Published in: British Journal of Sociology 48(3): 353-4.

Eric Dunning and Robert van Krieken
Translators' introduction to `Towards a theory of social processes'

In this essay, published in German in 1977, Elias discusses the rise of theories of `social evolution' and `progress' in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and their demise in the twentieth. His argument is that, in the process of rejecting evolutionary theories and the concept of progress, `the baby was thrown out with the bathwater'. A sociologically vital concern with observing and explaining long-term processes was rejected along with elements which were demonstrably ethnocentric, teleological and metaphyical, and thus rightly discarded. What arose instead was an atheoretical history lacking any idea of structure and a sociology focused mainly on the present of nation-states seen as isolated `systems'. In this sense, together with authors such as Wallerstein, Elias anticipated the current sociological interest in `globalization'. Elias (1987) argues that this `retreat of sociologists into the present' occurred partly in conjunction with the dominance of static American models of theory and research, and partly in conjunction with the growing involvement of social scientists in state-sponsored planning. Such attempts at social planning, Elias suggests, emerged as part of long-term processes which were themselves unplanned, and he maintains that it is only with greater knowledge of long-term, unplanned or `blind' social processes that we will ever be able to decide whether short-term plans intended to remedy social problems will not, in the longer term, do more harm than good.
Concepts such as `evolution' and `progress' have a chequered history and, as Elias notes, in the course of the twentieth century both concepts ended up with little support in the social sciences. Examples of criticisms of what was called `evolutionary' theory in sociology include the arguments of Nisbet (1969) and Giddens (1984). However, Elias' arguments in this essay resonate with Toulmin's (1972) point that there is a need to distinguish between `evolutionistic' and `evolutionary' theories, the conflation of which, argues Sanderson, is `the most serious problem currently facing intelligent critical discussion of theories of social evolution' (1990: 3). Evolutionistic assumptions, such as mar the work of Comte and, especially Spencer, are - despite the otherwise important contributions of both scholars - indeed teleological and metaphysical, seeing social development, especially in Spencer's case, in terms of the unfolding of a cosmic plan, whereas evolutionary theories analyse social change in terms of successive responses to particular historical conditions (Toulmin 1972: 329-30).
While he insisted on the need to distinguish between biological evolution, social development and history (Elias 1983), Elias' work is closer to being `evolutionary' in Toulmin's sense. In fact - with the proviso that he saw biological evolution as irreversible while social developments are not - Elias' theory of civilizing processes and the closely-related theory of state formation can be regarded as sociologically equivalent to Darwin's non-teleological theory of biological evolution (Dawkins 1986). Like Darwin's theory, Elias' theories are based on the meticulous observation of empirical details over long time-periods. The social and psychological sequences thus uncovered are explained neither voluntaristically not in terms of current ideas on determinism, but by reference to the immanent - and always potentially reversible - dynamics of figurations. That is, they are explained by reference to models of `social interdependencies' (social interweaving) per se, in which power struggles between individuals and groups are stressed and through which an attempt is made, by means of reference to the unplanned outcomes of aggregates of invividual acts, to avoid the problems recurrently posed by the tendency to dichotomize `voluntarism' and `determinism', `agency' and `structure'.
According to Elias, the consequences of a rejection of all concern with long-term processes include an impoverished understanding of the historical, developmentally specific character of human choice and activity, and contribute to much of the confusion surrounding `structure' and `action' and the `unintended consequences of intended social actions'. Elias' essay is thus an important contribution to the restoration of a serious and rigorous concern with long-term, unplanned social processes and hence to the sociological understanding, not only of social change, but of all aspects of social life.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dawkins, R. 1986 The Blind Watchmaker, New York: Norton.
Elias, N. 1983 The Court Society, Oxford: Blackwell.
_____ 1987 `The retreat of sociologists into the present', Theory, Culture and Society 4(2-3): 223-47.
Giddens, A. 1984 The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nisbet, R. A. 1969 Social Change and History, New York: Oxford University Press.
Sanderson, S.K. 1990 Social Evolutionism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Toulmin, S. 1972 Human Understanding Vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Eric Dunning
University of Leicester

and

Robert van Krieken
University of Sydney