The reader of this column is certainly familiar with the wonderful idea of “catch-up development,” even if he has never heard these words. Its essence is that we need to adopt all the good things from them and then we will live well. In turn, this idea and its more general variety of “modernization” rests on the notion that society inevitably passes through certain “stages” in its development, and advanced societies differ from backward ones simply in that they are at a later stage of development.
These notions lie at the foundation of the modern political paradigm; all political struggle is based on them. Actually, the scuffle is about what, where, and how to “introduce” and “implement”; the very necessity of doing so goes unquestioned. Moreover, this applies not only to “backward” but also to “developed” countries, for if there exist certain mandatory and inevitable stages, then there also exists the possibility of foresightedly gazing into the future and predicting exactly what needs to be implemented and introduced in order to obtain the pleasant bonus first. Of course, all this—from the quarrels of amateurs on forums and Facebooks to the clever reports of various think tanks—is ultimately addressed to a caring government, which merely needs to think carefully and pass the right laws.
Of course, the idea of borrowing is not new. The ancient Romans regularly borrowed from the ancient Greeks. Peter the Great and his successors tried to rework something “according to the European model.” However, all this was, so to speak, whims of rulers and legislators. Until relatively recently, this activity lacked an ideological and, I would say, scientific foundation—that is, a concept that would directly point to the necessity and even inevitability of not only modernization but of social engineering as a whole.
Today, the necessity of this engineering seems almost self-evident to most, and the idea we are discussing deserves no small credit for this. And here is something interesting. If you dig down to the primary source of the idea of “change of formations,” it turns out to be Spencer’s “organic theory.” Spencer drew an analogy between the development of society and a living organism. An organism passes through certain mandatory stages in its development, and, as Spencer argued, the same happens with society. I’m not joking. That is how it is. Of course, no one remembers the “organic theory” today, except for scientists whom no one reads. And Spencer’s analogy has long been living its own separate life.
Very well, you might say, Spencer went a bit overboard. But perhaps the idea of “change of formations” rests on some other basis? There are none. This thought appeared against the backdrop of the world of “savage peoples” that opened up to Europeans, and, as it seemed, allowed one to explain why some peoples are “savage” and others are not. However, in various books, from Oppenheimer to Creveld, one can find mentions of anthropological studies that say there are no “stages” at all. Some tribes lived this way. Others lived that way. That’s all. There are different forms of social organization. But there is no linear “phase” dependence between them.
Or let us take another well-known postulate, closely connected with the idea of “change of formations”—about the transition to sedentary agriculture. For instance, James Scott writes that “archaeological evidence has been found that domesticated plants and animals appeared several millennia before the emergence of the first agrarian states.” It turns out that people did not “transition” to agrarian agriculture but happily alternated, depending on the situation, agriculture with hunting and gathering. And they easily changed their place of residence. Rather, one might consider that it was the state that “transitioned” people to sedentary agriculture, and specifically to growing grain, which the state needed for accounting, border control, and taxes. But that is another topic.
All of this leads to the following. Spencer, a man of liberal views, is certainly not to blame for the consequences of his misconception. His error was exploited not because “Spencer himself said so,” but because it was very well suited to the emerging “spirit of the era” at that time, and, as they say, “if Spencer had not existed, it would have been worth inventing him.” Although, of course, it is unknown how things would have turned out without such a convenient idea for social constructors. That is, the root cause is the growth of state regulation and the need to find an ideological, and even better, a scientific basis for this. It is not superfluous to remember this when you read or hear something based on the idea of “change of formations” (and today it is practically impossible to read anything else).
And finally. To be correctly understood, I am not speaking out against “modernization” but against social engineering. In my view, a “soil-based approach” or simply autarky is not opposed to “modernization.” It is simply a variety of the same social-engineering idea. Here the state opens up a vast field of activity for, say, not letting the path of pederasty and pedophilia through and vigorously observing kosher Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality. And all this, like “modernization,” is based on the very same idea of “formations,” with the only difference being that “we do not want this formation.”