The Agricultural Paradigm
18 June 2010
In several posts I have attempted to show that, since the beginning of industrialization, industrializing societies have attempted to come to grips with the problems and opportunities that follow from industrialization. I have further suggested that two paradigms of social organization of industrial society have been attempted and have failed, while a third remains to emerge and consolidate a particular modus vivendi. This is a rather schematic account, and cannot be quite true any more than any schematic account of anything as complex as human life within industrialized civilization. Nevertheless, it may be a helpful schematism that provides a framework for organizing our knowledge and understanding.
Agricultural civilization, which still remains in some isolated parts of the globe but which has largely been displaced by industrialized civilization, is much, much older than industrialized civilization, and its history has covered a far longer period. Agricultural civilization emerged in history more or less coincident with settled civilization, perhaps between ten and fifteen thousand years ago during the Neolithic period. Thus agricultural civilization precedes written records and therefore history in the strict sense, and it even precedes what is usually given as the earliest date for civilization itself. I am choosing to call emergence of settled, agricultural societies “civilizations,” but the earliest examples of such societies are not generally identified as civilizations.
Last night and again this morning I was reading one of my favorite books, The World Turned Upside Down by Christopher Hill, which recounts the intellectual ferment that took place during the English Civil War. In the social turmoil of the English Civil War there was a flowering of divergent and radical political theories. We can’t call this the result of tolerance, because it was simply the result of something akin to anarchy. The pamphlets of the Ranters, the Diggers, the Levellers, and the True Levellers almost sound as radical today as any revolutionary movement that has emerged in the past four hundred subsequent years.
When I was reading up on the Levellers last night it occurred to me that all of this turmoil took place entirely within the context of agricultural civilization. This efflorescence of radical political thought was not driven by a great transformation of integral history like the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution or the Industrial Revolution, but was entirely internal to agricultural civilization, and therefore not unlike the stages that I have described within the development of industrialized civilization. This realization was also a little surprising, because it can become almost an intellectual habit to assume that changes in the ideological superstructure follow from changes in the economic infrastructure. There were changes in the economic infrastructure of the time, but nothing as dramatic as the transitions of integral history.
This realization led me to the next realization, namely, that I have no similar schematization of agricultural civilization into periods of attempted social paradigms, though it would be a help to the understanding of such an enormous period of human history to have some kind of structure on hand to understand the dynamics of agricultural civilization. Though I can’t remember where, I have written on several occasions that the problems that each particular epoch grapples with are not “solved” by the subsequent period of history, but rather that each period of history has its own problems and its own attempted solutions, and when one period of history gives way to another, new problems emerge and new solutions are proposed even as the old problems and their proposed solutions fade into history.
So, as I now understand integral history — an idea that I proposed myself, so my understanding of it ought to be the definitive understanding of it, if you get my drift — since the emergence of anatomically modern human beings within natural history and the establishment of human societies, the major divisions within human history are defined by demographics, that is to say, by how the majority of human beings are living their lives. Human history, then (which is not the whole of integral history), has to date had the primary demographic divisions of hunter-gatherer societies, settled agricultural civilization, and settled industrialized civilization. Beyond this, I have proposed the possibility of extraterrestrialization as the next possible demographic shift of comparable magnitude to previous shifts of integral history.
This latter described periodization is my schematism of the “big picture” of human history, which in turn is placed within the “big picture” of cosmological history. In the other direction, moving toward greater detail rather than toward greater generality, the major demographic divisions of human integral history can be each broken down into periodizations of their own. Within industrialized civilization I have identified two paradigms of social organization, firstly the factory system described by Engels and abhorred by Marx, and secondly the conformist patriarchy of mid-twentieth century America. A third, as yet inchoate paradigm, remains to take shape. I see these social paradigms within industrialized civilization as dynamic and evolutionary, each development leading to its successor — not inevitably, but certainly reasonably.
Thinking of agricultural civilization in this context, I see that I need to give more attention to these ten thousand or more years of human history and to try to understand the internal evolution of forces within agricultural civilization that played out over these ten thousand years. I need to identify the major formations of social paradigms within agricultural civilization and show how these formations evolved, and how agricultural civilization ultimately led to industrialized civilization. I have my work cut out for me.
. . . . .
. . . . .