| ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
Young, Michael. The Metronomic Society. Thames and Hudson, London, 1988. Pp xi + 301. Price £16.95. The author of this book is Lord Young, one of the originators of the Consumers’ Association and of the Open University. He is primarily a sociologist and is currently Director of the Institute of Community Studies, London. The book itself is about time and behaviour and the way the one changes with the other. Astronomical phenomena, most importantly the daily rotation of the earth, recur in cycles which the rhythms of nature must follow. So deeply ingrained are biological rhythms, presumably sustained by an underlying genetic basis, that even in a modem technological society they are inescapable; jet lag is but one small example of the havoc caused when behaviour conflicts with the internal clock. The thesis of this book is that cyclical phenomena are much more important to an understanding of human behaviour and its development than is commonly recognised. The term "cyclical", much used throughout the book, has a much wider scope than just those behavioural patterns related to natural cycles and is contrasted with a "linear" interpretation of society which stresses change rather than constancy. Man is a creature of habit. Most of his actions are performed not as a result of a conscious, rational decision but because that is what he has done before. He is locked into daily, weekly, monthly and annual routines in which change is the exception rather than the rule. At certain levels such behaviour is necessary to survival; relegating mundane activities such as walking, driving and dressing to subconscious habit frees intellectual capacity for crucial decision taking. But, according to Young, much higher-level behaviour, including social behaviour, is similarly habitualised. All such behaviour he characterises as cyclical. Gradual modification of successive cycles of repeated behaviour constitutes linear or progressive development. Young believes this analysis applies not only to the behaviour of individuals but also to the behaviour of societies, culture being effectively formed of communal habits or customs. Social evolution then consists of gradual modification of repetitive cycles of cultural behaviour. It is tempting to see an analogy between the conservative cycling of customs, subject to gradual modification from cycle to cycle, and the similarly conservative transmissions of genes from generation to generation of biological organisms, subject to the occasional mutation. It is a temptation Young cannot resist but the validity of such an analogy is not adequately established nor is it clear what useful conclusions could be drawn if the analogy were valid. When Young argues that social evolution is producing a new species, the global culture, of which there is only a single specimen, it is likely that he has strayed into territory he does not fully understand; there can be no evolution in the biological sense in a species consisting of only one individual. Another weakness is the failure to explore the likely mechanism of social evolution. It is argued that habits and customs gradually change; some survive and others disappear. By analogy with biological evolution, there is presumably some sort of selection taking place. However, this implication is never made explicit and, given the debates over the unit of selection in biological evolution (gene, individual, kin or other group), it is a fundamental aspect which ought not to be ignored. In particular, the probability that the success of a custom may have little to do with benefit (however that may be defined) to those who adopt it is worthy of full exploration. The nearest approach to the subject is the characterisation of "tradition" as a custom which is followed for no better reason than its antiquity. One is forced to conclude that the book and its theme, however valuable a contribution they may be to the sociological literature and however fascinating the insight they offer into modem society, are not strictly scientific. The contrast of the cyclical and the linear is certainly an aid to description, making the book a pleasure to read, but it lacks the explanatory or predictive power necessary to constitute a useful theory. The development of such a theory maybe possible, but that is a task for another book. Meanwhile this book is, despite the foregoing criticisms, well worth reading. ROBERT A. PEEL | ||||||