MargaretArcher – Rational-Understanding.com

In today’s world, where rapid shifts and long-standing transformations constantly reshape society, Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Approach provides an insightful framework for understanding how and why these changes occur. Archer’s theory blends two powerful drivers of change: the immediate impact of crises and the gradual force of cultural evolution.

The Morphogenetic Approach: A Dynamic Model of Change

At its core, the Morphogenetic Approach emphasises that societies are not static; they continuously balance between forces of stability (morphostasis) and forces of transformation (morphogenesis). Archer’s framework views social change as a cycle involving structure, culture, and agency (the choices and actions of individuals and groups). These elements interact in ways that either maintain the status quo or drive change.

The key to Archer’s approach is recognising that social change often emerges from a combination of slow, cumulative shifts in cultural values and sudden, disruptive events or crises.

Change Through Crises: Shock-Driven Transformations

Crises, whether economic, environmental, political, or social, act as powerful catalysts for immediate change. In Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle, crises create a state of instability, exposing the weaknesses or tensions in existing structures and norms. For example, events like economic recessions, wars, or pandemics disrupt daily life and often prompt societies to rethink and restructure. These shocks can lead to rapid transformations in governance, social policies, or cultural practices as societies seek to adapt and restore stability.

Archer’s framework highlights that while crises trigger change, their impact is shaped by the broader context: how agents respond and what cultural or structural elements already exist. After a crisis, the need for quick solutions often accelerates long-standing issues or cultural shifts that have been simmering under the surface.

Cultural Evolution: The Power of Gradual Change

While crises provoke immediate change, cultural evolution represents the slow but steady accumulation of social change over time. Values, norms, and practices evolve gradually, often without immediate disruption. For instance, shifts in attitudes toward equality, environmental sustainability, or technology influence society’s trajectory long before they lead to visible transformations in policy or behaviour.

Archer emphasises that this gradual cultural evolution builds up a latent pressure for change, setting the stage for future transformations. When a crisis occurs, these cultural shifts often come to the forefront, giving a sense of direction to the post-crisis adaptations. In other words, cultural evolution is the groundwork that makes societies ready for change when crises hit.

A Cyclical and Interdependent Process

In the Morphogenetic Cycle, change through crises and cultural evolution are interdependent. As cultural values evolve, they make society more susceptible to or resilient against certain types of crises. When crises occur, they provide opportunities to accelerate cultural shifts that were already underway. This cyclical process—where slow changes meet sudden shocks—creates a dynamic, ever-evolving society that adapts to its environment and reshapes itself over time.

Why Archer’s Theory Matters

The Morphogenetic Approach helps us understand why social change often seems both inevitable and unpredictable. It acknowledges that while deep-rooted values gradually shift, sudden disruptions can alter our world almost overnight. By recognising the importance of both crises and cultural evolution, Archer’s model gives us a comprehensive view of social change that resonates with the complexities of real-world societies.

In a world facing constant challenges, from climate change to technological revolutions, Archer’s Morphogenetic Approach reminds us that change is not only possible but natural—and that our societies are constantly evolving, shaped by the interplay of crises and culture.

Continuing Archer’s Work

Archer’s theory remains influential, continued today by scholars within the Critical Realism Network https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrealismnetwork, who apply her ideas to explore and address contemporary challenges.

In every nation or organisation, leaders with dark personality traits, i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, or Machiavellianism, are more likely to rise to power than others. The primary interest of leaders with these traits is self-interest, rather than the interest of members of the nation or organisation that they lead. This frees them from ethical constraints when competing for leadership positions. It also frees them from the same constraints when determining the actions of their nation or organisation.

The reactions of members of the nation or organisation to dark leadership are as follows (Challoner, 2024).

They can support the leader. This involves entering into an informal contract with him or her to provide support and assistance in return for the benefits of delegated power.
They can practice a psychological defence mechanism such as denial. That is a failure to acknowledge that the leader has dark personality traits, despite evidence to the contrary.
They can avoid the leader by, for example, emigrating to another nation or joining another organisation. This is also, a psychological defence mechanism.
They can oppose the leader. However, this brings with it the risk of contra-satisfiers such as coercion, threats, or punishments.

The relative proportions of people who react in these ways depends on the culture of the nation or organisation. So, for example, if a culture regards the leader’s behaviour as normal or acceptable, the proportion that support him or her will be greater than in a culture that does not.

However, the greater the proportion of the population that support a dark leader, the lower the proportion that opposes him or her, and the more overt and extreme his or her behaviour will be. Furthermore, if they die or are deposed, it is more likely that another dark leader will take their place. On the other hand, the greater the opposition to a dark leader, the less overt and extreme his or her behaviour. However, the greater the tendency for denial and avoidance. So, dark leadership can still exist in nations and organisations that generally oppose it.

The English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar’s Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA) recognises that society has two main strands: (a) the network of relationships and interactions between individuals and groups that forms the structure of society and is the subject of sociology; and (b) the individual human volition or agency that is the subject of psychology (Collier, 1994). A similar model, proposed by the English Sociologist, Margaret Archer, comprises three strands: Structure, Culture and Agency (Archer, 1995). In both models there is a feedback process in which society enculturates individuals and individuals enculture society. That is, society forms the individual’s role, values, norms, and beliefs through the processes of socialisation, social learning, cultural manipulation, etc. After a time delay and, sometimes, after alteration, individuals then propagate social structure along with their values, norms, and beliefs, into society. This process is continuously ongoing. Although it can result in social change, it is also possible for society to become trapped in a positive feedback loop in which, for example, a population’s reaction to dark leadership becomes ever more biassed towards support or opposition.

Examples are given in Daren Acemoglu and James A Robinson’s excellent and well researched book, “Why Nations Fail”. This book focuses on extractive, as opposed to inclusive institutions. That is, those institutions that extract wealth from a society for the benefit of a minority or external agents, as opposed to those that share it more equitably within the society. Institutions are groups or organisations that have values, norms, and beliefs. They also have a specific function in society, e.g., water supply or policing. So, an institution comprises both culture and structure. In much the same way as Bhaskar and Archer, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that there is a feedback loop between institutions and individuals that can trap a society in an extractive or an inclusive mode. They refer to the former as a vicious circle and the latter as a virtuous one.

However, extraction vs. inclusive institutions are just one example of vicious vs. virtuous circles. Other examples include: imperialism vs. respect for other nations; war vs. peaceful co-existence; corruption vs. integrity; elitism vs. egalitarianism; and extreme economic inequality vs. its alternative. Many nations and organisations currently behave in the former ways, and I will leave the reader to decide which. However, this behaviour is ultimately a result of support for dark leadership and the vicious circle that it creates. Pre-existing social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that allow these behaviours to flourish are learnt by individuals who, in turn, propagate them unaltered.

So, to avoid extraction, imperialism, war, corruption, extreme economic inequality, etc., it is necessary to alter the culture from one that supports it to one that opposes it. That change can be accomplished by demonstrating to those who support dark leadership that there is a better way to satisfy their needs. This, of course, means the provision of real opportunities for them to do so. In this way, the social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that prevent extraction, etc. from flourishing will be learnt and propagated, and a virtuous circle will be established. There will, of course, be resistance by established vested interests. So, the process will be a slow one requiring much care, patience, and persistence.

References

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A., 2012, “Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”. London, Profile Books.

Archer, M., 1995. “Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Challoner, J.A., 2024. “A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology Ecology and Evolution (Parts 1, 2 & 3) ”. https://rational understanding.com/my-books/

Collier, A. 1994. “Critical Realism. An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy.” Verso, London, UK. ISBN 0-86091-437-2.