CC BY
29
270 Social Evolution & History / March 2008
FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ‘HIERARCHYAND POWER IN THEHISTORY OF CIVILIZATIONS’
June 23-26 2009, Moscow, Russia
Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies of the Institute for African Studies under the Russian Academy of Sciences in co-operation with the School of History, Political Science and Law of the Russian State University for the Humanities is organizing in Moscow on June 23-26, 2009 the Fifth International Conference ‘Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations’.The deadline for paper proposals (in the form of abstracts within 300 words in English) is November 1, 2008. Paper proposals should be sent not to the Organizing Committee but directly to the respective panel convenor(s) who is (are) to inform the applicant about his or her application's fortune by December 1, 2008. The information to be submitted alongside with the paper abstract includes full name, title, institutional affiliation, full mail and e-mail addresses, and fax. Here we present just a few of 29 panels of the conference. For more information, please, visit http://www.conf2009.ru.
Panel. MACROEVOLUTION: HIERARCHY, STRUCTURE, LAWS,
AND SELF-ORGANIZATION Convenors:_ 1) Leonid E. Grinin, PhD, the Volgograd Center for Social Studies. E-mail: [email protected]; 2) Alexander V. Markov, PhD, Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. E-mail: [email protected]. 3) Akop P. Nazaretyan, PhD (psychology, philosophy); Institute of Oriental Studies. E-mail: anazaret@ yandex.ru 4) Fred Spier, Dr., Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies University of Amsterdam. E-mail: [email protected]
ANNOTATION: It is increasingly realized today that interdisciplinary research has a great potential. The study of evolution belongs to a great degree to this type of research. The proposed panel is aimed at bringing together major scholars investigating different type of evolution in order to exchange the results and unify the efforts. The panel is supposed to consider cosmological, chemical, biological and socio-cultural macroevolution as both consecutive and co-existing types of macroevolution. We believe that this is a very important form of interdisciplinary cooperation, which may well help to achieve a better understanding of the trends, patterns, mechanisms, and peculiarities exhibited by all these different types of evolution. The experience gained with using ideas originating within one particular type of macroevolution (e.g., biological evolution) for the study of another type of macroevolution (e.g. social macroevolution) indicates that such an approach can be very fruitful. In fact, in certain respects it appears possible to consider macroevolution as one single process. In this case it is especially important to understand the underlying regularities and laws, although some of these regularities and laws can be rather different, depending on the concrete entity evolving (cosmic, biological, or social).
We suggest the following range of topics for discussion: 1) comparisons between cosmic, chemical, biological, and social evolution; 2) general issues within Big History; 3) the evolution of evolutionary theories; 4) particular types of macroevolution, or macroevolution ‘at the border between two domains’ (e.g. with respect to ethology or biochemistry); 5) other topics, such as linguistic, cultural, epistemological, or psychological macroevolution.
Fifth International Conference 271
Panel. ANALYSES OF CULTURAL EVOLUTION Convenors: 1) Prof. Herbert Barry III, Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy. E-mail: [email protected] 2) Prof. Douglas R. White, Ph.D. University of California. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 3) Prof. Andrey Korotayev, Ph.D. ‘Anthropology of the East’ Center, Russian State University for the Humanities. E-mail: [email protected]
ANNOTATION: Prior verbal theories of cultural evolution have led to empirically testable mathematical models of this process. The panel is aimed at discussion of further scientific methods for studying cultural evolution, in general, and adaptive evolution of governmental extension and selection, in particular. During the past several thousand years, many independent communities have aggregated or been conquered to form portions of a chiefdom, nation, or empire. Other communities remained independent for many centuries. Some empires and nations have split into smaller aggregations. Methods of choosing a new leader of a community or nation include hereditary succession, conquest, selection by elite members, and a formal election by some or all adults. Adaptive evolution can be inferred when changes in cultural customs and in environmental conditions cause changes in governance methods. New governance methods cause adaptive changes in other cultural customs. Different governance methods are associated with differences in education of children and adolescents. Various techniques are available for analyzing adaptive evolution. The same communities or nations can be compared at different times. Similarities or differences after separation from the same antecedent society can be identified in communities or nations. Measures of governance methods, education, and other customs are available on a world sample of 186 societies. Mathematical models of cultural evolution are especially desirable but contributions without such models are also welcome.
Panel. GLOBALIZATION: RESHAPING THE RESEARCH AGENDA Convenors: Prof. Fantu Cheru (The Nordic African Institute, Uppsala, Sweden; E-mail: [email protected]); Prof. Vladimir Shubin (Institute for African Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail: [email protected];
ANNOTATION: Writings on globalization are rapidly proliferating. Yet systematic research on globalization is only slightly more than a decade in the making. It is connected to, but differs from, forerunner studies of world history, social theory, and related branches of international relations. Globalization studies has emerged as a means to explain the myriad features of worldwide restructuring in the last 20 and early 21s centuries. Notwithstanding major theoretical innovations, as a field of study, globalization is more of a potential than a refined framework, worldview, kit of tools and methods, and mode of resolving questions. Surely there are grounds for discontent with globalization studies. To some critics, globalization is seen as a promiscuous concept, one that cries out for ore analytical precision and empirical rigor. Moreover, globalization is sometimes deemed over determined - too abstract, too structural, and insufficiently attentive to agency. Not only does globalization seem to be too blunt a tool, but what does it leave out? What is not globalization? What is the effect of globalisation in different regions? How do different forces respond to it?
These complaints are formidable challenges to globalization researchers. Of course, these scholars are not univocal. There are different interpretations and considerable contestation. But what are the different responses to the discomfort with this emerging field? Where to go from here, and what are the most promising research strategies?
