Neo-evolutionism versus classical evolutionism
From the 1930s–1960s, neo-evolutionists revived evolutionary questions but rejected a single compulsory ladder for every society.
- Culture changes through technology, environment, economy and adaptive problem-solving — not psychic unity alone.
- Pathways can be multiple; progress is not automatic or identical everywhere.
- Parabolic evolution: traits or forms may rise, peak, simplify or decline, then reappear in modified shape.
- Material conditions (production, energy, ecology) matter; Marxism and ecology influenced the turn.
- Steward’s classification: unilinear (Morgan–Tylor single sequence), universal (humankind as a whole), multilinear (different paths in different settings).
Classical evolutionism
- One ladder for all societies
- Living ‘primitives’ as past stages
- Psychic Unity explains parallel invention
- Armchair comparative catalogues
Neo-evolutionism
- Multiple or universal measures of change
- Adaptation to specific environments
- Energy, technology and ecology as drivers
- Ethnography + archaeology + material analysis
Leslie White — energy and C = E × T
- Major works: The Science of Culture (1949); The Evolution of Culture (1959).
- Formula: C = E × T — cultural development rises with energy harnessed per capita per year (E) multiplied by efficiency of technology (T).
- Example: a farming village using only human muscle has low E; adding draft animals raises E; diesel pumps and fertiliser raise both E and T, supporting denser settlement, specialists and more complex institutions — higher C.
- Technological layer (tools, production) shapes sociological relations, which shape ideology (values, religion).
- Energy stages: human muscle → domesticated animals → agricultural capture → fossil fuels → nuclear energy.
- Beauty-standard illustration: scarcity regimes may prize body fat as prosperity; abundance regimes may prize slimness — ideals track techno-economic conditions.
- Criticisms: technological determinism; weak on why technology changes; underplays ideas (Weber’s Protestant Ethic counterpoint) and cultural diversity.
Gordon Childe — revolutions of production
- Man Makes Himself (1936); Social Evolution (1951): Neolithic (food production), Urban, and Industrial revolutions as transformative breaks.
- Neolithic: domestication → settlement, surplus, population growth, differentiation.
- Urban revolution: surplus enables cities, specialists, stratification, state, monuments, writing, long-distance trade.
- Archaeological sequence loosely mapped onto savagery–barbarism–civilisation language, but with material markers.
- Criticisms: too fixed a sequence; techno-emphasis; ethnocentric risk; archaeology shows multiple paths.
Steward, Sahlins and Service — paths and political scale
- Julian Steward’s multilinear evolution: societies adapt along different trajectories; similar ecologies can produce limited parallel institutions (irrigation civilisations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus, China).
- Marshall Sahlins: productivity linked to stratification in Polynesia; ‘original affluent society’ — foragers can meet limited needs with modest labour; domestic mode of production stops at sufficiency; Big Man (achieved, competitive) versus Chief (ascribed, hierarchical).
- Elman Service: band → tribe → chiefdom → state as increasing political centralisation; managerial benefit theory — leaders persist when coordination pays.
- Sahlins and Service (Evolution and Culture, 1960): White’s general evolution (overall advance) and Steward’s specific evolution (local adaptation) are complementary.
Pair with syllabus short notes for clause-by-clause Paper coverage.