The Producing Society / Civilization Distinction
Quigley's foundational distinction between parasitic societies, producing societies, and civilizations — the conceptual move that separates his framework from Toynbee's and Spengler's
Also known as: Producing Society Theory, Two-Level Civilizational Model, Society vs Civilization, Producing vs Parasitic Societies
Before he can deploy the seven-stage model or the instrument-of-expansion theory, Quigley must lay an analytical foundation: not every human society is a civilization, and not every producing society is a civilization. In Chapter 3 of The Evolution of Civilizations he distinguishes parasitic societies (hunters, fishermen, gleaners) from producing societies (agricultural and pastoral peoples), and within producing societies distinguishes simple tribes from civilizations. A civilization, in his analytical definition, is "a producing society with an instrument of expansion" (EoC 129). This stratification — the two-level civilizational model — is the move that lets him treat civilization as a special case of a more general theory of social organization, and it sharply separates him from Toynbee and Spengler.
Statement of the theory
Quigley sets out the distinction systematically in Chapter 3 of The Evolution of Civilizations, "Groups, Societies, and Civilizations." He builds it from the ground up. Aggregates of persons fall into three classes: collections (people momentarily co-located with no established relationships), groups (people whose relationships are identifiable but who relate mostly to outsiders), and societies (people whose relationships are predominantly with one another) (EoC 65). Societies in turn divide into two kinds: "(a) parasitic societies and (b) producing societies. The former are those which live from hunting, fishing, or merely gleaning. By their economic activities they do not increase, but rather decrease, the amount of wealth in the world. The second kind of societies, producing societies, live by agricultural and pastoral activities. By these activities they seek to increase the amount of wealth in the world" (EoC 64). And producing societies in turn divide into two kinds: "simple producing societies like the Zuñi. . .or the Masai. . .and. . .much more complex societies that we call 'civilizations' (like the Chinese, the Aztecs, or ourselves)" (EoC 64). The full taxonomy is a four-level tree: collections, groups, parasitic societies, simple producing societies, and civilizations.
What distinguishes a civilization
Quigley's first attempt at a definition is descriptive: "As a temporary definition, we might say that a civilization is a producing society that has writing and city life" (EoC 64). But he rejects this as inadequate. "Western civilization about A.D. 970 had almost no city life, but still was a stage in a civilization. And Andean civilization, even under the Inca Empire, had no writing, but clearly was a civilization. It is now possible to offer a better, if not perfect, definition of a civilization: 'a producing society with an instrument of expansion'" (EoC 129). The analytical definition replaces the descriptive one. A civilization is therefore not defined by its artifacts (script, walls, monuments) but by its organization — specifically, by whether the society is organized to produce and reinvest surplus. The instrument-of-expansion theory is, in this sense, embedded in the definition of civilization itself: take the instrument away and the civilization decays back into a simple producing society. The seven stages of civilizational evolution are the life-cycle of the instrument; the producing-society substrate persists beneath all of them.
The numbers — a deliberately rare phenomenon
One of the analytical payoffs of the two-level model is that it lets Quigley quantify just how unusual civilization is. "When we examine these three kinds of societies (parasitic, producing, and civilizations), we see that there have been very many parasitic societies, a much smaller number of producing societies, and very few civilizations. As for the relative numbers of each, we might say that there have been hundreds of thousands of the first, at least thousands of the second, but not more than two dozen civilizations" (EoC 65). And: "The fact that there have been no more than two dozen civilizations in almost ten thousand years of cultural mixture of producing societies will indicate how rare this occurrence is" (EoC 133-134). The implication is methodologically important. Civilizational rise is not the normal trajectory of human social development; it is a freak occurrence, conditional on a producing society's stumbling into all three components of an instrument of expansion at once. The reverse — institutionalization and collapse — is the default. Quigley's analytical mood throughout Evolution of Civilizations is therefore not declinist (Spengler) or optimistic (Whig), but sober: continued civilizational expansion is the historical exception, not the rule.
Carbohydrates, geography, and the two-dozen civilizations
The model also organizes Quigley's empirical inventory of historical civilizations. "Of the two dozen civilizations, all of which existed during the last ten thousand years, seven have been alive in recent years, while the rest, amounting to approximately seventeen in number, lived and died long ago. All of them, both living and dead, can be divided into three groups depending upon the carbohydrate plant they produced as an energy food. There were three such foods: maize, rice, and grain (wheat and barley)" (EoC 66). The maize group contains Andean and Mesoamerican; the rice group contains the Sinic, Chinese, Japanese and several Indian and Indonesian; the grain group contains Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Minoan, Classical, Byzantine, Islamic, and Western. The carbohydrate base is the producing-society substrate; the political-economic organization above it is the civilizational structure. Different producing substrates produce different civilizational profiles, but the analytical separation between the two levels — and the consequent applicability of the same seven-stage model across all of them — is what makes a comparative theory possible at all.
Departure from Toynbee and Spengler
The two-level model is the move that distances Quigley most decisively from his predecessors. In the same chapter he summarizes "the various efforts. . .made to find some single, persistent, organic factor which would unite a civilization in itself, distinguish it from other civilizations" (EoC 118-119), naming Spengler's Faustian/Apollonian/Magian souls and Toynbee's challenge-and-response model. "Toynbee saw about two dozen civilizations, not much different from those accepted in this present book" (EoC 119), but where Toynbee treats each civilization as an organic individual whose life is governed by a unique inner principle, Quigley treats civilization as a structural property — the presence of an instrument of expansion — that any producing society can in principle exhibit. The same theory, the same seven stages, the same instrument-vs-institution dynamic applies across all of them. Civilization is, in Quigley's hands, not a metaphysical category but an analytical one. Toynbee appears throughout Evolution of Civilizations as the most distinguished comparative historian working in the field; the producing-society / civilization distinction is what allows Quigley to claim — as the Christian Science Monitor review put it — that he has "reached sounder ground than has Arnold J. Toynbee" (EoC 2).
Cited in
- evolution-of-civilizations · p. 64 Quigley
There are at least two kinds of such societies: (a) parasitic societies and (b) producing societies. The former are those which live from hunting, fishing, or merely gleaning. By their economic activities they do not increase, but rather decrease, the amount of wealth in the world. The second kind of societies, producing societies, live by agricultural and pastoral activities.
- evolution-of-civilizations · p. 64 Quigley
There are simple producing societies like the Zuñi (with agriculture), or the Masai (with pastoral herds), and there are much more complex societies that we call 'civilizations' (like the Chinese, the Aztecs, or ourselves). The distinction between a civilization and an ordinary producing society is not easy to draw.
- evolution-of-civilizations · p. 65 Quigley
A society. . .is made up of persons who have the major part of their relationships with one another. It may be either parasitic or producing, and if it is a producing society it may or may not be a civilization.
- evolution-of-civilizations · p. 65 Quigley
There have been very many parasitic societies, a much smaller number of producing societies, and very few civilizations. As for the relative numbers of each, we might say that there have been hundreds of thousands of the first, at least thousands of the second, but not more than two dozen civilizations.
- evolution-of-civilizations · p. 129 Quigley
Our tentative definition of a civilization was 'a producing society that has writing and city life.' This definition is imperfect because it is descriptive rather than analytical. . . . It is now possible to offer a better, if not perfect, definition of a civilization: 'a producing society with an instrument of expansion.'
- evolution-of-civilizations · p. 119 Quigley
Toynbee saw about two dozen civilizations, not much different from those accepted in this present book. The pattern of change in civilizations presented here consists of seven stages resulting from the fact that each civilization has an instrument of expansion that becomes an institution.
- evolution-of-civilizations · p. 66 Quigley
Of the two dozen civilizations, all of which existed during the last ten thousand years, seven have been alive in recent years, while the rest, amounting to approximately seventeen in number, lived and died long ago. All of them, both living and dead, can be divided into three groups depending upon the carbohydrate plant they produced as an energy food.
- quigley-lectures · p. 50 Quigley
A civilization (5) is a producing society whose patterns include an organization of expansion. This last definition means that a producing society becomes a civilization when it is organized in such a way that its patterns of relationships and behavior provide three things: (a) an incentive to innovate. . .; (b) an inequitable distribution of the social product so that there accumulates within the society a surplus of wealth. . .; and (c) that the society be organized in such a way that the surplus being accumulated is used to mobilize resources to exploit the innovations being made.
- evolution-of-civilizations · p. 133 Quigley
The contributing societies may be civilizations or merely producing societies (agricultural or pastoral) or merely parasitic societies (with hunting or fishing). Of the millions of cases of such cultural mixture that are occurring all the time, only rarely does there appear a new society. And even more rarely does this new society become organized in such a way that it is a producing society with an instrument of expansion.