Preliminary Exam Summary; Section: Social Change
By Eileen Bevis
CITATION:
Ogburn, William. On culture and social change: selected papers. Edited and introd. by Otis
Dudley Duncan. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1964. Ch. 2.
I. Ch 2: Social Evolution Reconsidered (1950)
ABSTRACT:
Theories of social evolution seemed to have hit a dead end by 1922, but Ogburn’s own
account of social evolution from that time contained seeds of promise [he thinks], so here, thirty
years later, he presents a new, improved [read: explicit] theory of social, er, that is to say,
cultural evolution based on four explanatory factors: invention, accumulation, diffusion, and
adjustment. In short, people invent things (material and non-material), either independently or
by imitation/acquisition (diffusion); these things accumulate, increasing the potential for more
inventions; the appearance of a new invention causes reactions in other parts of culture and, as
society attempts to reestablish equilibrium through adjustment, society also evolves.
SUMMARY:
From about 1870 to 1920, there was a lot of discussion of “social evolution,” stimulated
greatly by the newly developing theory of biological evolution. “It was hoped that the theory of
social evolution would explain the origin and development of civilization as the theory of
biological evolution had explained the origin and development of man” (17). What the social
scientists wanted was an explanation, rather than description, of civilization, preferably an
account as elegant and powerful as Darwin’s, which included only three main factors:
“variation, natural selection, and heredity” (17). Social scientists emulated the biologists a little
too closely, though, they confused evolution with progress, and they brought God into their
accounts; as a result, these early attempts at a theory of social evolution failed (18). Hence, the
question—“how does society evolve and how did our civilization come to be?”—remained,
though being raised more often under the heading of “social change” by 1920s (18).
The common earlier answer/assumption is: “society evolved because man evolved”;
civilization was seen as society, and society was seen as social behavior, and behavior was a
function of biological structure, and biological structure, particularly brains/mental ability, was
the product of biological evolution (19-20). [NOTE: “civilization was not seen as an
accumulation of culture or as a conditioning environment in which inadequately organized
infants were born”—relate to culture readings, current “psychoevolutionary” literature in Waite’s
section]. This equating of civilization and mental ability involved a rather circular logic and was
seriously deflated by Franz Boas’s work on the mind of primitive man and of races, as well as by
the early version of Ogburn’s book, which stated that “there was no evidence that the genetic
capacity for brain function of the whole population of Europe had changed any at all during the
past 25,000 years” (based on sizes of brain cases) (20).
Nonetheless, Ogburn still thinks that the essential factors to explain social evolution were
present in the earlier version of this book, though not made obvious. Thus, in this chapter he
wishes to outline the problem and the theory more sharply and to integrate the factors more
tightly (21).
Ogburn—Social Evolution and Social Trends Summary 2
He begins by asking, “What is it that is evolving?” Though we are tempted to answer
“society,” society can be thought of as containing two elements: “inherited biological behavior”,
which hasn’t changed much of late, and “culture”, which has changed (22). “Social evolution
becomes then cultural evolution, and the evolution of groups since glacial times is part of the
evolution of culture” (22).
Next Ogburn asks, “What then are the factors that explain cultural evolution?” and
answers himself (23):
1. Invention: “a combination of existing and known elements of culture, material and /or
non-material, or a modification of one to form a new one” (23) Inventions are the
evidence on which we base our observations of social evolution; they are [also; hence?]
the most crucial factor in cultural evolution. Inventions are made from a combination of
mental ability1, demand [akin to utility, strongest form is that of necessity], and the
“cultural base”—the existence of other cultural elements out of which inventions are
fashioned” (23).
2. Accumulation: “occurs when more new elements are added to the cultural base than are
lost” (24). Presumably, inventions accumulate for the same reason they are made: utility
(24). The accumulation process was speeded first by the development of speech and then
by writing. By emphasizing accumulation as one facet of society (typical emphasis is on
behavior), Ogburn claims to get a clearer distinction between constant biological
behavior and varying, accumulative learned behavior in social change. In particular, it
destroys the ethnocentric, egotistical myth that man created civilization and replaces it
with the much truer idea that man inherited civilization (25). Thus, “different peoples are
born into different accumulations of culture. Though they have the same inherited mental
abilities, their operating mental abilities may vary enormously, according to the pile of
culture into which they are born” (25). Accumulation tends to be exponential, since “the
number of inventions is a function of the size of the cultural base” (25). [Note: sheer
number of inventions produces more inventions, not ‘inventiveness’=mental ability.] As
to change, it is most proper to say that “a people is the carrier of a culture that is growing
either rapidly or slowly”, rather than that a people is more or less creative (27).
3. Diffusion: “the spread of inventions from one area to others, usually from the area of
their origin” (27). Diffusion is promoted by the various communication and
transportation inventions (27). Note: acquisition of inventions by importing them is just
as legitimate in social evolution as making them; in fact, most inventions of a limited area
are acquired this way (27-28). But diffusion is not just a source of inventions, it is also a
major factor in the growth of culture (=rate of evolution) (28). Yet, one puzzle of
diffusion is why there are “unequal levels of culture among different peoples and in
different areas” (28). Answer: rate of accumulation, generally; more specifically,
“location plus diffusion”—e.g. eastern Mediterranean as crossroads (=a focus of
Note: there is more “inherited” mental ability in certain parts of the world now simply because there are more
people—even if same percentage of Cro-Magnon and twentieth century Western Europeans were geniuses, there are
more Europeans, hence more geniuses (23). “Learned” mental ability, in contrast, is disproportionately higher in
modern societies.
1
Ogburn—Social Evolution and Social Trends Summary 3
diffusion) compared to Sahara desert [=focus of sandstorms] (28). Diffusion is therefore
a factor in the growth of world culture, particularly in early times.
4. Adjustment: occurs between two parts of society (29). Because the parts of culture are
intertwined in varying degrees, “an invention occurring in one part and producing a
change therein will also occasion a change in a part closely correlated” (29). Thus, the
invention of the factory with steam-driven machinery produced a change in the family by
taking work out of the home, especially women’s occupations (29-30). These changes, as
evidenced by this example, are often inventions in the non-material part of the culture
[meaning that when Ogburn refers to inventions usually, he means in the material part of
culture?]. Some parts of culture, such as a stable, efficient government [rule of law,
anyone??], a densely populated area, and wealthy economic institutions, contribute
significantly to invention in other parts (30-31). Adjustment, like diffusion, is a source of
invention, but is also more because it does not take place instantaneously but is made
after a delay and is called a “cultural lag” (30). Lastly, “a society long stationary without
any social changes is in equilibrium. The various parts, through trial and error, have
become adjusted to one another. … There is no social evolution. But when a significant
invention occurs in one part of culture, the balance is disturbed; change is set up in the
other related parts as a process of adjustment to the new invention. Thus social
evolution goes forward by inventions which produce a disequilibrium in society,
which in turn sets up forces which seek a new equilibrium” (30). However, not all
adjustments are successful (e.g. some groups of American Indians) (31).
These four factors not only explain better than inherited mental ability the development of our
civilization, but also offer a general explanation of any one culture, such as that of China or India
or Greece (32).
RELEVANCE:
Ogburn seems to be involved in several ongoing dialogues, though what will be relevant to
social change prelim lit is still unclear. Here are some potentially relevant points:
- Ogburn draws heavily on anthropology to conduct his analysis of social=cultural evolution.
- “A change cannot be explained by a constant” (22)—inherited mental ability (which has not
increased in the last 25,000 years, acc. to Ogburn) cannot explain the development of
civilization. Inherited culture plus basic mental ability plus trade, on the other hand…
- “The functional relationship between the size of the cultural base and the number of new
inventions, plus the tendency for cultural elements to accumulate, helps to explain how our
civilization came from simple beginnings to what it is today. The view of culture as a
growing accumulation is more realistic than the conception of it as behavior or as the
creation of peoples” (27).
- How many other accounts of cultural change are included in this prelim section? Should
we take Ogburn as representative of accounts of “cultural change” or did his “evolutionary”
account get debunked, too? What would he say in response to the economic
change/capitalism theorists? Can Ogburn’s ‘social evolution’ theory explain economic
change, too?
Ogburn—Social Evolution and Social Trends Summary 4
II. Ch. 9: Social Trends (1957)
ABSTRACT:
The term “social trends” is put forth the most scientific term for long-term changes in time series
data or in temporal phenomena.
SUMMARY:
Question: “Is the term “social trends” an improvement over ‘social movements’, ‘history’,
‘natural history’, ‘evolution’, etc. or is it just another label?”
Answer: “It is more precise and less general” and thus better fitted for scientific usage (102)
[ahem, redundancy alert].
First usage of trends: course a river/events take.
First scientific usage of trends: curve fitting in time series data—one makes a trend line [think,
regression line]. One is thus able to see annual fluctuations above and below the trend line
[deviation from the “ideal”—Weber, anybody?]
Thus, “a trend, is like the course of a river, which is likely to be in one general direction but with
various bends” (103).
Accounts of trends are impersonal and simply descriptive (not normative), thus, they are
scientific (103).
Beware when extending this useful idea to descriptive (not measuring) accounts of qualitative
phenomena. Where there is “no statistical measurement there is danger, however, of
misstatements about trends which are based upon impressions an illustrations”; also, one must
take care to distinguish a fluctuation around a trend from the trend itself (104).
To ward off this danger, a scientist should not attempt to determine a trend until “there have been
several [5-6+] cycles of fluctuations in the time series around where the trend line will be” (a
cycle is a fluctuation from above the trend to below and then up again above) (105).
Oh, and then Ogburn says he’s found something cool relating to social trends…
Hypothesis: social trends seldom change their direction quickly and sharply.
Proof: he fit trend lines to 300 time series data sets, drawing on various fields in U.S. and
Europe going back several decades. Ah, but no results given and he doesn’t have space to set out
causes for this persistence of trends. [So what do we do about this “very important characteristic
of social trends” (106)?]
Ramifications: The projection of a trend line into the future is relatively trustworthy and
provides a decent prediction of probability of the future. OOH, BUT (107):
(a) the past trend should be of some duration
(b) the further the projection is made, the greater the error
(c) this projection is not a forecast of what the time series (fluctuations and all) will actually
be, only what the trend line will be
So trend line projection is no good for exact predictions, but decent for non-exact predictions
(e.g. population).
In conclusion, social trends tell us that:
(1) “there is much stability in society, even though there be a period of great and rapid social
change”…i.e., revolutions are rare and evolution is the rule (108)
(2) “there is a sort of inevitability about social trends”—no individual or group is likely to stop a
trend, though they may slow it down (with difficulty and only temporarily [e.g. Communist push
Ogburn—Social Evolution and Social Trends Summary 5
against “child-centered” education, if you went to John Meyer’s talk(s) at Spring Institute]).
Success if more likely to come to those who work for and with a social trend rather than to those
who work against it [anything like ‘70s philosophy advocating subversion of the system from
within?](109).
RELEVANCE:
Um, we all know how to fit regression lines now, so … maybe just note his distinction between
the trend line itself and fluctuations around it, as well as his caveats about predicting the future,
and keep in mind when interpreting graphs (as we did every class with Parish).
If Ogburn’s hypothesis is correct and trends don’t change all that sharply, then this short chapter
lends relevance to the earlier chapter on social evolution as well as to macro-historical accounts
and long-term case studies. Though if he likes the term “social trend” so much better than
“evolution” seven years after he wrote that earlier chapter, what does he think about the earlier
“evolutionary” account—with nary a trend line to be seen—at the time of writing this later
piece?