ABSTRACT
Figure 10.4). Varying this behavioral parameter, we may have a wide spectrum of degrees of “individualism” in diversified behaviors or cultures, from solitary to social animals, or from progressive to conservative cultures. Then we can introduce the cultural behavioral factor into the information-diffusion process and the learning competition model. Different cultural orientation in exploring new resources or technology leads to new understanding of the origin of division of labor and differentiation of society (Chen 1987a). It is shown in the model that a progressive species needs a larger subsistence space than a conservative one in order to maintain the same population size. This is why some aggressive species with low population density need larger subsistence space. In section 10.2, the Chaunu-Wallerstein puzzle was explained by difference in agriculture structure. We will further examine the issue from cultural behavior in learning competition. Historically, Western ranchers and merchants were more adventurous than Chinese peasants and bureaucrats. Another interesting result is the stability of culture in a fluctuating environment. It has been found that a conservative culture is more stable than a pro gressive one. This is especially true when some survival threshold population size obtains and resources are limited. But when new information comes,
a conservative species is less inclined to absorb new technology than in a progressive species. The most interesting investigation is of the competitiveness between two species with different learning behavior in exploring new resources. It has been shown that two conservative species cannot co-exist, but two progressive species can. When they compete for the same resource or same idea, such as arable land or a dominating ideology, the only possible result is that one replaces the other. It is the story of cyclic dynasties in history, which repeatedly occurred in traditional monolithic societies such as those in Oriental countries. Therefore division of labor cannot emerge in a conservative culture. If two species have equal learning ability, progressive species may have difficulty in competing with conservative species. The survival strategy for progressive species is constantly improving their learning ability. If we consider capitalism as an adventure-loving culture, then we may reach a conclusion similar to Schumpeter’s – that innovation is vital for capitalism when competing with socialism (Schumpeter 1950). Once innovations cease, capitalism will lose in the competition for existing resources. If their learning abilities are not equal, there is variety of possibilities for competing species, so we could have a diversified world. Another interesting result of the model is that a mixed society of conservative and progressive species is more stable than a mixture of two progressive species. This phenomenon is observable from Anglo-Saxon political systems. Studying the stability against a fluctuating environment reveals that a monolithic society is more stable than a pluralistic one, although a pluralistic society enjoys more social wealth than does a monolithic society. There is a trade-off between stability and complexity, or, security and development, which sheds some light on the differences between Occidental and Oriental cultures. Theoretically speaking, division of labor certainly has its benefits and costs. The cost of industrialization is a greater risk of instability. That is the price we have paid for modernization. The “time arrow in history” has been perceived in different ways in different civilizations. Indian Buddhism had a cyclic view of history. Judaism and Christians believed in a better life in the future, while Confucius and Taoism believed the past life was better. The Chinese orientation toward conservative culture can be understood by considering the deteriorating environment of intensive farming. Based on this discussion, we may discuss the evolutionary tree of social history (Figure 10.5). Clearly, it consists of a two-way development that has been moving toward simplicity or complexity, depending on the environment and the structure of the system. Development is a multi-linear process toward a diversified world, not a fated convergence toward communism or capitalism. There is no theoretical foundation for the convergent view in world history. Nonlinear dynamics and evolutionary thermodynamics have a different perspective from neo-classical economics based on methodological individualism. We might speculate about why capitalism emerged in the West and not in the East. Disasters and wars happened much frequently in China than in Europe and
were much severe (Chen 1979). Environmental fluctuation in China is too large to maintain a complex structure in the past. We may reverse Mao’s evaluation of the positive role of the Chinese peasant wars since the Chin dynasty in the second century bc. The transition from mixed agriculture to intensive farming, which was parallel to the transition from manor system to landlord system, was devolution from complexity to simplicity in a deteriorating ecological environment (Chen 1979, 1988a). Contrary to the Maoist hypothesis that China’s “capitalist seeds” could develop into full-blown capitalism without Western influences, we concluded that China had little chance to rediscover science and capitalism without opening to the Western world. This is our starting point for observing China’s recent reform in the last decade.
