Collective action and cultural change: Revisiting Eisenstadt’s evolutionary theory

Abstract

Eisenstadt’s most well-known contributions come primarily from his research on “multiple modernities.” Less appreciated has been his evolutionary theory of cultural change. In this article, we revisit Eisenstadt’s evolutionary theory in order to make explicit his potential contributions to the neo-evolutionary tradition and demonstrate where his contribution can be further appreciated. In short, Eisenstadt’s theory supplements macro-level materialist and micro-level bio-psychological theories by (1) offering a group-level theory that takes agency and historicity seriously by calling attention to the role of institutional entrepreneurs and their projects for cultural change; (2) formulating a multi-linear, multi-directional theory of evolution that avoids determinist traps; (3) highlighting non-materialist crises such as the widespread breakdown in trust, the discontents of centralized and consolidated power, and the collapse of a shared sense of meaning; and (4) accounting for the possible conditions of success or failure. Historical examples are used to illustrate Eisenstadt’s model.

Schemas and Frames

“…It is well known that the concept entered sociology via Goffman, who borrowed it directly from Bateson, and used “the term ‘frame’ in roughly the sense in which he [Bateson] meant it” (Goffman 1981:64). Since Goffman’s Frame Analysis , sociologists have used the concept of a frame to empirically analyze a wide range of phenomena, including social movements (Snow et al 1986), poverty (Young 2010), education (Davies 2002), historical networks (McLean 1998), business discourse (Ghaziani and Ventresca 2005), small-group conversations (Kretsedemas 2000), racism (Taylor and Rambo 2013), and sociocultural evolution (Abrutyn, Van Ness, and Taylor 2016).…”

Functionaries: Institutional Theory without Institutions

“…This implies that decentralized institutions, despite experiencing a high rate of volatility , are unlikely to experience entrepreneurship qua innovation. Even though we should expect far more pattern variability in decentralized institutionalization, the relevant actors are unlikely to perceive a potential entrepreneurial "project" as novel or useful (Colomy 1998); in fact, since there are very few stable and unique positions in a decentralized field, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that the pre-existing activities and knowledge structures defining the field are even perceived as inefficient or problematic in the first place (Abrutyn, Van Ness, and Taylor 2016). In contrast, centralized institutions are far more likely to generate the phenomenological experience of entrepreneurship.…”

“…This is what accounts for the "vision advantage" of true entrepreneurs and their capacity to break stable institutional equilibria (Kirzner 1997). Functionaries are structurally and culturally equipped to see "cultural holes," opportunities, and contingencies when and if they arise (Abrutyn et al 2016;Collins 1987;Stark 2011:118-52). Second, with highly centralized distributions of contributory expertise and activity, only a relatively small number of people needs to alter their activity to generate major institutional change, with the potential to affect a very large population.…”

S.N. Eisenstadt’s theory of culture

“…Amounting as it does to a significant swelling of both macro- and meso-institutional levels of analysis, at any rate, this facet of Eisenstadt’s work also brings him at times quite close to some forms of institutional theory and neo-institutionalism – currents which, to my knowledge at least, he did not explicitly address in writing. While this has been richly discussed by reference to Eisenstadt’s work on social change and evolution and the comparative study of institutions (Abrutyn, Van Ness and Taylor, 2016), I would extend the argument to the specific, multilevel manner in which he theorized culture and its deep intertwining with social structure. 16 In such regard, there are also major points of convergence with various strands of current research aiming at better connecting between cultural and organizational or institutional analysis, as well as developing a multi-level cultural analysis of action in the public sphere.…”