Do you believe society functions in a progressive constant nature through social reforms and change; or do you believe history is more about the rise and fall of societies according to their inner strengths and weaknesses, rather than a constant progress?

tomder55

I 'm a believer of Crisis Theory .Even if society withstands and survives crisis it becomes transformed in some way .

kindj

I'm more inclined toward the latter.

ETWolverine

It's a good question, DC.

There is evidence of both philosophies in history. The rise and fall of empires have been the catalysts that have changed the political, social and economic realities.

And at the same time there has obviously been a level of constant advancement of human society, with each successive empire building on the knowledge and skills developed by their predecessors.

On the third hand, it can be argued that hjumanity hasn't really progress all that much fom ancient times. Certainly we have developed more efficient ways to kill each other than the bows and arrows and slings used by our ancestors. But does that really represent any sort of real progress in humanity?

So i8n fact both are actually true. And neither.

I don't think we can look at history exclusively through either lense. I think both ways of looking at history are necessary for a complete understanding... leaning from the rise and fall of empires, and how we have built on human progress throughout the generations. One lense can be seen as a macro view... how whole societies (empires) rise and fall, and one is the micro view (how individuals or small groups build on the work of their predecessors). But both are necesasry for a complete picure of human history.

Elliot

Dark_crow

Interestingly enough one well known Blogger believes the first is a Liberal world view and the latter a conservative one.

Lowtax4eva

Im not altogether entirely convinced that society DOES function to begin with.

Lowtax4eva

Whoa, that just blew my mind!