ABSTRACT

Most o f m a n k i n d n o w live i n complex societies and mos t o f these societies are at present exper iencing processes o f change tha t promise t o enhance thei r c o m p l e x i t y . Such societies, var iously label led complex , heterogeneous, developing, developed, m o d e r n , modern iz ­ ing , emergent nat ions or new states, are o f manifest concern to all social scientists, b u t especially t o sociologists and social anthro­ pologists whose capaci ty t o elucidate the i r variable structures, modes o f ope ra t ion and courses o f development is no less i m p o r t a n t fo r the prac t ica l management o f the i r affairs than for the crea t ion o f an empi r i ca l ly relevant and appropr ia te conceptual f r amework w h i c h m i g h t furnish a theore t ica l basis fo r the i n t eg ra t i on o f these increasingly convergent disciplines. Cur ious ly , however , very few sociologists o r anthropologis ts have as ye t a t t e m p t e d t o define the category o f c o m p l e x societies or t o delineate the i r essential or general characteristics. Instead, as Schneider observed over t en years ago,

I n rep ly t o such comments , S. N . Eisenstadt, w h o had e x p l i c i t l y contras ted ' p r i m i t i v e ' or ' t r i b a l ' w i t h ' c o m p l e x ' societies, o f w h i c h ' m o d e r n societies' were an imprecise ly dis t inguished sub-type , 3

casually remarks tha t ' b o t h terms, t o some ex ten t , cons t i tu te residual categories ' , 4 and says tha t his ' m o d e l ' o f the complex society 'was largely derived f r o m D u r k h e i m ' . 5 A c c o r d i n g l y to c lar i fy the p o s i t i o n we should f i rs t consider D u r k h e i m ' s radical contrast be tween the und i f fe ren t i a t ed ' p r i m i t i v e societies' ordered b y relat ions o f mech-

anical so l idar i ty and the advanced, d i f fe ren t ia ted societies tha t depend o n 'organic so l ida r i t y ' fo r the i r in t eg ra t ion , since this underlies so m u c h subsequent w o r k o n the nature and deve lopment o f c o m p l e x societies. Fo r example , R o n a l d Frankenberg employs this a n t i n o m y t o contrapose ru ra l society, characterized b y its ' complex­ i t y ' , w i t h u rban society, characterized b y its ' c o m p l i c a t i o n ' . 6 I n thus generalizing and redef in ing D u r k h e i m ' s contrasted models o f p r i m i ­ t ive and m o d e r n societies as ru ra l and u rban , Frankenberg assimilates D u r k h e i m ' s t y p o l o g y t o tha t w h i c h Lou i s W i r t h and R o b e r t Redf ie ld f o r m u l a t e d i n cont ras t ing u rban and f o l k societies as ideal-types. 7

B u t clearly w h i l e mos t u rban un i t s , i ndus t r i a l and pre-indus t r ia l , are h i g h l y complex i n the i r organizat ions, i n s t i t u t i o n a l operat ions and c o m p o s i t i o n , such uni t s b y n o means exhaust the range o f complex societies, w h i c h nowadays inc lude the 'emergent na t ions ' , 'new states', and developing societies o f the ' T h i r d W o r l d ' , among o ther forms. Ne i the r does i ts r u r a l c o n d i t i o n always or necessarily exclude a suff ic ient degree o f the organizat ional ' c o m p l i c a t i o n ' w h i c h Frankenberg ident i f ies b y divers i ty o f b o t h occupa t iona l and o ther ro les 8 t o substantiate his radical contrast . However , since such po la r models are n o t d i sconf i rmed b y phenomena tha t cont raver t the i r assumptions, 9 they con t inue t o fascinate sociologists and anthro­ pologists b y the i r s i m p l i c i t y and dramat ic oppos i t ions , and thus obs t ruc t the development o f al ternat ive approaches t o the compara­ t ive s tudy o f complex societies as un i t s tha t d i f fe r substant ial ly i n m a n y par t iculars , despite cer ta in c o m m o n features.