Relational Models Theory Research Papers (original) (raw)

„There are few theoretical approaches to which historian respond so negatively as to the explanation of historical processes by such theories“, the German historian Rainer Waltz states most accurately in his study on „Theories of Social Evolution and History“; there he also presents two main causes for this rejection: a moral one, the perversion of evolutionary thinking in so-called Social Darwinist theories in the 19th and 20th centuries, and a scientific one, the fear of a biologistic interpretation of human history by adopting evolutionary models (Walz, 2004). This distinguishes historical studies from other social sciences and humanities such as anthropology or sociology and even other historical disciplines such as archaeology, where evolutionary models have become part of the methodological toolkit (Renfrew & Bahn, 2008; for a rare example from the field of history of literature cf. Moretti, 2009).
Although most historians are reluctant to adopt evolutionary models (yet alone in their mathematized or sociobiologist form) for the interpretation of human past (respectively the larger or smaller period of time they are specialised in), terms such as “evolution” and concepts of evolutionary thinking such as “adaption” or “selection” are used in numerous descriptions of historical events and processes, albeit often in a metaphorical way (Walz, 2004). At the same time it is evident that major developments in human history such as the emergence of the human kind itself, of human culture and of complex social structures such as states as well as phenomena of long duration (up to the scale of “Big History” from the Big Bang until present times as it has been attempted in the last decades, Spier 2010) cannot be explained without the help of evolutionary concepts (cf. Blute, 2010; Voland, 2009); but again, these subjects refer mainly to the fields of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists or (prehistoric) archaeologists (cf. Yoffee, 2004). Some specialists from these disciplines have also tried to adapt such concepts for the entire human history beyond its “beginnings”, but have equally found mixed reception among historians, especially if they try to demonstrate some kind of progress in the development of humanity as for instance Steven Pinker has done most recently in his study on “Why Violence has declined” (Pinker, 2011; see also Atran, 2002; Boyd & Richerson, 2005; Morris, 2010).
In contrast to this (non)-use of evolutionary concepts for historical studies, we intend to demonstrate the benefit of a complex evolutionary approach for the analysis of a specific period of late medieval/early modern history between 1200 and 1500 CE, which has been attributed central importance for the so-called “Rise of the West”, since it saw the beginning of European overseas expansion at its end (cf. Goldstone, 2009; Morris, 2010).
In the “calamitous” 14th century, as Barbara Tuchman called it (1978), the medieval world entered a period of severe crisis in demography, economy, politics and religion. This crisis took hold in all regions, ranging from China in the East to England in the West. Even before the catastrophic pandemic of the Black Death (1346-1352), deteriorating climatic conditions had ended the period of demographic and economic expansion that began in the 10th century (Behringer, 2007; Atwell, 2001; Benedictow, 2004; Brook, 2010).
The local and regional impacts and consequences of these general crisis-laden conditions may have differed; outcomes ranged from actual societal collapse to the emergence of powerful new polities. But these conditions provide a framework for global perspective on this period and allow us to use the 14th century-crisis as a field of “natural experiments of history”, as Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson have called them (Diamond & Robinson, 2011); accordingly, we analyse how similar crisis phenomena influenced the development of societies with different (or similar) traditions, religions, institutions, geographies or ecologies (cf. also Borsch, 2005). In particular, we will analyse and compare five polities in the “Old World”, England, Hungary, Byzantium, Egypt and China, of which three disappeared around the end of this period due to the expansion of the most successful newly emerged Ottoman Empire (Byzantium in 1453, Mamluk Egypt in 1517, Hungary in 1526/1541; cf. also Preiser-Kapeller, 2011).
In order to be able to capture variations and complexities within this sample, we adopt concepts and tools provided by the field of complexity science. We understand complex systems as large networks of individual components, whose interactions at the microscopic level produce “complex” changing patterns of behaviour of the whole system on the macroscopic level. In the last decades, historians and social scientists also tried to use concepts of complexity theory for the description of phenomena in their own fields, but again often only in a “metaphoric” way (Gaddis, 2002; Hatcher & Bailey, 2001). Less frequently, though, historians have tried to make use of the mathematical foundations of complexity theory or of quantitative tools provided by this field (Kiel & Elliott, 1997; Preiser-Kapeller, 2012). Recent scholarship has implemented some of these tools especially for the construction of macro-models of socio-economic development (Goldstone, 1991; Turchin, 2003; Turchin & Nefedov, 2009).
In addition, we combine complexity theory with the analytical framework of “systems theory” developed by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998) in order to capture the interdependencies between politics, economy and religion within a polity and with the political, economic and ecological environment (Luhmann, 1997; Becker & Reinhardt-Becker, 2001; Becker, 2004). Luhmann´s theory is valuable for our analysis in various aspects; it makes us aware of the reduction of environmental and social complexity which is reflected in our historical sources, and it provides a framework to approach complex mechanisms within and the dependencies between various social spheres and their environment. Its evolutionary aspects have also been analysed by Walz (2004). In addition, we employ methods and tools of network analysis, which allow us to capture, analyse and model linkages and cause-effect correlations in society, economy, politics and religion on the macro- and micro-level down to groups and individuals (Gould, 2003; Lemercier, 2005).
Overall, our analytical approach allows us to capture the “diversité véritable” without losing track of essential commonalities (the “strange parallels”, as Victor Liebermann has called them, 2009) with regard to the transformation of polities and societies and their adaption to this “first world crisis”. Thereby, the value of a framework of evolutionary dynamics for the exploration of human history will be demonstrated

References
Atran, S. (2002). In Gods We Trust. The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atwell, W. S. (2001). Volcanism and Short-Term Climatic Change in East Asian and World History, c. 1200–1699. Journal of World History 12/1, 29-98.
Becker, F. & Reinhardt-Becker, E. (2001). Systemtheorie. Eine Einführung für die Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.
Becker, F. (Ed.). (2004). Geschichte und Systemtheorie. Exemplarische Fallstudien. Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.
Behringer, W. (2007). Kulturgeschichte des Klimas. Von der Eiszeit bis zur globalen Erwärmung. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Benedictow, O. J. (2004). The Black Death 1346–1353. The Complete History. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer Inc.
Blute, M. (2010). Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution. Solutions to Dilemmas in Cultural and Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borsch, St. J. (2005). The Black Death in Egypt and England. A Comparative Study. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brook, T. (2010). The troubled Empire. China in the Yuan and Ming Dynasties. Cambridge (Mass.), London: Harvard University Press.
Diamond, J. & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.). (2011). Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge (Mass.), London: Harvard University Press.
Gaddis, J. L. (2002). The Landscape of History. How Historians map the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldstone, J. A. (1991). Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goldstone, J. A. (2009). Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History, 1500–1850. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Higher Education.
Gould, R. V. (2003). Uses of Network Tools in Comparative Historical Research. In: J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.). Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (p. 241-269). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatcher, J. & Bailey, M. (2001). Modelling the Middle Ages. The History and Theory of England´s Economic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kiel, L. D. & Elliott, E. (Eds.). (1997). Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences. Foundations and Applications. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Lemercier, Cl. (2005). Analyse de réseaux et histoire. Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 52/2, 88-112.
Lieberman, L. (2009). Strange Parallels. Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800–1830. Vol. 2: Mainland Mirrors: Europe, Japan, China, South Asia, and the Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. 2 Vols., Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Moretti, F. (2009). Kurven, Karten, Stammbäume. Abstrakte Modelle für die Literaturgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Morris, I. (2010). Why The West Rules For Now: The Patterns of History and what they reveal about the Future. London: Profile Books.
Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of our Nature. Why Violence has declined. London: Viking.
Preiser-Kapeller...