Human fascination with explaining various socio-cultural phenomena has been recorded since the inception of human civilization. Over the past century, efforts have been made to develop a model to neatly explain various social changes, ranging from imperialism, industrialization, and democratization to wars and terror. Many scholars have tried integrating biology and genetics-based evolutionary and socio-cultural phenomena into one unified model (Mesoudi et al., 2006). However, these efforts to tie together biology, anthropology, and the social sciences into one all-encompassing theory of human social and cultural development have, for several reasons, not come to fruition. Chief among these include a diverging opinion regarding the driving forces behind social change: Darwin’s biological determinism versus humanistic socio-cultural anthropology, or perhaps even a combination of both. Similarly, divergences also exist between scholars adhering to an individualist instead of a collectivist culture.
Thus far, many contemporary social development theories borrow predominantly from Darwinism (survival of the fittest and natural selection) and describe human social development, from simplicity to complexity, through natural or group selection, analogously improving adaptive capacity with each iteration. An early union between natural and biological developmental theory and social development theory was attempted using the “Social Darwinism” model posited by Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer (1891), and Lester Frank Ward (1884, 1893).
Despite various contentions over the centuries regarding the right approach to studying civilization, contemporary mainstream studies of socio-cultural development still focus on explanations derived from genetics and biology, albeit with variations. Such variations are whether cultural development has been incorporated as an independent agent or covariant with genetics and biology. The problem encapsulated in following such mainstream models of socio-cultural development lies in the lack of implementation of theories of psychology and psychoanalysis, particularly concerned with how human minds and emotions operate.
Humans have far surpassed other species in terms of intelligence and scientific advancement. However, the developmental levels of personality, socio-cultural system, and morality are still lagging behind the ideals proposed by many sages and saints of many religions. For example, while certain figures, such as Jesus and Buddha, elicited the highest levels of emotional development two millennia ago, most people living at that time would not have reached this level. Since humans possess far more complex emotions and superior intelligence than other animals, they can commit more outrageous harm and damage to each other than other social animals.
Therefore, while there are as many biological and genetic explanations for the human desire to change, these arguments have been excluded in my development of personality and socio-cultural development theory, and I have mainly focused on psychology and psychoanalytic literature. From a psychological perspective, the rationale behind the proposed model assumes that these socio-cultural movements result from the growth of human emotion and wisdom as a group rather than, as Dawkins claims, biological or genetic evolution.
In particular, I have borrowed two assumptions subsumed by classical and contemporary psychoanalytic theories and humanistic psychology. The first assumption is that group behavior reflects individual behavior, and “the culture provides the raw material of which the individual makes his life” (Benedict, 1934, p. 147). The second assumption is that whether collectivistic or individualistic, human culture/society follows a similar developmental path as individuals toward freedom of emotional expression, individualization, democratization, and collaboration for common socio-cultural goals through empathic understanding and sharing of grief.
Therefore, I postulate that psychology, or more specifically, emotions, is much more central to human decision-making, individually and socio-culturally, than previously proposed. However, past theories that have tried to incorporate developmental psychology in explaining cultural development have primarily focused on cognitive development and behavioral adaptation to exclude emotional development (Kelly et al., 2006, as cited in Mesoudi et al., 2006). Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis in the twentieth century awakened us to the substantial impact the world of the unconscious has on human life. In this regard, human psychology and emotion may account for the motivation and desire for cultural, social, and moral change, especially due to the impact of the collective unconscious. Many philosophers, particularly those affiliated with the school of ideology who base their conclusions on human consciousness, may have difficulty explaining this truth.
Throughout history, significant transformations in political or cultural development have been driven by emotions such as fear, frustration, desperation, greed, anxiety, or the desire for happiness rather than logic. Once emotions initiate change, logic is used to restore the system to a stable equilibrium (Freud, 1930/1961, p. 92). In other words, though emotion and reason work in tandem to affect social change, emotion is a greater factor in influencing change or innovation. In contrast, the reason may be used to arrive at an optimal solution in a given society. This combined work of emotion and logic may operate similarly in individuals’ everyday decision-making process. It includes the choice of marriage partner, career decisions, or business transactions – all of which are usually guided by unconscious or conscious emotional motives rather than logic or reason. In this sense, Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents reveals how people’s disillusion with human history has thus far helped usher in the current era of civilization (Freud, 1930/1961).