Social Reality as History

Stability and Change in History

The existence of social reality through time is what we refer to as history in its most direct sense. Despite the notion of time suggesting fluidity, humanity has long recognized that not everything in our lives and society flows at the same pace. Some aspects are periodically reproduced and endure for extended periods, while others are more ephemeral. The customary forms of life tend to escape the notice not only of the average inhabitants of the human world but also of historians, whereas sudden occurrences that significantly alter the state of affairs are marked as events worthy of historical remembrance. Various concepts are employed to express the temporality of social life, which broadly pertain to what is more or less stable and what signifies change. One such concept is "tradition." The variability in history is conveyed through notions such as "evolution," "revolution," "progress," "transformation," and "modernization." Let us examine some of these terms.

Traditions. Every nation possesses its own history, and throughout this history, it marks its identity by preserving and reproducing cultural, domestic, mental, and psychological structures. Established, traditional forms of life interact in specific ways with internal innovations and the dynamics of the external environment. Some traditions fade almost entirely, while others persist in a muted form within the reserves of culture, activated by historical needs. So, what are traditions?

The Latin word traditio (from trado - to hand over) signifies transmission, recounting, an age-old custom. As a scholarly concept, tradition serves as a mechanism for the reproduction of social institutions, where their maintenance is legitimized solely by the fact of their existence in the past. Sometimes, this concept is applied not only to the mechanism of institutional reproduction but also extends to the institutions themselves. Typically, societal consciousness does not reflect upon the appropriateness of traditions; they are simply mechanically repeated by each new generation under the principle of "we did not establish it, nor is it ours to abolish; it has always been this way." A certain set of traditionally reproduced cultural elements comprises customs, which constitute the generally accepted order and rules of social behavior that have emerged spontaneously. There are two ancient pathways for the transmission of traditions: folklore and practical examples. In both cases, there is a requirement for the precise reproduction of a particular linguistic expression or behavior model. The accuracy of transmission is ensured through repeated recitation, a system of active myths, symbols, and accepted ritual formulas, while simultaneously, there exists a prohibition against any innovation.

In contemporary conditions, the realm of traditions has significantly contracted, and one could trace an undeniable narrowing of the horizon of traditions starting from the Modern Age. Today, creativity and innovation have become values of universal culture, actively encouraged as they are seen as keys to progress and means for competing with other nations. The true repositories of the world of traditions remain the sphere of everyday life, interpersonal relationships, and the mental-psychological structures of individuals. Nonetheless, the role of traditions should not be underestimated; they have always played and continue to play a substantial role in the consolidation of peoples and nations. Regarding the social role of traditions, one cannot help but agree with their assessment by the German philosopher Georg Simmel (1858-1918): "Traditions are an impressive phenomenon that, in fact, create all culture and the spiritual life of humanity." Karl Jaspers also attributed significant importance to tradition: "Tradition reaches its roots deep into prehistory. It encompasses everything that is not biologically inherited and constitutes the historical substance of human existence." Karl Mannheim (1893-1947) pointed out that the moral maturation of the human individual may lag significantly behind the development of other aspects of a person, such as physical growth, levels of knowledge, and proficiency with modern technology. Therefore, the rapid fluidity of external forms of life must necessarily be balanced by the stability of foundational moral norms, which unite humanity into a whole and guarantee understanding and interaction both among generations and between nations.

Certainly, every nation that has gained political independence, particularly takes care to preserve (and at times, revive) ancient traditions and its entire cultural heritage. This also pertains to Ukraine. There is a search for a historical platform for a new era of national life, with an awareness of the spiritual rootedness of the people in their traditions, which are either forgotten or obscured by the ideological layers of recent history. If one does not attribute particular importance to artificially revived "traditions," which take on the character of theatricalized ethnographic spectacles, then the established forms of worldview that are transmitted through the mechanisms of tradition and dictate the behavior of the average member of the nation warrant far greater attention from researchers. Some results of studies in this direction can be highlighted.

First and foremost, it is noted that the historical "Ukrainian existence" emerges from the phenomenon of "borderland," "liminality." Borderland manifests itself in various dimensions. From ancient times, the ancestors of modern Ukrainians have lived at the intersection of agricultural and nomadic civilizations, at the crossroads of Western and Eastern Christianity, and between Christianity and Islam. To these forms of liminality, a border state along the axis of "city - village" was later added, when, since the times of Ukraine's subjugation, its indigenous population felt the city's hostility toward them, where foreigners with their language, customs, occupations, and bureaucracies predominated. The consequences of this age-old animosity between the city and the indigenous Ukrainian are still felt today. For a Ukrainian, the village and the land are not just words; they represent his cradle, shelter, and hope. In the worldview traditions of the average Ukrainian, the city is seen as something alien, hostile, a realm of debauchery and deceit. Perhaps this explains why, as researchers indicate, the city did not become the center for the emergence of national literature and art during the national revival of the late 19th century; instead, these centers emerged in the settlements and estates of prosperous peasants. If one adds to this the historical "drain" of the Ukrainian elite beyond the borders of Ukraine, it is clear that this has had a profound impact on the national consciousness of the people.

This ingrained liminality has shaped a certain type of mentality and behavior in Ukrainians, wherein one can also discern a dual tendency—a readiness for self-defense, resistance, and an inclination to retreat from the world, to "escape from politics." Perhaps it is from here that the trait sometimes referred to as the duality of the soul arises, resulting from the constant struggle "on the edge," a struggle for survival.

Among the characteristics of the Ukrainian mentality (disposition) that have historically formed and are inherited from generation to generation, there are others as well. Dmytro Chyzhevskyi highlights features such as "emotionalism" and sentimentality, sensitivity and lyricism, individualism, and a yearning for "freedom" in various interpretations of the term, as well as a tendency toward spiritual solitude at certain periods of life. Some add to this the presence of an anarchic element, a certain unruliness in actions. Naturally, in different groups of people, some correction in one direction or another from the stated traits will undoubtedly occur, and some additional features will be revealed, yet the majority of these traits still persist and will continue to define "Ukrainians" for a long time, as they are deeply rooted and based on centuries-old adaptations to a fluctuating and often threatening reality. These traits have permeated all cultural components, influencing customs and rituals, folkloric sources, and so forth. It may be unnecessary to overly insist on the excessive influence of contemporary forms of life on human behavior; they often stem from purely external, civilizational (in terms of technical advancements) achievements and do not touch the depths of the people's psychology.

Evolution. Alongside the constant reproduction and repetition observed throughout history, humans have also noted the mutable. They have been particularly sensitive to the swift transformations of established life forms, especially during moments of significant social upheaval. The past two centuries have been remarkably rich in large-scale processes that have drastically accelerated the pace of events and amplified the magnitude of shifts. Since the late eighteenth century, a series of monumental revolutions has impacted the world as a whole, significantly stimulating discussions regarding the sources, causes, and directions of change. General sociology and the philosophy of history have responded to these changes with corresponding theoretical models, in which the concepts of evolution (from the Latin evolutio — unfolding) and progress (from the Latin progressio — forward movement; success) have become pivotal.

Classical evolutionism (represented by figures such as O. Comte, H. Spencer, L. Morgan, E. Durkheim, and K. Marx) maintained that despite the varying conditions of local societies and the conventional expressions of "humanity" and "world history," there exists an overarching historical "logic" of change. All societies, akin to organisms, transform from primitive, simple forms to more complex ones better adapted for survival, with a unified trajectory of evolution for all peoples. Criteria for evolution included the increasing complexity of social structures, the differentiation of society across various dimensions, the growth of inventions and technological advancements, and the expansion of the division of labor.

In the twentieth century, ideas of evolutionism underwent a phase of intense criticism and devaluation, influenced by cultural anthropology, followed by a resurgence starting in the 1960s, prompting discussions of a neo-evolutionist wave. For instance, American cultural anthropologists Franz Boas (1858-1942) and Alfred Kroeber (1876-1960) were among those who rejected evolutionism, while their contemporary Leslie White (1900-1975) affirmed evolutionary ideas using materials from cultural anthropology. In his book Configurations of Culture Growth, A. Kroeber sought to demonstrate that the foundation of cultures consists of patterns (schemas, templates) that reproduce the products of human activity and can periodically fluctuate, possessing a particular trajectory of change and configuration. If one understands evolution (whether in the form of progress or regression) of cultural patterns as an internally determined process, Kroeber argues that field research does not support such a conclusion. While the assumption of progress may occasionally arise, he contends, "the data supporting it are no more substantial than those supporting the idea that cultures naturally age and die."

1. Boas also believed that the uniformity of ancient forms of social life from which modern forms might sequentially derive seems improbable and unsupported by existing facts. "Most of the facts," he added, "support a theory which states that 1) two fundamentally different forms observed in various areas of the periphery interact with one another; 2) neither emerges from the other; 3) the blending of the two forms gives rise to new forms in intermediary regions."

In contrast to his opponents, Leslie White insisted that evolutionism has ancient roots and has never left theoretical thought since then. The concept of "evolution" and the theory of evolution have been articulated and fruitfully utilized across centuries in the physical, biological, and cultural sciences. Regarding the anti-evolutionist assault from cultural anthropology, he explained it as stemming from the prevalent misconception of two supposedly entirely opposing types of interpretation: one termed "history," and the other "science." According to this view, "history" investigates the chronological sequence of events, while "science" generalizes, but this generalization transcends chronology. Thus, when someone speaks of "evolution," they are merely a muddler, confounding "history" with "evolution." L. White contended that one might, and indeed should, identify not merely two but three methods of interpretation: historical (tracking events in time), functional (examining structures, forms, and functions of phenomena), and evolutionary (presenting phenomena as a sequence of forms over time). The evolutionary process is linked to the progression of forms through time; therefore, for the evolutionist, it is equally crucial to consider both time and the form of the phenomenon. At any level of reality, one can distinguish all three aspects, and there is nothing arbitrary about this. When addressing cultural phenomena, we can always reconstruct their history, ascertain their form (model, structure), and explore the variability of their forms over time, which constitutes the evolutionary approach.

Among the neo-evolutionists in social theory, we should include another American scholar, Talcott Parsons (1902-1979), who, toward the end of his career, supplemented the structural-functional concept of society with thoughts on the mechanism of evolutionary transformation of social systems. In his view, the "progressive" evolution of societies toward higher systemic levels is facilitated by the interaction of four primary processes of structural change: differentiation, enhancement of adaptive capacity, inclusion of new units within normative frameworks, and value generalization. Differentiation represents the division of a unit or structure within a certain social system into two or more units or structures, differing in their characteristics and functional significance for the system. An example here might be the emergence of both household economies and modern, wage-based organizations, leading to changes in numerous roles, collectives, and norms. The enhancement of adaptive capacity signifies a process by which social units gain a greater array of resource choices, liberating themselves from certain constraints inherent to their predecessors. For instance, modern factories entail a significantly higher level of task generalization compared to what was required in peasant households, yet under these conditions, a wider variety of goods can be produced with considerably greater efficiency. A system that deepens internal differentiation and increases its adaptive capacities thereby complicates itself and inevitably confronts integration challenges. Typically, these challenges can be resolved only by incorporating new units, structures, and mechanisms into the normative frameworks of the "societal community."

Evolution. Alongside the persistent and recurring elements in history, humanity has also noted the mutable. Particularly sensitive to the swift transformations of established forms of life, people reacted keenly during times of significant social upheaval. The last two centuries have been extraordinarily rich in large-scale processes that have dramatically accelerated the pace of events and expanded the scope of shifts. Since the late eighteenth century, a series of major revolutions has influenced the world as a whole, significantly stimulating discussions regarding the sources, causes, and directions of change. General sociology and the philosophy of history responded to these transformations with theoretical models in which the concepts of evolution (from the Latin evolutio, meaning unfolding) and progress (from the Latin progressio, meaning forward movement or success) became central.

Classical evolutionism (represented by figures such as Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Lewis Morgan, Émile Durkheim, and Karl Marx) posited that despite the varying conditions of local societies and the conventional expressions such as "humanity" or "world history," a certain overarching historical "logic" of change was indeed present. All societies, akin to organisms, evolve from primitive, simple forms to complex ones that are better adapted for survival, with a unified trajectory of evolution shared by all peoples. The criteria for evolution included an increasing complexity in the structure of the social whole, differentiation within society along various dimensions, an uptick in the number of inventions and technical improvements, and an expansion of the division of labor.

In the twentieth century, the ideas of evolutionism, influenced in part by cultural anthropology, underwent a phase of sharp criticism and devaluation, later experiencing a revival beginning in the 1960s, which led to discussions of a neo-evolutionist wave. Notably, American cultural anthropologists Franz Boas (1858-1942) and Alfred Kroeber (1876-1960) were among those who rejected evolutionism, while their compatriot Leslie White (1900-1975) affirmed its principles based on the same cultural anthropological materials. In his book Configurations of Cultural Development, Kroeber sought to demonstrate that the foundation of cultures consists of patterns—schemes, templates, or models—through which human activities are reproduced, patterns that can periodically fluctuate and possess a certain trajectory of change, a unique configuration. If evolution (whether in the form of progress or regression) of cultural patterns is understood as an internally determined process, Kroeber argues, field research does not provide supporting evidence for such a conclusion. While the assumption of progress may occasionally surface, "the data to support it are no greater than those that favor the view that cultures naturally age and die."

1. Boas also contended that the uniformity of ancient forms of social life, from which contemporary forms would be successively derived, appears implausible and unsupported by existing facts. "Most facts," he added, "support the theory that 1) two fundamentally different forms, located in different peripheral areas, interact with one another; 2) neither emerges from the other; 3) the mixing of these two forms gives rise to new forms in intermediate areas."

In contrast to his opponents, Leslie White asserted that evolutionism possesses ancient roots and has never truly departed from theoretical thought. The concept of "evolution" and the theory of evolution have been formulated and fruitfully utilized over centuries within the physical, biological sciences, and cultural studies. Addressing the anti-evolutionist critique from cultural anthropology, he explained it as stemming from a widespread misconception about two supposedly entirely opposing types of interpretation: one termed "history" and the other "science." According to this view, "history" investigates the chronological sequence of events, whereas "science" generalizes, but such generalizations transcend mere chronology. Thus, when someone speaks of "evolution," they are merely a confounder, misrepresenting "history" as "evolution." White argues that one can and should distinguish not just two, but three modes of interpretation: historical (which traces events over time), functional (which examines structures, forms, and the functions of phenomena), and evolutionary (which presents phenomena as a sequence of forms over time). The evolutionary process is tied to the progression of forms through time; thus, for the evolutionist, it is equally important to consider both time and the form of phenomena. At any level of reality, one can differentiate all three aspects, which is far from arbitrary. When addressing cultural phenomena, we can always reconstruct their history, establish their form (model, structure), and further study the variability of form over time, which embodies the evolutionary approach.

Among the neo-evolutionists in the realm of social theory is the American scholar Talcott Parsons (1902-1979), who, toward the end of his career, augmented his structural-functional concept of society with thoughts on the mechanisms of evolutionary transformation of social systems. He posited that the "progressive" evolution of societies toward higher systemic levels is ensured by the interaction of four primary processes of structural change: differentiation, enhancement of adaptive capacity, the inclusion of new units within normative frameworks, and the generalization of values. Differentiation represents the division of a unit or structure within a social system into two or more units or structures that differ in their characteristics and functional significance for the system. An example of this can be seen in the emergence of both domestic households and modern, employment-based organizations, leading to changes in numerous roles, collectives, and norms. The enhancement of adaptive capacity involves a process whereby social units gain greater access to resources, freeing themselves from some limitations characteristic of their predecessors. For instance, modern factories entail a significantly higher level of task abstraction compared to the requirements of agricultural households, yet under these conditions, they can produce a greater variety of goods with far more efficiency. A system that deepens internal differentiation and enhances its adaptive capacities consequently becomes more complex and inevitably faces integration challenges. Typically, these challenges can only be resolved through the inclusion of new units, structures, and mechanisms within the normative frameworks of the "societal community."

For example, when employment-based organizations distanced themselves from family households, the power structures in both types of collectives had to align with the societal norms. Finally, as the intertwining of socially structured situations grows more intricate, the generalization of values becomes necessary for maintaining social stability. This generalizing function regarding values may be fulfilled by entities such as religion or legal systems.

The evolution in which all four processes operate in conjunction traverses several stages: primitive, advanced primitive, intermediate, and modern. What Parsons terms the "system" of modern societies emerged in that part of the West that became the heir to the western half of the Roman Empire north of the Mediterranean, namely in the countries of the western Christian world. The systems of modern societies were formed through three revolutions that occurred sequentially in the West: the industrial revolution, the democratic revolution (referring to a series of political revolutions), and the revolution in education (which began in the West closer to the mid-nineteenth century). The defining characteristics of modernity include the complete differentiation of subsystems; the dominant role of the economy with its mass production, bureaucracy, developed markets, and currency; the evolution of the legal system as the principal mechanism of social coordination and control; social stratification; and a mediated network of social interconnections. According to Parsons, evolution has reached a culminating point in present-day United States, Western Europe is advancing along the path of "Americanization," while non-Western countries face the prospect of "modernization." Parsons's concept has been repeatedly critiqued for its overtly pro-American and pro-Western nature; nevertheless, he continues to be regarded as a significant authority in contemporary Western thought.

In mentioning "modernization," it is impossible to overlook a certain trend in contemporary theoretical studies that combines aspects of evolutionism with some opposing elements. As in evolutionist thought, this perspective acknowledges variability and a progressive orientation, yet, unlike the spontaneity observed in "pure" evolution, modernization entails a consciously directed implementation of Western models of social organization into specific societies.