The following is all new to me, so I would be most grateful to anyone with views and knowledge re the following.

Peter Turchin

http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/...

What is cliodynamics?

Empires rise and fall, populations and economies boom and bust, world religions spread or wither... What are the mechanisms underlying such dynamical processes in history? Are there 'laws of history'? We do not lack hypotheses to investigate - to take just one instance, more than two hundred explanations have been proposed for why the Roman Empire fell. But we still don't know which of these hypotheses are plausible, and which should be rejected.

More importantly, there is no consensus on what general mechanisms explain the collapse of historical empires. What is needed is a systematic application of the scientific method to history: verbal theories should be translated into mathematical models, precise predictions derived, and then rigorously tested on empirical material. In short, history needs to become an analytical, predictive science (see my essay Arise cliodynamics in the sidebar)

Cliodynamics (from Clio, the muse of history, and dynamics, the study of temporally varying processes) is the new transdisciplinary area of research at the intersection of historical macrosociology, economic history/cliometrics, mathematical modeling of long-term social processes, and the construction and analysis of historical databases. Mathematical approaches - modeling historical processes with differential equations or agent-based simulations; sophisticated statistical approaches to data analysis - are a key ingredient in the cliodynamic research program (see "Why do we need mathematical history?" in the side bar). But ultimately the aim is to discover general principles that explain the functioning and dynamics of actual historical societies.

I did have a professor who wanted me to apply averages and standard deviations to the backgrounds of various people in my senior thesis, but otherwise this is the first I have heard of this subject.

My gut reaction, though, is to throw this out as it removes perhaps the human element from history. (I am sure it has value, but I don't believe human action can all be broken into a formula, and I find history to be the catalogue of human action.)

In his recent book, War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires, Turchin talks about the factors that influence the fate of empires, rather than specific actions by individuals. These factors include collective solidarity, population numbers, economic inequality, and so on.

From the book, p.316:

"The science of historical dynamics - cliodynamics - offers insights not about certain individual people, but about all individuals in a group - call them societies, states, or empires. The basic premise of the discipline is that history is shaped by great impersonal forces - not by actions of single individuals, but by actions of whole collectives of them. This does not mean that I personally think that individuals do not matter; in fact, we sometimes can measure the effect of a remarkable individual (such as Napoleon) using standard scientific methods. The theory ignores the action of individual wills (or treats them as stochastic factors), but it also ignores may other influences that affect the course of history - this is what good scientific theories are supposed to do, after all. A good theory is not necessarily the absolutely correct theory. In fact, in science we do not have absolutely correct theories.... In my opinion, cliodynamics is a productive framework."

From the introduction, p.6-7

"My main argument, therefore, is that people originating on fault-line frontiers become characterized by cooperation and a high capacity for collective action, which in turn enables them to build large and powerful territorial states.... The critical assumption in my argument is that cooperation provides the basis for imperial power."

In the book he discusses measurable factors that lead to high asabiya (an arab term he uses to describe collective action) and the formation of empires, as well as measurable factors that lead to decline. He provides many examples of several different cycles in history and how these cycles can be shown interact together.

I found his book fascinating, though as I've shown, he is the first to admit that it is not an all-encompassing theory of history. What it certainly is, is food for thought, and it succeeds remarkably well as that.

I hadn't heard the term or knew anything about it until I saw this group.

It sounds interesting and quite plausible in the same way that there are many mathematical models for nature, economics etc that can function quite well until there is a major outlier not usually factored into the model -

So I guess the same can be said for a model of historical forces - quite workable until you get an outlier (like Alexander or Mohamed), once their effect reshapes the topography you can carry on modelling.

Just a thought from a dabbler.

Cheers

Message 3: Trystorp

Many thanks for your posting.

As a result, I have ordered the War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires on an inter-library loan.

Message 3: Trystorp

Just got the book today and am reading War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires now and find it truly fascinating.

Your comment:

'I found his book fascinating, though as I've shown, he is the first to admit that it is not an all-encompassing theory of history. What it certainly is, is food for thought, and it succeeds remarkably well as that.'

is excellent.

What I am baffled by is why is it that more people don't discuss the issues he raises in the book?

Why isn't everyone concerned about:
- learning from history
- patterns in history
- etc.

There are questions certainly, but there is also an immense amount of wisdom from the ages that can be gleaned.

I have posted a review of the book:

War and Peace and War –The Life Cycle of Imperial Nations by Peter Turchin

in case anyone is interested.

Very nice review. I definitely agree with you about the general editing of the book. I gave it a full 5 stars but only because it's one of those books that has stuck with me and that I keep returning to.

I checked out his web site and it is interesting how similar our group's topics of investigation is to his...

'Empires rise and fall, populations and economies boom and bust, world religions spread or wither... What are the mechanisms underlying such dynamical processes in history? Are there 'laws of history'?'

Should we send him an invite?

'Are there 'laws of history'', i suppose from what ive read above that this question is answered very much in the affirmative. And this is fine, as long as one doesnt presume to prescribe this approach, and its methodology, over and above all other approaches to the writing of history. It seems to me that tHe beauty and profundity of history lies prercisely in its diversity. One can write a literary history, a narrative history, a statistical history, if one looks back on this ancient genre one can see that it has assumed a myraid of forms. ANd so id like to raise a caveat over the tendency for those that assume the mantle of a sceintific history which uncovers objective social laws to dismiss all other approaches as 'unscientific' and therefore erronous. My problem is with a history that takes an epistemological position that is anchored in physical sciences, that is, a position that speaks of truth and error, and of right and wrong, and does not appreciate the place of mulitiple interpretations (each being well reasoned and empirically backed up to be sure) all of which can have a share of truth even if they contradict each other.

Message edited by its author, Apr 15, 2009, 4:22am.

Message 11: Mr_Wormwood

'My problem is with a history that takes an epistemological position that is anchored in physical sciences, '

Knowledge based on physical sciences?

This is an interesting quote form wikipedia and E O Wilson

'Michael McGoodwin quoting Wilson on sociobiology -13

Sociobiology is defined (by Wilson) as the systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of behavior, including human, incorporating ecology, ethology, and genetics. "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species." "The brain and the mind exists because it promotes the survival and multiplication of the genes that direct its assembly." The two apparent dilemmas we face therefore are: (1) We lack any goal external to our biological nature (for even religions evolve to enhance the persistence and influence of their practitioners). Will societies transcendental goals dissolve and will we regress to mere self-indulgence? (2) Morality evolved as instinct "which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated."
:
:
Wilson used sociobiology and evolutionary principles to explain the behavior of the social insects and then to understand the social behavior of other animals, including humans, thus established sociobiology as a new scientific field.

I am not arguing for or against sociobiology, but it seems the 'nature' 'nurture' issues persist.

From Turchin's book:
293

Conspicuous consumption is inherently divisive because it draws boundaries between the haves and the have-nots. It elicits envy and weakens solidarity. But it is even more important as a symptom of deeper processes-growing inequality and within-group competition for the resources and power that gradually undermine group solidarity.

I had never heard the word 'cliodynamics' until I joined this group. I found a couple of definitions online, similar to the following:

A scientific discipline involving the empirical study of historic systems. Primarily concerned with changing patterns and cycles throughout time, including: the rise and fall of political regimes, long-term economic modulation, and the spread and retraction of world religions.

The part about changing patterns and cycles reminds me of the Santayana quote. In another thread there were statements that history doesn't repeat. I can see that exact history can not repeat, but the idea of cliodynamics seems to imply that patterns do repeat. Perhaps this is what Santayan was talking about.

Not being a professional historian, I welcome clarification.