Page 193 - Communication and the Evolution of Society

170 Communication and Evolution of Society

dominant cultural anthropolgy (Kroeber, Malinowski, Mead),
developmental-theoretic views were—as the “multilinear evolu-
tionism”’ of a J. H. Steward shows’*’—represented only in a very
cautious form and accommodated to cultural ecology. More re-
cently, however, the success of the theory of biological evolution
has again given impetus to the renewal of social-scientific evolu-
tionism. Social evolution no longer appears only vaguely as a
continuation of organic evolution; instead neoevolutionists (Par-
sons, Luhmann, Lenski)™ start with the idea that social evolution
can be explained in accord with the well-analyzed and well-tested
model of natural evolution. The heuristic usefulness of the bio-
logical model is not at issue; it is however doubtful whether it
points the way to a generalized theory of evolution valid for both
natural and cultural development.”®
As we know, the biological model relies on the concept of the
self-maintenance of self-regulating systems that demarcate them-
selves from hypercomplex environments. Between the environ-
ment and the system there is a complexity gap; the boundary-
maintaining system is faced with the task of developing as much
self-complexity as is needed to enable it adequately to reduce the
complexity of the environment. The bearers of natural evolution
are the species, each of which is represented by a specific genetic
makeup capable of reproducing itself. Species reproduce them-
selves in the form of populations that stabilize themselves in their
ecological surroundings. These in turn are composed of individ-
ual organisms that interact among themselves and with the en-
vironment. The evolutionary learning process applies immediately
to the genetic makeup. Through the process of mutation, which
can be understood as an error in the transmission of genetic
information, divergent phenotypes are produced; under the selec-
tion pressure of the environment these are selected for, making
possible the stabilization of a population dependent on the con-
ditions in its environment. This nonteleologically steered learning
process leads to a result that can be teleologically interpreted—
the species can be rank-ordered from morphological and behav-
ioristic viewpoints, that is, according to the complexity of their
physical organization and the range of their reaction potential.
In carrying this model over to social development, three basic