Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, May 2006
Abstract
This paper draws on evolutionary psychology to elucidate ultimate causation in imperial state formation and predatory exploitation in antiquity and beyond. Differential access to the means of reproduction is shown to have been a key feature of early imperial systems. Why empires? Or, more generally, why power? In his landmark study of the sources of social power – the first part of which is largely dedicated to the subject of our volume, ancient empires –, Michael Mann steers clear of motivational models of human behavior. ‘We can take for granted the motivational drive of humans to seek to increase their means of subsistence. That is a constant.’ But why do humans seek to increase their means of subsistence? Is that a goal in itself? To Mann, it does not matter: one seeks power as a ‘generalized means’ (Talcott Parsons’s phrase) ‘for attaining whatever goals one wants to achieve’.
The nature of these goals does not require further analysis: ‘If I talk sometimes of “human beings pursuing their goals”, this should be taken not as a voluntaristic or psychological statement but as a given, a constant into which I will inquire no further because it has no further social force’. No attempt is made to identify ultimate causes underlying proximate motivation. In my view, this approach not only impoverishes our vision of human behavior but effectively prevents us from understanding and explaining the recent history of our species.
Walter Scheidel (Stanford University)
Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, May 2006
Abstract
This paper draws on evolutionary psychology to elucidate ultimate causation in imperial state formation and predatory exploitation in antiquity and beyond. Differential access to the means of reproduction is shown to have been a key feature of early imperial systems. Why empires? Or, more generally, why power? In his landmark study of the sources of social power – the first part of which is largely dedicated to the subject of our volume, ancient empires –, Michael Mann steers clear of motivational models of human behavior. ‘We can take for granted the motivational drive of humans to seek to increase their means of subsistence. That is a constant.’ But why do humans seek to increase their means of subsistence? Is that a goal in itself? To Mann, it does not matter: one seeks power as a ‘generalized means’ (Talcott Parsons’s phrase) ‘for attaining whatever goals one wants to achieve’.
The nature of these goals does not require further analysis: ‘If I talk sometimes of “human beings pursuing their goals”, this should be taken not as a voluntaristic or psychological statement but as a given, a constant into which I will inquire no further because it has no further social force’. No attempt is made to identify ultimate causes underlying proximate motivation. In my view, this approach not only impoverishes our vision of human behavior but effectively prevents us from understanding and explaining the recent history of our species.
Click here to read this article from the Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics
Sponsored Content