tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post7810127378018029546..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Social complexityDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-31252399788258052482011-10-24T23:43:44.182-04:002011-10-24T23:43:44.182-04:00In archaeology, we talk about "complex societ...In archaeology, we talk about "complex societies" all the time. We use that term to refer to states and chiefdoms, societies that have both vertical complexity (hierarchy: wealth variation, social classes, etc.) and horizontal complexity (occupational specialization, complex settlement systems, ethnic variation, etc.). One of the deep questions for many of us is the origins and evolution of complex societies out of the hunter-gatherers and non-hierarchical village societies that preceded them. How and why did this transition happen?<br /><br />I have found that many of the (non-anthropologist) scholars interested in the "sciences of complexity" do not make this kind of distinction in human societies. To them any human society is complex, whether a small band of hunter-gatherers or an urban imperial state. All human societies are more complex than other non-human social systems. It has proven difficult to get complex systems people to address what are, to me, the most interesting questions about social complexity (how are political hierarchies established? Why do people put up with elites and pestering regimes? Why were the Aztec and Inka empires organized in such radically different ways?). While Herbert Simon's work is interesting and looks relevant to this kind of question, I am still waiting to see how it can be applied in a useful way.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.com