Der Ausdruck "Soziotektonik" bezeichnet das Netzwerk menschlicher Wechselwirkungen, welche durch Symbole und Signale übermittelt werden und die Koordination und Integration verschiedener Sozialsysteme ermöglichen. Jedes Sozialnetzwerk ist zeitbedingt und seine Evolution ist das Ergebnis menschlicher Entscheidungen. Die Entwicklung kann im Rückblick beschrieben werden; im Vorausblick können nur Wahrscheinlichkeitsaussagen gemacht werden. Die Teilsysteme sind nicht hierarchisch untergeordnet, sondern heterarchisch beigeordnet und unterliegen infolgedessen unvereinbaren Einflüssen. Der Grad der möglichen Harmonisierung kann mathematisch-topologisch formuliert werden.

Cultural congruence is the idea that to the extent a belief or experience is culturally shared it is not to feature in a diagnostic judgement, irrespective of its resemblance to psychiatric pathology. This rests on the argument that since deviation from norms is central to diagnosis, and since what counts as deviation is relative to context, assessing the degree of fit between mental states and cultural norms is crucial. Various problems beset the cultural congruence construct including impoverished definitions of culture (...) as religious, national or ethnic group and of congruence as validation by that group. This article attempts to address these shortcomings to arrive at a cogent construct. (shrink)

Building on research in anthropology and philosophy, one can make a distinction between type I and type II energy ethics as a framework for advancing public debate about energy. Type I holds energy production and use as a fundamental good and is grounded in the assumption that increases in energy production and consumption result in increases in human wellbeing. Conversely, type II questions the linear relationship between energy production and progress by examining questions of equity and human happiness. The type (...) I versus type II framework helps to advance public debates about energy that address broad questions of profitability, regulation, and the environment, and in the process poses fundamental questions about the reverence for energy growth in advanced technological societies. (shrink)

I ask whether social evolutionary theories found in sociology, archaeology, and anthropology are useful in explaining human development from the Stone Age to the present-day. My data are partly derived from the four volumes of The Sources of Social Power, but I add statistical data on the growth of complexity and power in human groups. I distinguish three levels of evolutionary theory. The first level offers a minimalist definition of evolution in terms of social groups responding and adapting to changes (...) in their social and natural environment. This is acceptable but trivial. The hard part is to elucidate what kinds of response are drawn from what changes, and all sociology shares in this difficulty. This model also tends to over-emphasize external pressures and neglect human inventiveness. The second level of theory is “multilineal” evolution in which various paths of endogenous development, aided by diffusion of practices between societies, dominate the historical and pre-historical record. This is acceptable as a model applied to some times, places, and practices, but when applied more generally it slides into a multi-causal analysis that is also conventional in the social sciences. The third level is a theory of general evolution for the entire human experience. Here materialist theories are dominant but they are stymied by their neglect of ideological, military, and political power relations. There is no acceptable theory of general social evolution. Thus the contribution of social evolutionary theory to the social sciences has been limited. (shrink)

There are very significant conceptual links between theories of social macroevolution and theories of the World System development. It is shown that the growth of the World System complexity and integrity can be traced through a system of phase transitions of macroevolution. The first set of phase transition is connected with the agrarian, industrial, and information-scientific revolutions (that are interpreted as changes of “production principles”). The second set consists of phase transitions within one production principle. These phase transitions are analyzed (...) on the basis of the World System urbanization dynamics, but they can be traced with respect to the other (cultural, economic, technological, demographic, political, etc.) dimensions of the World System development. (shrink)

Brain size has increased threefold during the course of human evolution, whilst body weight has approximately doubled. These increases in brain and body size suggest that reproductive rates must have slowed considerably during this period. During the same period, however, environmental heterogeneity has increased substantially. A central tenet of life-history theory states that in heterogeneous environments, organisms with fast life histories will be favoured. The human lineage, therefore, has proceeded in direct contradiction of this theory. This contribution attempts to resolve (...) this contradiction by recourse to Godfrey-Smith’s Environmental Complexity Thesis, which states that the function of cognition is to enable the organism to deal with environmental complexity. It is suggested that among slowly reproducing organisms the behavioural flexibility provided by advanced cognitive abilities is a fundamental component of adaptation to heterogeneous environments. In the human lineage this flexibility is manifest particularly in the increasing complexity of material culture. (shrink)

Previous studies of corporate environmental and social action identify exactly three similar patterns of activity. They provide divergent structural explanations for these patterns, as networks of institutional constraint, and networks of local inter-dependence, respectively. A theory of sociocultural viability, known in anthropology and policy science as Cultural Theory, explains that social systems consist of four patterns of social interaction, shaped by two distinct structural factors. Our own analysis of 45 items of environmental, social, and governance factors reconcile extant studies’ findings (...) with Cultural Theory’s expectations. Although earlier studies of corporate social action observed only three patterns of activity, our analysis uncovered the fourth, and that diverging structural explanations of earlier studies are partial and complementary, clarified by Cultural Theory. Our call for further study leverages the normative dimension of Cultural Theory, which specifies policy processes that privilege human decency over parochial preference functions. (shrink)