+LVWRU\DQG%LRORJLFDO(YROXWLRQ

$XWKRUV(GJDU=LOVHO
6RXUFH3KLORVRSK\RI6FLHQFH9RO1R-DQSS
3XEOLVKHGE\The University of Chicago PressRQEHKDOIRIWKHPhilosophy of Science Association
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/184467 .
$FFHVVHG
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Philosophy of Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy of Science.

http://www.jstor.org

History

and

Biological

Evolution

BY

EDGAR ZILSEL
HAT is the relationship of history to the phylogenetic evolution of man? Historians, like all
specialists, are wont to restrict themselves to
their own problems and, therefore, do not deal
with this question. Only some popular books
on the history of the world cross the dividing
line between social and natural science. They start with the
origin of the solar system, describe the development of the crust
of the earth and of life, turn to prehistoric civilization and
ancient Egypt, and eventually finish with the history of present
times. It is striking that those expositions become more and
more detailed the nearer they come to their end. Near the
beginning one page describes ten million years, near the end
ten months.
Dividing lines between different sciences have barred scientific
progress so often, that it certainly is useful and even necessary
to consider history from a naturalist's point of view. But if this
is done, it must be done correctly. Since the crust of the earth
became solid i or 2 X Io9 years have passed, whereas the whole
history of mankind since the period of the first Egyptian and
Sumerian kings until present times has lasted about 5000 years.
So "geological" to "historical" time is as 300,000 to I. History,
therefore, even from the naturalist's point of view is scarcely one
section among other sections of the evolution of life. To think
e.g. that the biological rise of mammals during the tertiary period
and the political rise of Germany since I933 belong to one line
of evolution is the same as to consider the transition from winter
B~t-~-~

121

122

History and Evolution

to summer a continuation of the dying away of the glacial

period.
How would natural scientists view the problem? When a
scientist who is investigating the interdependence of some
quantities records the results of his observations in graphic form,
he usually gets a curve which is not smooth, but is disturbed by
convexities of various sizes. In analyzing this result he has to
separate the trend of the main curve from the convexities and
the large convexities from the superimposed smaller ones. Without carrying through the separation he never will be able to find
the natural laws which he is looking for, for differences of orders
of magnitude always give a hint that effects are superimposed
the causes of which are different. To illustrate: when one studies
the movement of stars, he has to separate their circular movement during a day, their tiny oscillations during a year, and the
extremely slow movements by which the shapes of the constellations are changed during a thousand years. The daily circular
movement is based on the daily rotation of the earth, the annual
oscillations are caused by the annual revolution of the earth
around the sun in connection with the aberration of light and
the parallax, and the slow secular shiftings are the peculiar
movements of the stars by which they wander through space.
Without the separation of those movements belonging to different orders of magnitude there can be no scientific astronomy,
for quite different causes and different natural laws correspond
to them. It would be easy to add more examples, but the
given one may be sufficient.
? 2. Let us apply this to history. In the end the historical
evolution of mankind is enclosed in the astrophysical evolution
of our galaxy. If, therefore, we start from this evolution we can
take out of it the evolution of our solar system and out of this
the geological evolution of the earth, each process belonging to
a different order of magnitude and, therefore, needing its own
method of research. In the development of the earth the origin
and the evolution of life is a partial process which again has its
own laws and includes among others the genesis of man. So we
have reached man, but events connected with man can be ob-

E. Zilsel

I23

served and explored more in detail. If we observe animals in

intervalsof about Ioo,ooo years, we can notice their phylogenetic
variations. E.g. we notice the phylogenetic variation of man
by comparingthe skulls of pithecanthropus,of Heidelbergman
and of recentman. On the other hand distinct variationsappear
in human behavior within one hundredyears. As to mankind,
therefore,finer and very remarkableprocessesare superimposed
upon its phylogenetic variations. Those processes are marked
by the fact that they happen, vanish, and change with much
greater velocity than biological changes. They belong to a
special order of magnitude, thereforethey are subject to special
laws and the researchon them and their causes requiresspecial
methods. Those very changes,joined together,form the History
of Mankind. Even faster processes, lasting about minutes,
occur with human individuals: these are the biological and
psychologicalreactionsof men. And we could even descend to

molecular and atomic processes, if we like to take human individuals to pieces and if it is required.
We may, of course, also begin the construction the other way
round with those processes which are fastest. We could begin
with the reactions of human individuals. Then the secular
variations of these reactions would form history. And we should
get biological evolution, if we comprehend man and the other
animals and if we inquire into their variations by one order of
magnitude slower. To history at any rate we have assigned a
special province among human occurrences. I'he realm of
history comprehendshuman occurrencesand their causes which are
slower by one degreethan the reactions of the individuals andfaster
by one degree than biological evolution. Thus we have stated, as
it were, a definition of history.
We have to add a few remarks. First: our "definition" of
history is behavioristic as it does not speak of the mental world,
but of the reactions of men and their changes, and even more it
is only quantitative. Some philosophers, especially German
ones, emphasize that history is entirely different from natural
science, that it is a "mental" science, a "Geisteswissenschaft,"
and they infer from this that there are no historical laws. When

124

History and Evolution

the relationship of history to science is discussed, usually the

concepts of mental phenomenon and value are introduced by
these philosophersand the discussion approachesmore or less
metaphysics. We have tried to avoid this and to give its due to
the peculiarity of history by a quantitative criterion only and
without involving metaphysics.
Secondly we have to realize that in empirical science it is
neither usual nor useful to start by giving a definition of the
subject that is to be treated. No physicist would begin the
theory of electromagnetismby defining what electricity is: he
will ratherstart by explainingthe equationsof Maxwell. Therefore, we shall have to prove that our "definition"of history is not
at all scholasticand sterile, but is able to discloseessential points
of the historicalprocess. Since in history, as well as elsewhere,
peculiar laws and causes correspondto the peculiar order of
magnitude,we shall be able to show that it is the differencebetween tradition and heredity that correspondsto the different
velocities of historical and biological evolutions referred to in
our definition. Obviously phylogeneticevolution goes on much
slower than historical evolution, because and only because
heredity is a much more powerfulbrakethan traditionis. Likewise we shall see that on the other hand the differenceof velocity
between historical changes and the reactions of individuals is
closely connectedwith the fact that historicalprocessesare social
events. Certainly such secular changes of reactions and habits
as form the subject of history would not occur among mere
hermits; these changes need reciprocalinfluence between many
individuals. Only in societies is there tradition and therefore
evolutionwith historicalvelocity. So our quantitativedefinition
which at first might have seemed to be superficialand sterile
disclosesthe fact that history is a social not an individualprocess
the velocity of which is determinedby the resistanceof tradition
not of heredity.
Thirdly we have to notice that the characteristicvelocity of
history is a peculiarityof mankind that distinguishesman from
animals. E.g. changes of languagecan be observedafter one or
two centuries and, therefore,belong to the historical processes.
Alfred the Great, speakingold Saxon, would not be able to make

E. Zilsel

125

himself understood to the man in the street of today's England,

but our dogs certainly bark quite in the same way as the AngloSaxon dogs did and no doubt even many men are still alive who
entirely resemble the contemporaries of King Alfred as to biological marks and reactions. The example shows that only
man possesses reactions which are plastic enough to change
within a century and, therefore, are studied by history and
sociology. This does not depend at all on the fact that man
forms societies, but it simply means that only man produces
civilization. Also in societies of bees there is a technique of
building as in human societies and there are dances which in
some way correspond, as the biologist von Frisch has shown, to
human language. No doubt, also those social reactions have
changed and developed, for the bees descend from solitary
hymenoptera and even today various species of hymenoptera have
reached quite different stages of evolution in their social habits.
But, certainly, those evolutions lasted not centuries but periods
of a geological order of magnitude. We may, therefore, affirm
that man is the only historical animal. Or, what means the
same, only man produces civilization.
? 3. The difference between history and biology is illustrated
rather well by the difference between nation and race or, to use
a term less ambiguous, variety. Except for the Chinese there
is no nation today which is much older than a thousand years,
for nations rise, develop, change, and vanish within a few centuries. A thousand years ago there were no English but only
Celts and Anglo-Saxons and Danes and Normans. These are
nations or nationlike groups and are products of history. Human
varieties on the other hand, being products of biological evolution,
behave quite differently. Also the various human "races" must
have changed and developed for they most probably descend
from the same species of ape. But within historical periods the
physical types of man seem to be quite unchangeable. We can
not discuss however the relationship between nation and physical
type in greater detail. We wish rather to discuss the different
laws which are valid in "racial" evolution on the one hand and in
national evolution on the other.
The circumstances and laws by which species and varieties

126

History and Evolution

arise and change are not yet clear. The better known are the
circumstances and laws under which physical types persevere,
the better known is heredity and its laws. We know that the
transmission of physical qualities is based on the fact that the
genes of the germ-cells are carried over materially from the
parents to the offspring and we know the laws of Mendel according to which "racial" qualities are distributed among the
descendants, if the parents belong to different physical types.
All those results of genetics, as generally known, are valid for
men too.
But in human societies complicated finer processes are superimposed upon the rough biological events. Obviously national
continuity connecting generations is based not on heredity but on
those finer processes. Let us e.g. suppose all Spanish documents
and manifestations of language, literature, architecture, and so
on destroyed, but the children by some miracle kept alive, growing
up and propagating. There is no doubt that the children will
transmit the physical qualities of their ancestors to their offspring according to Mendel's laws, but certainly there will be
no longer any Spaniards. We do not say tradition is sufficient
to preserve nationality, for nations fill up gaps and increase
more or less preponderantly by their own biological descendants.
Physical type and heredity, therefore, are not altogether unimportant for the maintenance of nationality: race-philosophy,
if it says this, contains a grain of truth. But at any rate the
bond of tradition is necessary if nations are to persevere, for
nations are annihilated, if this bond is cut through.
Tradition differs entirely from heredity and follows different
laws. If you cross red-flowering and white-flowering peas, three
quarters of the offspring are red, one quarter is white and so on,
according to Mendel's laws. On the other hand, when a Slovak
marries a Hungarian woman, it will depend on much more
complicated laws to which nation the children and the children's
children will belong. Unfortunately these laws are so complicated that the scientists have not been able yet to find them.
But when they will have succeeded, then they will have found a
law of tradition, a sociological law, a historical law. For all

E. Zilsel

127

historical and sociological processes depend on tradition. All

objects, the changes of which are studied by historians, like
e.g. customs, languages, religions, styles of arts, political aims and
institutions, are transferred from one generation to the next one
not by begetting. Civilization is a texture of rather complicated
human reactions which are not hereditary, but are acquired
many years after birth owing to the influence of example and
teaching. Now we can understand why the velocity of history
belongs to a different order of magnitude than the velocity of
biological evolution. As we have stated, this difference is based
on the fact that the laws of tradition entirely differ from the
laws of heredity.
Likewise we can understand now why man is the only historical
animal. Let us remember the difference between reflexes and
spontaneous actions. Reflexes and instincts-for instincts are
nothing else than chains of reflexes-respond to external stimulation with rigid and unchangeable reactions. On the other hand
many reactions can be checked, conditioned, and modified by
former experiences: they may become plastic and may even
adapt themselves to circumstances, if circumstances vary. In
this case we call them spontaneous actions. Only reflexes and
instincts can be inherited, whereas spontaneous actions are influenced by example and teaching and can be transmitted to the
next generation by and only by tradition. Physiologically
reflexes and instincts are based upon nervous processes in the
spinal cord and the interior parts of the brain, whereas in spontaneous actions always also cortical processes are involved. As
in man the cortex of the brain is more highly developed than in
any other animal, in human behavior spontaneous actions play
the most important part.
The more the inherited instincts recede into the background,
the more it becomes necessary that the animal develop its
behavior and acquire its habits after birth. Therefore human
babies and children take much longer time than newborn animals
to become able to maintain their lives by themselves. Two
more circumstances contribute to this special position of take.
Firstly, man, like all mammals and many other animals, mans

128

History and Evolution

care of his new-born and half grown offspring. Secondly, man

lives in groups and like all gregarious animals is endowed with
instincts of imitation. He is not only able to, he is also inclined
to learn. Thus human children are always born in communities
of grown up people and are cared for and influenced by them
through many years. Therefore reactions and habits of one
human generation are always transmitted by example and education to the next one. Were man like ants to possess only
instincts instead of choice, were they like cockchafers to leave
their new-born offspring to their fate, were they like moles to
live isolated, there would be no tradition, no civilization, and
no history.
International Institute of Social Research, New York City.