Buch lesen: «General View of the Historical Development of Human Societies. Monograph. Философия истории. Географическая школа в социологии»

© Mamanov Abdurahim, 2024

ISBN 978-5-0064-0532-5

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

Mamanov Abdurahim

GENERAL VIEW OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN SOCIETIES

Monograph
TASHKENT-2023

Mamanov Abdurahim

Researcher at the Samarkand State University

2023

Contents

Introduction

It was mentioned in our previous studies that without creating a general picture of the path of historical development of human society, it is a difficult task to correctly understand and evaluate the historical events that happened in the life of this or that nation.¹

It is indisputable that contemporary history textbooks for high and secondary schools often contain numerous shallow concepts, uncertainties, and erroneous conclusions regarding both global history and the specific history of Uzbekistan. We believe that one of the primary reasons for this discrepancy is the absence of a developmental theory capable of illuminating the trajectory of human societal progress.

The history of human society encompasses the narratives of countless nations, many of which have risen and fallen over time, with their positions often assumed by other peoples. Some nations confront crises, while others continuously advance and evolve, ultimately becoming leading global powers.

Is there a discernible pattern within this perpetual cycle of ascent, crisis, emergence, decline, destruction, and prosperity, or is it merely a matter of random chance?

We believe that the historical progression of human society unfolds according to overarching principles. The task of uncovering these principles falls under the purview of the theory of historical development, which is essentially the philosophy of history.

While chance certainly plays a role in historical processes, it is essential to recognize that beneath the apparent randomness lies a foundation of law. Events that may appear coincidental to us are, in fact, mechanisms through which these laws manifest and actualize.

As an illustration, the rise of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula during the early 7th century constituted a significant event. This emergence was deemed necessary as the nomadic Arab tribes, characterized by their polytheistic beliefs where each tribe worshipped its own deity and engaged in perpetual warfare with others, required a unifying faith to consolidate into a cohesive nation.

However, the dissemination of this faith through the teachings of Muhammad – its specific manifestation – was also influenced by various incidental factors.

Those who refute the presence of overarching laws in the historical evolution of human society perceive historical development as a chaotic sequence of happenstance events. They elevate the role of chance to such an extent that they entertain the notion of a breeze altering its course from the East to the West, thereby influencing the temperament of an emperor and drastically reshaping the course of human history.

If life were truly governed by such arbitrary occurrences, individuals and nations alike would be unable to anticipate the future or formulate any coherent plans.

Human history can be likened to a vast edifice with countless chambers. Each nation’s history forms one of these chambers within the larger structure. To accurately determine the exact dimensions, elevation, and arrangement of each of these numerous chambers, it is imperative to first ascertain the overall elevation, position, and shape of the entire edifice. Without establishing this overarching framework, it becomes evident that determining the placement, level, and configuration of the individual chambers becomes an insurmountable task.

Reflecting on a past experience, I once observed a group of individuals preparing a site for a new house. Despite possessing measuring instruments and intermittently moving about, they failed to complete the task. It became apparent that none among them possessed the expertise required for such an endeavor: one was a district’s chief physician, another his driver, a third an agronomist, and the fourth a foreman. It is likely that their inability to define the outer dimensions of the house precisely as a rectangular shape hindered their ability to position the chambers within the designated layout.

Realizing that their efforts would likely be in vain, I obtained their consent and proceeded to establish the outer dimensions of the forthcoming building according to precise rectangular guidelines. Subsequently, we measured and arranged the rooms within this framework with precision.

The principles governing the construction process have been established for millennia, requiring no alteration or objection. However, a universally accepted theory of historical development, capable of satisfying all perspectives and immune to criticism, has yet to be formulated. As previously mentioned, history is a realm where national interests often clash. Each nation, recognizing itself as such, contends for its own interests, interpreting historical events accordingly, and formulating its own theory of historical development.

Numerous theories have been devised to articulate the interests not only of distinct peoples and nations but also specific social classes. For instance, the theory of historical materialism, championed by Marx and Engels, primarily represents the interests of the proletariat, the world’s impoverished class.

However, it is crucial to recognize that the architect of a theory of historical development does not confine their philosophy to the interests of a particular people, nation, or social class. Instead, they endeavor to present it as the trajectory of historical progression applicable to all of humanity.

Indeed, the true nature of a theory, whether it accurately reflects the trajectory of historical development for all humanity or merely serves the interests of specific groups, will ultimately be determined by time itself. Time stands as the ultimate arbiter.

It is essential to acknowledge that not everyone will readily embrace novel ideas concerning historical development. As a general rule, any new scientific proposition, whether valid or erroneous, typically faces criticism from many quarters. This resistance stems from the fact that innovation often entails challenging established norms, concepts, and values held by the majority, be it in personal relationships or within the realm of academia. Naturally, it is difficult for many individuals to embrace the new while relinquishing ideas, values, and concepts they have long regarded as true.

Initially, we will conduct a thorough critical examination of various theories of historical development, offering our perspectives on each. Subsequently, we will endeavor to articulate our own viewpoint, namely, the comprehensive framework of human societal development from the vantage point of the geographical school in sociology.

1. Formative approach

The theoretical underpinnings of the formative approach were developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. According to this approach, human society’s history unfolds through a series of social and economic formations.

In accordance with Marxist theory, human endeavors to procure essential material goods for sustenance invariably manifest in distinct modes of production. From this perspective, human society progresses through the following formations:

– Primitive community system.

– Slavery.

– Feudal system.

– Capitalism.

– Communism.

These are referred to as socio-economic formations, which are rooted in the method of producing material goods. Each society develops a complex of political institutions, ideological beliefs, and religious views based on its method of production – the economic foundation. Property and production relations in each society are shaped in accordance with a particular level of productive forces.

The mode of production in any society is determined by its specific relations of production and ownership. As productive forces grow and develop, a tension emerges between the existing method of production and the productive forces within society. This tension is typically resolved through a social revolution, wherein the established production and property relations are dismantled by the forces of production, paving the way for new production and property relations that align with the current level of productivity – a new economic foundation and mode of production. Subsequently, new structural, political, and social organizations – along with artistic, literary, ideological, and philosophical systems – emerge to correspond with the new economic base.

Presently, many scholars acknowledge that while the formative approach offers insights into European historical development, it falls short in accurately capturing the histories of other regions, particularly those in the East:

“The formative approach is not without its limitations. Historical evidence suggests that not all countries follow the rigid framework proposed by proponents of this approach. For instance, many nations have not transitioned beyond the social and economic system of slavery. Moreover, the historical trajectories of Eastern countries often diverge significantly from the formative developmental system formulated for European societies.”²

According to Zamonov, the formative approach was primarily designed for European societies, suggesting it effectively elucidates the historical evolution of Europe. However, we contend that the formative approach struggles to accurately depict the trajectory of historical development not only in other regions of the world but even within Europe itself.

In our view, the delineation of slavery and feudalism as distinct periods in the history of individual societies, as proposed by Marxists, lacks justification. We argue that these systems cannot be considered as separate periods or methods of production within the historical development of individual societies.

In essence, what criteria should be utilized to ascertain the method of production that delineates a distinct period in the history of human society?

According to Marx, a production method identified as a separate period and stage in human societal history is characterized by its economic foundation, alongside the development of ideological superstructures, political and social institutions, legal systems, literature, art, philosophy, and other facets within society. However, some scholars argue that Marx and Engels did not sufficiently elucidate how this economic foundation gives rise to an ideological structure.

Erich Fromm, a renowned philosopher of the 20th century, asserts that Marx emphasized the interconnectedness between society’s economic foundation and its political, legal, philosophical, artistic, and religious dimensions. According to Marx’s theory, the ideological structure arises from the economic base. However, Engels acknowledged that neither he nor Marx had elucidated how the economic base transitions into an ideological superstructure. Fromm suggests that this gap in Marxist theory could be addressed through psychoanalysis, revealing the mechanisms by which the economic foundation shapes the ideological structure. As Fromm states, “Marx emphasized that there is an interrelationship between the economic base of society on the one hand and political and legal structures, philosophy, art, religion, and others on the other.”³

Hence, Marx and Engels did not delineate the process by which the economic base transforms into an ideological structure. According to Erich Fromm, this intermediary link is fulfilled by the social character of that society.⁴

Fromm posits that social behavior primarily stems from the requirements and necessities dictated by the prevailing mode of production within society. Consequently, our current objective revolves around analyzing the attributes of Western social character. Many scholars contend that the behavioral traits specific to a given society are intrinsic to its members and go unnoticed by them. Hence, individuals within that society may not discern the distinctive features of their social behavior.

To comprehend and assess the distinctive attributes of social behavior inherent to a particular society, it is imperative to juxtapose it with dissimilar social behavior. For instance, to grasp the traits of Western social character, it is necessary to contrast it with an alternative example, such as the Eastern social character.

A comparison of Eastern and Western social behavior reveals stark differences in their primary characteristics. For instance, in Eastern societies, individuals often exhibit deference to authority, whereas in Western societies, emphasis is placed on individual freedom and dignity. While Eastern social character may prioritize attitudes of deference and compromise, with morality holding a broader and more significant role than legal strictures, Western social character may be characterized by a stance of assertiveness in interpersonal relationships, with the law holding greater sway than morality.

According to Erich Fromm’s teachings, the social character is shaped by the prevailing mode of production. From this perspective, one might inquire into the basis upon which the social character characteristic of the West is formed. If we adhere to the formative approach, which suggests that slavery and feudalism were the primary modes of production during Antiquity and the Middle Ages, one might wonder if the characteristics of these modes of production contributed to the development of the Western social character. For instance, how might the traits associated with slavery or feudalism – such as authoritarian rule and subjugation – have influenced the characteristics of the Western social character, such as individualism, prioritization of personal interests, and intolerance?

It would be more coherent to view slavery and feudal systems not as distinct modes of production, but rather as methods of exploitation employed by one class over another. Towards the decline of communist ideology, there emerged notions that it is unscientific to regard slavery and feudal systems as separate stages in the history of human society.⁵

It is striking that Marxist theory largely overlooks the concept of social behavior. How can we account for the dearth of inquiry into the notion of social character (mentality), not only during the era of Marx and Engels but also in the socialist countries until the latter stages of communist rule? In contrast, from the latter half of the 19th century and particularly the early 20th century, Western scholars dedicated significant efforts to studying social behavior – namely, the mentality of diverse peoples. This raises a pertinent question: was this oversight intentional on the part of Marxists, or simply a disregard for the matter?

Historical evidence and logical analysis suggest that the first possibility holds more credibility: after all, Karl Marx himself may have manipulated the theory of Asian mode of production (AMP) he developed for political ends.⁶ Thus, what political motivations might have compelled Marxists to ignore reality? To answer this question, a deeper understanding of the content of the Marxist worldview is necessary.

As per the Marxist worldview, the history of human society is delineated by class struggle. “The history of human society is the history of class struggle,” as asserted by Karl Marx.

The formative approach to history effectively illustrates the history of each society as a narrative of class struggle unfolding before us.

In accordance with this approach, the names assigned to the stages of human societal history – excluding the primitive collective system and communism, namely slavery, feudalism, and capitalism – themselves signify that these stages are defined by class struggle. However, one might wonder: what if Marx and his contemporaries had acknowledged that social character serves as the intermediary between the economic base and the ideological superstructure?

If we consider that social character is shaped by the economic foundation, it would be imperative to establish a connection between the attributes of the Western social character and the modes of production of slavery or feudalism as posited by the formative theory. Indeed, such an investigation would raise doubts regarding the validity of the formative approach as outlined.

Further evidence supporting our aforementioned perspective is found in Karl Marx’s theory of the Asian mode of production (AMP), introduced in 1857. In this theory, Marx suggests that irrigated agriculture, necessitating a dry and warm climate prevalent in Eastern regions, serves as the economic foundation of Eastern despotism – the enduring communal life and overall advancement of the East. However, scholars widely acknowledge that Marx began to distort the theory of the AMP when it became apparent that it did not align with the political objectives pursued by Marxists.

However, there is another aspect of this issue that has largely escaped the attention of scholars: while Marx and his contemporaries acknowledged irrigated agriculture as the economic foundation of Eastern development, they failed to recognize that rainfed agriculture served as the opposite pole – the economic basis of Western development. This oversight seems incredulous. If Marxists had indeed acknowledged irrigated agriculture as the economic basis of Eastern development and rainfed agriculture as the economic basis of Western development, one of the fundamental tenets of Marxist doctrine – the notion that history is driven by class struggle – would have sustained a significant blow.

The Marxists aimed to empower the global proletariat to challenge the capitalists and bourgeoisie, ultimately constructing communism through a global revolution. To accomplish this objective, they sought a pristine historical narrative – a chronicle defined by class conflict: slaves opposing slavers, serfs resisting feudal lords, and the working class confronting capitalists.

It’s conceivable that Marx and his associates made these alterations with benevolent intentions. Their aim was to expedite the realization of a utopian communist society on Earth. If they deviated from scientific rigor for this cause – guided by their political interests – then it might be more fitting to liken them to shepherds rather than politicians; just as shepherds affix a bell to the lead sheep to prevent the flock from scattering.

Like a herd of sheep conditioned to respond to the sound of a bell, Marx and his colleagues envisioned the formative approach to history as the guiding call. Humanity was expected to heed this call – embodied by the formative approach to history – and march toward the radiant dawn of communism. However, one might ponder: is humanity akin to a herd of unquestioning sheep that obediently follows the ringer?

In contemporary times, there is a growing skepticism among scholars regarding the conclusions drawn from the formative approach to history.

1. The cultural approach, typical of those who view history through a cultural lens, entails a rejection of the overarching laws of human history.

Adherents of the cultural approach perceive the history of human society as a succession of civilizations that emerge and vanish sequentially.