Evolution of societies refers to the concept that a society allegedly moves through stages with each stage generally being considered better than the previous one. It is a concept which has been very prevalent in Western societies and since the age of the Enlightenment is found in a number of political ideologies as diverse as Marxism, modern Gaians, Ecoregional Democracy and the new tribalists. However, in the 1920s it was criticized by anthropologists, and since the 1960s it has been criticized by critical theories, [postmodernists]], ecologists and Greens.
Anthropologists consider social evolution a Western myth seldom based on solid empirical grounds (but see sultural evolution). Critical theorists argue that notions of social evolution are simply justifications for power by the elites of society. Postmodernists question whether the notions of evolution or society have inherent meaning and if they reveal more about the person doing the description than the thing being described. Gaians argue that societies evolve deterministically to play a role in ecology of their biosphere, or else die off as failures due to competition from more efficient societies exploiting nature's leverage -refusing to listen to postmodernists or critical theorists - instead listening to political ecologists - presumably Gaians. An elite?
Not yet. No political movement has a clear monopoly on grasping evolution, social or otherwise. It seems necessary to understand it from the biological forces "at the bottom" rather than imposing any elite views "from the top" - Greens argue that such consensus is critical to any progress whatsoever, and so exchanges of views on general social evolution is a waste of time when compared to the opportunity to develop practical consensus within a society - choice rather than autonomous factors is presumed to drive social evolution.
Nonetheless, theory continues to develop regarding meta-genetic selection - over the objections of ecologists who claim it is simply premature to try to characterize ethical or social evolution in any kind of a scientific way:
Proceeding anyway, Sociobiologists have developed important theories of the evolution of social behavior in non-human animals, based on Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection and genetics. The process of natural selection implies both ecological and sexual forms of evolution.
Powerful as they are, however, ecological and sexual selection are unable to explain complex spiritual, ethical, and moral elements of human cultures - which seem to exist in no other species at all.
Cultural anthropologists and sociologists assume that human beings are naturally social and naturally form shifting groups - and that this is a basic trait of the Hominids or Hominidae. But they further argue that particular human social behaviors have non-genetic (i.e. purely social, or cultural) causes and dynamics. They use the word "society" to refer to a group with more or less clear boundaries that reproduces itself over time and is relatively autonomous (thus, a family or a football team are social groups, but not societies). Basic issues in social theory follow from this definition: what holds a society together? How do societies change? How do different societies interact?
Prior to the 18th century, notions of societies naturally evolving toward a better future were uncommon in the world. In Europe, the prevailing notion was that societies on earth were declining from the perfection that existed in the Garden of Eden. In East Asia, the prevailing notions involved the Buddhist concept of circular history and the Neo-Confucian concept of a decline from the era of the sage kings.
As state-level societies encountered other cultures, their philosophy and theology would clash, adapt, and alter each other, e.g. the absorption of Pagan culture by Roman Catholics in Dark Age Europe, the adoption of Catholic customs and saints by the Mayans, the spread of Islam. Colonization by European powers settled most questions of social evolution by force. The dominant global powers, notably England, saw themselves as leading mankind deliberately in a morally righteous direction - presumably back to an Eden.
In the late 1800s Herbert Spencer developed an avowedly-scientific theory of 'social evolution.' He argued that societies over time progressed, and that progress was accomplished through competition. Later social theorists have argued that this view of society legitimizes 19th century capitalism, and in fact reflected the views of people in capitalist societies rather than any objective or universal understanding of social change. This theory could be said to inspire modern Gaians who view social evolution as a competition to protect, mimic, and make minimal use of nature's bounty.
The competing avowedly-scientific theory of Karl Marx was that human progress was accomplished through the class-struggle, which required much alienation, but would end with a society based completely on cooperation.
Conflict between such views, and the inherent conflict of both with nationalism and religion, seems to have defined much of 20th century history. Today most political science focuses on the expression of these theories on a finite planet of humans prone to ethnic and ethical disputes. We as a species are not necessarily closer to understanding the evolution of our most important symbiote, the society without which we cannot survive.
Modern thought about 'social evolution' typically separates ecological (or "natural") from sexual (or "mate"), ethical (or "social") and moral (or "spiritual") selection - the last is generally not a scientific view but rather an attempt to detect a set limit beyond which rationalism must fail, and where individual autonomy, creativity, safety and closure must prevail: leaving room for the traditional assumptions about human morality and spirit.
Another important impetus for this thought was the discovery that some Great Apes social behaviors have "non-genetic (i.e. purely social, or cultural) causes and dynamics" as well. This led to the reclassification of some as Hominids, sparking fresh debate on the value of biodiversity, the nature of "animal" societies, and the optimal structure of human society.
Current political theories of the new tribalists seem to be attempts to conciously mimic ecology and primitive life-ways that have stood the test of time amongst indigenous peoples, augmenting them with modern sciences. This goal has been criticized that point out that there are a number of historical examples of indigenous peoples doing severe environmental damage (such as the deforestation of Easter Island and the extinction of mammoths in North America) and that proponents of the goal have been trapped by the European stereotype of the noble savage.
Ecoregional Democracy attempts to confine the "shifting groups" or tribes, within "more or less clear boundaries" that the society inherits from the surrounding ecology, to the borders of a naturally-occuring ecoregion. Progress can proceed by competition between but not within tribes, and it is limited by ecological borders or Natural Capitalism incentives which attempt to mimic the pressure of natural selection on a human society by forcing it to conciously adapt to scarce energy or materials,
These theories seem to assume that optimizing ecology and social harmony of closely-knit groups is a more desirable or necessary evolution of societies than the various paths proposed by earlier theorists. A 2002 poll of experts on Nearctic and Neotropic indigenous peoples (reported in Harper's Magazine) revealed that all of them would have preferred to be a typical New World person in the year 1491, prior to any European contact, rather than a typical European of that time. Evolution of societies in an ethical direction may well be driven by such choices:
While there is no consensus on the ideal society, there is a great deal on what is undesirable: crowding, conflict, dogma, war, disregard for the arts and a stifling of spiritual life. Fictional Dystopias documenting these in advance may thus be the most effective form of discourse, e.g. anticipating continental trading blocs as forseen by George Orwell in "Nineteen Eighty Four", 1948, or a media-and-drug-addled society as forseen by Aldous Huxley in "Brave New World", 1932. Certain features of an emerging society may be unavoidable, but creative social critics may alert us to them in time to avoid their more profound discomforts. Which is the point:
"The value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." - Karl Popper
Compare with cultural evolution
See also: Political media, political science, theology,Sociology, Sociobiology, Memetics, Anthropology, Great Apes