By: Alireza Hejazi

The study of the future is valuable in that it allows us to see our place in the sweep of history from a unique perspective. It holds the promise of foresight. Meanwhile, foresight will allow us to change society either to achieve a potential outcome or to avoid it. The study of the future holds the promise of both understanding and guiding sociocultural change.

          The trick of many futurists, known also to science fiction writers, is to recognize a trend or the beginning of a trend in present, work out the full implications of that trend, and then extrapolate a future society built around those implications. The trend may consist of the widespread adoption of a particular technology, a change in social structure, or the spread of an idea. The problem with simple trend analysis is that it is devoid of both explicit theory and any sense of history. Simple trend analysis is not a reliable predictor.

          Many futurists are guided by one of two very distinct orientations: Pessimism & Optimism. Both rest on unstated assumptions. Social observers’ overall framework views society as a complex interlocking system that has an evolutionary history. 

          Cultural realization is a paradigm (or world view) that accounts for the origin, maintenance, and change of sociocultural systems. It is a throwback to the traditional social theory of 19^th century. It has the advantage of building on the perspectives and insights of the past as well as the latest empirical and theoretical research in the social sciences.

          Cultural realization differs from the grand theory of the past in that it is easily comprehensible and lends itself readily to empirical investigation.  Marvin Harris is responsible for the most systematic statement of cultural-realist principles and application of these principles in explaining social life.

          Cultural realization begins with the assumption that the various parts of society are interrelated. An institution such as the family cannot be viewed in isolation from the economic, political, or religious institutions of a society. When one part of the society changes, it has an effect on other parts of the system. Cultural realists further assert that the entire structure of the sociocultural system rests on the way a society exploits its environment to meet the biopsychological needs of its population.

          Harris enumerates four biopsychlogical constants:

1. People need to eat.

2. People cannot be totally inactive.

3. People are highly natured.

4. People need love and affection.

          The need to draw energy out of the environment in order to satisfy the biopsychological needs of its people is the central task of any society.

          The principal interface between a sociocultural system and its environment is termed the “infrastructure”. The infrastructure is divided into two parts: 1) the mode of production, consisting of behaviors aimed at satisfying requirements for subsistence; and 2) the mode of reproduction, sonsisting of behaviors aimed at controlling destructive increases or decreases in population size.

          The social structure can be divided along primary and secobdary lines: 1) primary groups like the family; and 2) secondary organizations such as government and industry.

          The primary-secondary group dichotomy encompasses all human organizations responsible for the allocation and distribution of all biopsychological need satisfaction.

          The last component of sociocultural systems is termed the superstructure. The behavioral superstructure includes recreational activities, sports, art, and other aesthetic activities.

          Harris believes that mental superstructure runs parallel to the behavioral components of the sociocultural system and refers to beliefs that guide human behavior.

          Max Weber identified four types of social action: 1) rational action for a goal; 2) rational action for a value; 3) emotional action; 4) traditional action.

System Dynamics

Modes of production and reproduction determine the primary and secondary group structure, which in turn determines the behavioral and mental superstructure. This principle is called the principle of infrastructural determinism.

          The rationale behind giving the infrastructure such priority rests upon the fact that it is through infrastructural practices that society adapts to its environment. Cultural realists view society as a very stable system. The most likely outcome of any change in the system—whether this change begins in the infrastructure, structure, or superstructure—is resistence in the other sectors of the system.

          Cultural realists assert that infrastructural-environmental relationships are central in explaining sociocultural change. But we also recognize the importance of structure and superstructure in determining the speed and character of change. In general, sociocultural change that releases more energy from the environment is likely to be swiftly adapted.

          Cultural realization is in fundamental agreement with this saying that the ideas of the ruling class in each epoch are the ruling ideas. This is not to say that elites always rule in the manner of kings. The amount of power and control exercised by elites varies across societies and through time.  A cultural-realist analysis attempts to identify this class, gauge the amount of power it wields, and uncover its biases and assumptions when analyzing social systems.

Notes: Frank W. Elwell, “The Evolution of the Future”, Chapter 1