|
I suspect that few
would contest there is an evolutionary nature to society. However the
extent and depth of the evolutionary nature may not generally be
appreciated. I believe a short review of the points George Basalla
[1988] makes in his book, "The Evolution of Technology," is useful
before embarking on theory development. Since I maintain that the same
process leads to technological evolution also results in the evolution
of organizational and individual behavior. I label this chapter “The
Evolutionary Nature of Society,” and not “The Evolutionary Nature of
Technology.” It just so happens that technological evolution leaves a
very convenient artifact record.
The opening chapter announces three themes that reappear,
with variations, in later sections of the work: diversity - an
acknowledgement of the vast number of different kinds of artifacts, or
made things, that have long been available; necessity - the belief that
humans are driven to invent artifacts to meet basic biological needs;
and technological evolution - an organic analogy that explains both the
appearance and the selection of these novel artifacts. A close
examination of these themes reveals that diversity is a fact of material
culture, necessity is a popular but erroneous explanation of diversity,
and technological evolution is a way of accounting for diversity without
recourse to the idea of biological necessity.
George Basalla [1988, vii]
Basalla concludes from
his analysis that any society, at any time, commands more potential for
technological innovations than it can ever hope to exploit. Only a
small fraction of novel technological possibilities are sufficiently
developed to become part of the material life of a people. Selection
must be made from among competing novel artifacts. Ultimately, the
selection is made in accordance with the values and perceived needs of
society and in harmony with its current understanding of "the good
life."
The extensiveness of
technological innovation is easy to demonstrate. For example, as
Basalla [1988, 2] points out, biologists have identified 1.5 million
species of flora and fauna, and for contrast in the United States alone
more than 4.7 million patents have been issued since 1790.
The variety of made things is every bit as astonishing as
that of living things. Consider the range that extends from stone tools
to microchips, from waterwheels to spacecraft, from thumbtacks to
skyscrapers. In 1867 Karl Marx was surprised to learn, as well he might
have been, that five hundred different kinds of hammers were produced in
Birmingham, England, each one adapted to a specific function in industry
or the crafts. What forces led to the proliferation of so many
variations of this ancient and common tool? Or more generally, why are
there so many different kinds of things?
Basalla [1988, 2]
The
Evolution of Australian Aboriginal Weapons.
War clubs, boomerangs, lances, throwing sticks, and shields
were arranged by Pitt-Rivers so that they would appear as evolutionary
sequences; all of the weapons displayed were in use in modern times.
Pitt-Rivers assumed that the simpler artifacts, those located close to
the center, were "survivals" of earlier forms. Source: A. Lane-Fox
Pitt-Rivers, The evolution of culture (Oxford, 1906). pl. III,
reprinted by AMS Press, Inc., New York.
Basalla [1988, 14]
The
Evolutionary History of the Hammer
. . ., from the first crudely shaped pounding stone (1) to
James Nasmyth's gigantic steam hammer of 1842 (14). This evolutionary
sequence of a familiar hand tool was prepared by the staff of the U.S.
National Museum to "indicate how the mind of man has arrived at certain
datum points which mark epochs in progress." Following the example set
by Pitt-Rivers (fig. 1-3), the "specimens are arranged in order of
their grade of development irrespective of race, place, or time."
Source: Walter Hough, "Synoptic Series of Objects in the United States
National Museum Illustrating the History of Invention," Proceedings of
the United States national Museum 60 (Washington, D.C., 1922), art. 9,
p. 2, pl. 16.
Basalla [1988, 20].
At a time when material culture studies were largely
descriptive, if not outright antiquarian, Pitt-Rivers offered a
theoretical basis for the integration of intellectual and technological
achievements.. An artifact was more than an inert object hastily
fashioned to meet a need. It was a surviving remnant of the human mind
that conceived it.
Basalla [1988, 21]
This is precisely the
reason why the evolution of technology is easier to analyze than other
aspects of the evolution of society. The technology of the past leaves
a better record of what has transpired than the other aspects of
society.
η
Prior Page of Text
Next Page of Text
θ
(C) 2005-2014 Wayne M. Angel.
All rights reserved. |
