Guilt Economics: Rediscovering the Civilizing Process

The (Re-) Appearance Of Guilt As A Socio-Economic 'Tool'

The usefulness of self-control mechanisms in order to align individual and collective behavior with social order is always there, regardless the form of the society and its degree of maturity. What changes is the degree at which self-control is necessary – as Elias pointed out – and the mechanisms that impose it.

According to the theory of social evolutionism (from the traditional contributions of Auguste Comte, Edward Burnett Tylor, Lewis Henry Morgan, Benjamin Kidd and Herbert Spencer in the 19^th century till the work of Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse in the beginning of the 20^th and even the school of Neoevolutionism in the second half of the 20^th century; Leslie A. White, 1957 and Julian H. Steward, 1955), society and human history progresses in subsequent, non-repeatable, unique forms and structures.

Nevertheless, social progress (meant in a positive rather than normative sense) does not necessarily imply a linear, monotone course of evolution. Cycles that repeat a certain format of development can (and do) appear in the frame of each specific socioeconomic paradigm. Korotayev et.al. (2006) and Turchin (2003), as well as together with Korotayev (2006) established the dominant model in the social cycle theory. Although this is mainly based on the sociodemographic development of the whole population and also of the elites (which, from a socioeconomic point of view, may be seen as a limitation), it provides a suitable framework for introducing the evolution of self-control mechanisms within the life cycle of a certain social paradigm.

Figure 1.

Guilt within the “life-cycle” of a social paradigm