Societal Evolution: A Study of the Evolutionary Basis of the Science of Society
 |
| Societal Evolution |
Albert Galloway Keller’s Societal Evolution: A Study of the Evolutionary Basis of the Science of Society (1915) represents one of the earliest systematic attempts to apply Darwinian principles to the study of human institutions. Keller’s work is ambitious, seeking to establish sociology as a natural science governed by laws of variation, selection, transmission, and adaptation. Yet beneath this framework lie several assumptions that shaped both the strengths and limitations of his argument.
1. Society as an Organism
Keller assumes that societies can be studied analogously to biological organisms. Customs, laws, and institutions are treated as “social traits” subject to evolutionary pressures. This assumption gives his work coherence, but it risks oversimplifying the complexity of human agency and cultural diversity.
2. Unconscious Evolution
A central claim is that social change occurs largely without deliberate planning. Folkways and mores evolve “unconsciously,” shaped by necessity and habit rather than conscious design. This assumption downplays the role of intentional reform, revolution, and leadership in shaping societies.
3. Progressive Adaptation
Keller presumes that societies tend toward greater complexity and efficiency over time. He interprets adaptation as progress, assuming that evolution naturally leads to improvement. This reflects the optimism of early 20th‑century social science but ignores the possibility of regression, collapse, or maladaptive persistence.
4. Determinism of Social Forces
His framework leans heavily on determinism: institutions evolve because they must, not because people choose them. Human freedom is minimized in favor of structural inevitability. This assumption makes his theory rigorous but limits its ability to explain innovation or resistance.
5. Counterselection
Keller acknowledges that harmful traditions can survive, but he assumes they do so only because of inertia or deep cultural embedding. This view presumes that maladaptive practices are exceptions rather than integral features of social life, which modern anthropology might contest.
Evaluation
Keller’s assumptions reflect the intellectual climate of his era—dominated by Darwinian analogies and a search for scientific laws of society. They gave sociology a sense of legitimacy as a discipline but also constrained it within a deterministic, progress‑oriented model. His insistence on unconscious evolution and inevitable adaptation overlooks the messy realities of human choice, conflict, and cultural pluralism. Still, Keller’s work remains valuable as a historical milestone, bridging biology and social science and laying groundwork for later theories of cultural evolution.