From: Jack Owens <owenjack@isu.edu>
I want to comment a bit on the "Constructive Typology of Societal
Systems" which was posted on 25 January 1995 by Nikolai S. Rozov.
These comments are those of a historian who deals with world history
in the period from about the fourteenth century C.E. to the
eighteenth. As Nikolai has suggested, I have tried to think through
his ideas in terms of the research problems with which I deal and
with an eye to explaining change. Those with other preoccupations
will no doubt have other perspectives to offer.
Since Nikolai's original message was very long and I want to include
his words, I will break up my message into what I hope are manageable
lengths divided at convenient places. I hope a will be excused for a
bit of repetition as I will try to keep the individual postings as
intelligible as possible.
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 00:42:58 -0700
From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" <rozov@adm.nsu.nsk.su>
Subject: constructive typology
Let me realize my promise according w-s typology. In fact
my task occurred to be more wide because the problems of
differentiation between w-ss and non-w-ss are not less
significant than the problems of differentiation between types
of w-ss themselves.
That's why I wish to present now some primary ideas on
CONSTRUCTIVE TYPOLOGY OF SOCIETAL SYSTEMS
Jack: It seems to me that the test of the value of a societal
typology should be the degree it assists in the analysis of human
action, where adequate account is taken both of the relatively stable
factors and of change. Once I mastered taxonomy in my undergraduate
study of Botany, I found myself always struggling against the
taxonomical classification manual's tendency to make rigid an organic
world where variation is the norm. While I am sure that my comments
will look like events in that struggle, I do appreciate Nikolai's
central justification of this enterprise: we need to be a great deal
clearer and more systematic about our use of conceptual terms. This
need is especially evident when we undertake comparative studies.
*************
What preliminary requirements to our typology should we
set?
R1. The typology of s-systems must include all commonly
used concepts (i.e. w-systems, w-economies, w-empires,
civilizations, societies) as units of analysis for diverse
social disciplines.
Jack: I assume that in part this is a requirement because we need to
look at a variety of factors that have the potential to constrain
human action.
********
The taxons in typology should not differ
essentially in volume and meaning from their correspondent
concepts.
Jack: Nikolai, could you explain what you mean here?
*********
(The task is not a terminological revolution but
conceptual clarification and systematization.)
R2. It should help us to divide types of societal systems
(s-systems) with different essential features and to integrate
s-systems without such essential difference into one type
(even if the last differ very much in volume, geographical
location and historical period).
R3. The criteria of "essential" must be flexible because
of development of our thought, research interests and values.
Jack: I wonder if it would not be useful to recognize the need for
flexibility also exists because a group we study may have developed
in such a way that the "essential" changes.
************
R4. The typology should be provided with the criteria and
methods for empirical identification of s-systems.
Jack: My assumption here is that the ultimate goal is comparison.
Is this an accurate conclusion, Nikolai?
*************
J. B. "Jack" Owens
Department of History
Idaho State University
Pocatello, ID 83209 USA
Voice: (208) 233-8589
e-mail: owenjack@isu.edu
www: http://isuux.isu.edu/~owenjack