> >Throughout the 2,000 year history, no doubt they
> >did, but not, I suspect, at the rate that we do.
>
> I agree. The rate of change that we modern people go
> through is extaordinary.
To be a touch more precise, I think the point is that a high rate of change is sustained over a long period of time. I'd not hesitate to say that Europe sustained a higher rate of change during, say, the black death than we do now. Fortunately, it slowed down after a couple decades. To overgeneralize grossly, high rates of change in ancient societies occur for short periods of time (and often precipitated by an outside influence), while a high rate of change is more or less continuous in a modern society (and often caused by internal dynamics).
I do have a couple problems with this thesis, though. Change in what are we purportedly measuring? If we are talking about technological progress, I would not disagree, since technological change appears to be a roughly cumulative function. Likewise for economic wellbeing. I am less certain about social change. It seems to me that religion changes less now than it did two hundred ot two thousand years ago. Fashion in America has not changed fundamentally since about 1820 -- women still wear dresses and men wear pants (not togas, or tights, or kilts, or whatever). These features are ones where we also have a dearth of information about ancient societies like Egypt. The writings that remain are largely from a point of view of a ruling elite that combined political and religious power. It does not tell us much about what the common Egyptian thought about the divine, or what the lass next door was wearing the other night, etc.
Moreover, though it is somewhat of a side note, it seems to me that social change (though not technogical change) in the west is slower now than it was in the 1800's, when you have massive rural to urban migration, a complete change in the manner and setting in which work is performed (factory vs. farm and all that goes with it), etc. I would hazard that none of us (unless there are immigrants reading this) have undergone that sort of wrenching change.
My second problem is that, all of us being modern folks, we are fairly thoroughly indoctrinated in the ideology of progress -- that, since about 1450, technological and economic progress has accumulated and accelerated. It tends to arrange our point of view so that we see those things that support the thesis and ignore those that do not. I question whether we can genuinely judge such a subjective thing as the rate of change experienced by us vs. that experienced by our ancient ancestors.
Good thing that this is on the GD.
Powered by hypermail