Page 125 - Communication and the Evolution of Society

102 Communication and Evolution of Society

transcend the objectivism of a given nature and, in the light of
hypotheses, explain the given from contingent boundary condi-
tions; and he can burst the sociocentrism of a traditional order
and, in the light of principles, understand (and if necessary
criticize) existing norms as mere conventions. To the extent that
the dogmatism of the gzven and the existing is broken, the pre-
scientifically constituted object domains can be relativized in
relation to the system of ego-demarcations so that theories can
be traced back to the cognitive accomplishments of investigating
subjects and norm systems to the will-formation of subjects living
together.
If we go on now to seek homologies between ego development
and the evolution of world-views, we must take care not to draw
hasty parallels.

a. The confusion of structure and content can easily lead to errors—
individual consciousness and cultural tradition can agree in their con-
tent without expressing the same structures of consciousness.
b. Not all individuals are equally representative of the develop-
mental stage of their society. Thus in modern societies, law has a uni-
versalistic structure, although many members are not in a position to
judge according to principles. Conversely, in archaic societies there
were individuals who had mastered formal operations of thought, al-
though the collectively shared mythological world-view corresponded
to a lower stage of cognitive development.
c. The ontogenetic pattern of development cannot mirror the struc-
tures of species history for the obvious reason that collective structures
of consciousness hold only for adult members—ontogenetically early
stages of incomplete interaction have no correspondents, even in the
oldest societies, for (with the family organization) social relations
have had from the beginning the form of complementarily connected,
generalized expectations of behavior (i.e., the form of complete inter-
action).
d. Furthermore, the points of reference from which the same struc-
tures of consciousness are embodied are different in the history of the
individual and in that of the species. The maintenance of the person-
ality system poses quite different imperatives than the maintenance of
the social system.
e. There is a special proviso for structural comparison of ego devel-
opment and world-view development. The unifying power of world-