evolutionary” theorist. Durkheim believed in a “historical trend” of evolution, from a “low to a high degree of specialization”. He divided the society into two based on the degree in their “division of labor”. He termed communities with a limited specialization “mechanical societies” and communities with less intimate and personal relations “organic societies”.(Inkeles, 1964). Tonnies on his part divided the society into gemeinschaft and gesellschaft corresponding to Durkheim’s “mechanical” and “organic” society.
Cyclical theory of evolution
Sorokin sees progress as a “cycle”. The cyclical theories of evolution posit that society does not necessarily progress following fixed stages. However, In line with the unilineal vision, they believe the culture of mankind taken as a whole followed a fixed line (Inkeles: 1964).
Vilfredo Pareto spoke of “residues”. For him residues are “constants” in human behavior. A given residue can thus be “characteristic of a particular society, institution, or person”. Pareto uses this concept of “classes’ residues” to classify different groups, people or society according to their most significant residue. He spoke, for example, of “foxes” (risk takers), “lions” (traditional, devoted to routine and lack imagination). He brought the idea of “circulation of elites” that is replaced through revolution by new elites with high “residues of combination”. This help to give a cyclic nature to evolution. “Pareto used the idea of social types, each bearing different residues, as a basis for what we have defined as a cyclical theory of evolution”.
The idea of early “Unilinear” theory of evolution helped to shape the vision of development as a ladder made up of obligatory stages to pass from the state of “savagery” to that of civilization. This type of vision helped to legitimate western imperialism, slavery, racism and colonialism.
During the 20th century scholars like Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict and Mead started questioning the authenticity of the classical social evolutionism. They rejected unilinear evolution with the western civilization at the top of the ladder, labeling it as ethnocentric. Boas introduced what became known as “culture history approach”, which rather than speculating stages of growth, concentrated on field work among “native” communities to trace their “cultural and historical process”. Boas emphasized that the biological, linguistic, and cultural traits of a group are products of historical development involving both cultural and non-cultural forces. He said “cultural plurality is a key aspect of mankind, and that environment structures individual behavior”. These critiques led to the revision of the vision of progress as unilineal and in stages. It brought in the idea of “cultural relativism” and “multilineal evolution.
Neoevolutionism
Multilinear Theory
Supporters of this theory rather than trying to explain the “straight – line” evolution of society and the progress of mankind as a whole, instead concentrate on limited sequences of development (Inkeles, 1964). The multilinear vision was pioneered by scholars such as Leslie White and Julien Steward. White held that, “technology, particularly the amount of energy harnessed and the way in which it is used, determines the form and content of culture and society….evolution proceeds in great spurts as new sources of energy are harnessed” (Inkeles: 1964). This idea of evolution as the liberation of energy as portrayed by White is popularly referred to as “white’s law”.
Steward in “Theory of culture change: The methodology of Multilinear Evolution (1955) , refuses the socio-classical evolutionist vision of progress, and instead called on the Darwinian notion of “adaptation”, supporting his argument by saying societies have to adapt in some way to their environment. He said culture does not pass through the same stages in the same order as they change. They would rather proceed in vary ways and directions (Steward, 1955).
Parson on his part divided evolution into four sub processes: division, adaptation, inclusion of previously excluded elements and generalization of values. He shows these processes on 3 stages of evolution: primitive, archaic and modern. While the primitive were regarded as instinctive, the archaic had the knowledge of writing and the modern the knowledge of law. In this stages, Parson saw the western civilization at the pinnacle of modern societies and the USA at the apex of the evolution ladder (Parson, 1966, 1971).
Gerhard Lenski (1966, 1974) divides evolution with regard to the level of information and its use. Unlike white who looks technology as the ability to “create and utilize energy”, Lenski elaborates four stages of human development based on the advances in the history of communication. In the first stage he sees the human gene as the transporter of information, in the second stage people learn and pass information by experience, in the third stage humans start to create and use signs and logic and finally, they create symbols and develop language and writing.
From the above study one can notice that any ahistorical vision of “development” does not portray the various transformation and synonyms that the concept “development” has gone through overtime. Words such as evolution (linear, cyclic, multilinear), progress, and growth that has characterized the debate on development in various places and at various epochs and time are well understood only through a historical perspective. To make thinks clearer, let us point out some of the direct impacts of the transformations on the way we understand development nowadays.
Just like slavery, colonialism and racism, the concept “development” has undergone many transformations due to the writings of early anthropologists and sociologists. Many scholars have portrayed how the works of early anthropologists and sociologists have helped to legitimate doubtful ideas such slavery, colonialism and racism. As Inkeles (1964) well puts it, a “social science scientist usually “carries “models” of society and man which greatly influence what he looks for, what he sees and what he does with his observations by way of fitting them, along with other facts, into a larger scheme of explanation”.
In fact, the “larger scheme of explanation” produced by early sociologists and anthropologists helped to legitimate the idea of “development” as a linear process - “Man and society was seen progressing up definite steps of evolution leading through ever greater complexity to some final stage of perfection”. The evolutionary thinkers “treated society as if there were imminence inherent in man’s social development which requires that each stage appear in turn to play its role according to “natural law” (Inkeles, 1964). Development thus became a “natural law” in front of humanity as will be portrayed by pioneer anthropologists and sociologists.
Socio-cultural evolutionism
In the lines below, we are going to fit in the blocks of the evolutionist thinkers in shaping the concept of development. We are going to base this section on the division given by Alex Inkeles in his book Introduction to sociology. This is done to render the rather complex sociological theories compatible with the scope of this article. We acknowledge the simple nature of this division since broad headings such as classical evolutionism, neo-evolutionism, socio-biology could be used in place of , “unilinear”, “quasi-evolutionary”, “cycle theory”, “universal theory”, “multi-linear theory”.
Uni-linear theory
The Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun before the birth of sociology equated society to living organisms that experience cyclic birth, growth, maturity, decline and ultimately death. Early Social evolutionist such as Jean- Baptist Say (1767-1832) said evolution starts with “horde sauvages”, ignorant of law and keen to satisfy only his elementary needs, then passes to inferior civilization then to what he calls “civilisations superiores, characterized by industrial productions (Rist, 1996). Lewis Morgan, considered the father of American anthropology, differentiated three stages of evolution: savagery, barbarism and civilization. Morgan and Tylor elaborated the theory of “unilinear evolution”. They tried to specify cultures according to fixed system of growth of humanity as a whole. These scholars brought into the concept of progress the idea of sequence, stages and the classification as more “primitive” or more “civilized”.(Inkeles, 1964).
August Comte and Spencer view the society “as a kind of organism subject to the process of growth, from simplicity to complexity, chaos to order, from generalization to specialization, from flexibility to organisation”. The works of August Comte considered as the father of sociology harbor the seeds of uni-linear evolution. He, for example, showed “three great stages through which all societies must go- through: conquest, defense, and industry. For each, he enunciated a parallel step in the development of man’s though.”
Marx in line with the visions of Comte, Morgan and Spencer, believes that society must pass through “a fixed and limited number of stages in a sequence”.
Scholars like Durkheim and Tonnies are regarded as “Quasi- evolutionary” theorist. Durkheim believed in a “historical trend” of evolution, from a “low to a high degree of specialization”. He divided the society into two based on the degree in their “division of labor”. He termed communities with a limited specialization “mechanical societies” and communities with less intimate and personal relations “organic societies”.(Inkeles, 1964). Tonnies on his part divided the society into gemeinschaft and gesellschaft corresponding to Durkheim’s “mechanical” and “organic” society.
Cyclical theory of evolution
Sorokin sees progress as a “cycle”. The cyclical theories of evolution posit that society does not necessarily progress following fixed stages. However, In line with the unilineal vision, they believe the culture of mankind taken as a whole followed a fixed line (Inkeles: 1964).
Vilfredo Pareto spoke of “residues”. For him residues are “constants” in human behavior. A given residue can thus be “characteristic of a particular society, institution, or person”. Pareto uses this concept of “classes’ residues” to classify different groups, people or society according to their most significant residue. He spoke, for example, of “foxes” (risk takers), “lions” (traditional, devoted to routine and lack imagination). He brought the idea of “circulation of elites” that is replaced through revolution by new elites with high “residues of combination”. This help to give a cyclic nature to evolution. “Pareto used the idea of social types, each bearing different residues, as a basis for what we have defined as a cyclical theory of evolution”.
The idea of early “Unilinear” theory of evolution helped to shape the vision of development as a ladder made up of obligatory stages to pass from the state of “savagery” to that of civilization. This type of vision helped to legitimate western imperialism, slavery, racism and colonialism.
During the 20th century scholars like Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict and Mead started questioning the authenticity of the classical social evolutionism. They rejected unilinear evolution with the western civilization at the top of the ladder, labeling it as ethnocentric. Boas introduced what became known as “culture history approach”, which rather than speculating stages of growth, concentrated on field work among “native” communities to trace their “cultural and historical process”. Boas emphasized that the biological, linguistic, and cultural traits of a group are products of historical development involving both cultural and non-cultural forces. He said “cultural plurality is a key aspect of mankind, and that environment structures individual behavior”. These critiques led to the revision of the vision of progress as unilineal and in stages. It brought in the idea of “cultural relativism” and “multilineal evolution.
Neoevolutionism
Multilinear Theory
Supporters of this theory rather than trying to explain the “straight – line” evolution of society and the progress of mankind as a whole, instead concentrate on limited sequences of development (Inkeles, 1964). The multilinear vision was pioneered by scholars such as Leslie White and Julien Steward. White held that, “technology, particularly the amount of energy harnessed and the way in which it is used, determines the form and content of culture and society….evolution proceeds in great spurts as new sources of energy are harnessed” (Inkeles: 1964). This idea of evolution as the liberation of energy as portrayed by White is popularly referred to as “white’s law”.
Steward in “Theory of culture change: The methodology of Multilinear Evolution (1955) , refuses the socio-classical evolutionist vision of progress, and instead called on the Darwinian notion of “adaptation”, supporting his argument by saying societies have to adapt in some way to their environment. He said culture does not pass through the same stages in the same order as they change. They would rather proceed in vary ways and directions (Steward, 1955).
Parson on his part divided evolution into four sub processes: division, adaptation, inclusion of previously excluded elements and generalization of values. He shows these processes on 3 stages of evolution: primitive, archaic and modern. While the primitive were regarded as instinctive, the archaic had the knowledge of writing and the modern the knowledge of law. In this stages, Parson saw the western civilization at the pinnacle of modern societies and the USA at the apex of the evolution ladder (Parson, 1966, 1971).
Gerhard Lenski (1966, 1974) divides evolution with regard to the level of information and its use. Unlike white who looks technology as the ability to “create and utilize energy”, Lenski elaborates four stages of human development based on the advances in the history of communication. In the first stage he sees the human gene as the transporter of information, in the second stage people learn and pass information by experience, in the third stage humans start to create and use signs and logic and finally, they create symbols and develop language and writing.
From the above study one can notice that any ahistorical vision of “development” does not portray the various transformation and synonyms that the concept “development” has gone through overtime. Words such as evolution (linear, cyclic, multilinear), progress, and growth that has characterized the debate on development in various places and at various epochs and time are well understood only through a historical perspective. To make thinks clearer, let us point out some of the direct impacts of the transformations on the way we understand development nowadays.
- On the theoretical perspective, social evolutionism helped to conciliate together the different societies and helped to focus on the unique nature of the human race. To use the words of Gilbert Rist (1996), « les sociétés non occidentales se trouvent privées à la fois de leur histoire et leur culture ». The validation of a unique vision also created a state of optimism in the developers and the to-be- developed.
- Politically, evolutionism helped to legalize the “profitable injustice” (Ayi Kwei Armah, 2002) of slavery and colonialism, which are going to try to cancel the various realities of development found in the occupied states by imposing a unique vision of progress. Hampaté Ba (1972) has this to say about the African situation, « comme on ne sème jamais dans la jachère, les puissances coloniales ont été obligées de « défricher » la tradition Africaine pour pouvoir y planter leur propre tradition ».
- Ideologically, for some scholars, many of the occupied areas entered history only after they were occupied by the colonizers. This has helped to produce a distorted image of many areas. The case of the African continent is emblematic. Many still continue to paint the continent as “paradise on earth” neglecting the many negative aspects blocking the way to progress in the continent (Gentili, 2002). Ian Taylor (2004) says “studies on Africa have focused upon how the continent is in ‘crisis’, or succumbing to war, militarism, famine, poverty, natural catastrophes, corruption, disease, criminality, environmental degradation and crises of governance”. This static and “hopeless” vision of the continent does not help to understand the transforming nature of Africa with the continuous merging of the old and the new that is remodeling and shaping the day to day life of Africans. This narrow vision borrowed from some colonial narrations and touristic diaries does not help to understand the dynamic aspects of the continent because of it lack of any critical analyses of the various changes taking place in the continent (Fabian, 2000).
- The various pressure and academic productions put forward to legitimate the vision of development as a ladder with western countries at the apex has made many people in the “underdeveloped”, or “less developed” countries to believe the western model as the only model that can be considered. If they don’t completely believe that the western model of evolution is the only possible way, they fall in a dilemma, like Samba Diallo, the protagonist of Cheick Hamodou Kane’s novel “Adventure Ambigui”, who finds himself in a confused situation in the middle of two cultures, not knowing which to follow.