Odum classification

In hmolscience, Odum classification is a general materialism based social philosophy historical, grouped by era, given by Howard W. Odum (1929), largely based on the early mechanistic school classification of Pitirim Sorokin (1928), with two updated eras added in by Libb Thims (2016).

In 1929, Howard W. Odum, in his An Introduction to Social Research, §2, §§: “Fallacies of Pure Analogy” (pgs. 48-49), digresses on the question of making “analogies between physical science and social sciences”, in respect to whether these are “pure analogy”, see: pure analogy fallacy (Ѻ), figurative analogy, or real analogy; then, after stating that the social sciences gain in the development of their methodology along with gains made in the methodology of the physical sciences, he gives the following very-condensed statement, which seems to be an attempt at abstracting the history of physical sciences based sociology, up to his day: [1][N1]



Greek era“As a matter of fact, this attempt to make of the social sciences merely adaptations of the physical sciences is not new. The classical social theorists as, germinated in the old social philosophers surmised and made hypotheses a plenty about the human and social organism and the forces which knit, it together and pull it apart. Psychical and social phenomena were interpreted by Greek philosophers [Empedocles (450BC), Epicurus (270BC), Lucretius (55BC), etc.] in theories of materialistic atomism. Epicurus 75

Dark ageReligious Theogony

Renaissance era Hobbes [1651], Spinoza [1676], Descartes [1620], and others attempted to study man as a kind of physical automatonlife a regular functioning mechanistic unit, death its wreck. Thus we find that the conspicuous seventeenth century in which physics, mechanics, and mathematics flourished was notable also for the carrying over of methods and conclusions into the social field. From his limited results and his uneven success in his efforts et exquirire et docere causas rerum [and required to teach causes] the physical scientist has attempted to discover the unknowable in terms of cosmic philosophy, and failing that has turned to the social field, still attempting to utilize his old methods of physical science or speculative philosophy.Thomas Hobbes 75

Social physics eraAnd the mechanistic social theorists, how they tried to make a mathematical or an astronomical, or physical mass out of human society! Sperktorsky made an astronomical human order with the human being an attraction and compulsion of conations, society a system of individuals, so attracted or repelled, mankind a system of the attraction and compulsion of groups. Others made elaborate systems of dimensional proportions, with time, space, extension as elements. Bentham [1789] had moral arithmetic, Herbart [1825] (Ѻ) mechanistic psychology, Berkeley [1713] a theory of moral attraction and social stability. The physicists found centrifugal forces in egoism, and centripetal forces in social instincts. Saint-Simon [1817] interpreted society in terms of Newton's laws of gravitation; and so on for many other types up to Comte's [1842] social statics and dynamics and Quetelet's [1835] statistical measurement of man.Auguste Comte 75

Strait-jacket eraCarey's [1858] mechanistic monism was not unlike theories of many others who tried to subject human association to the laws of physics and mechanics, or theories of energetics which make energy the fundamental force, or like Winiarsky [1900] make social aggregates nothing but a system of points and atoms being repelled and attracted through biochemical energy.”Leon Winiarski 75

Two cultures era Into the early to mid 20th century, it became apparent that modern universities and cultures were becoming a “house divided” (Judson Herrick, 1930), cleaved and split, by a “barrier” (John Dewey, 1938), which came to be dubbed the “two cultures” (Charles Snow, 1959). In this period, a few, e.g. Vilfredo Pareto (1912), Lawrence Henderson (1930s), Edwin Wilson (1935), John Q. Stewart (1950s), tried to fix the house; but to no avail. The end of WWII, as some have reported, worked to switch focus to Marxism; the general subject seeming to inter thereafter, haunted, in some sense, by crackpot labellers, straight-jacket taboos (see: Stark classification), and closet atheism.Lawrence Henderson 75

New house era Into the late 20th century, a newer breed of thinkers, including: Frederick Rossini (1971), Norman Dolloff (1975), Jurgen Mimkes (1995), Malcolm Gladwell (2000), Christopher Hirata (2001), Thomas Wallace (2009), began to emerge; which, in the wake of the following events and or inventions: Internet (mid 1990s), econophysics (1995) and sociophysics (2008) conferences , 9/11 (2001), Wikipedia (2004), new atheism (2004), YouTube (2005), Google Books (2007), Zeitgeist (2007), Hmolpedia (2008), etc., all interlaced with ongoing religious-based global terrorism, a new awake fervent blend of realism-based publications and presentations of the the "atheist who is finally speaking up" (Dave Rubin, 2015) variety, of the atheism-explicit physicochemical materialism seems to be arising. Libb Thims (2013) 75

This is a very interesting abstract indeed; though, to note, it seems to be, in large part, a truncation of the mechanistic school portions of Pitirim Sorokin's richly-cited Contemporary Sociological Theories (1928), who discusses the works of some 1,000+ scholars, as Odum notes.

See also
Stark classification
● Sorokin classification

N1. (a) Odum, of note, footnotes this dense quote with "see chapter 8 for further discussion and references".
(b) Thims (2016) divided Odum’s abstract into four eras; the latter of which, namely: “straight-jacket era” is based on the stark classification (1962) ideology.
(c) The 1965 Max Gluckman quote: “A science is any discipline in which the fool of this generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of the last generation” comes to mind here; Carey and Winiarski are the so-labeled straight-jacket fools that went beyond the genius of the social physics generation; little cultural progress has been made since (see: crackpot; detractors; attack).
(d) Note: the "two cultures era" and "9/11 era" sections were added in by Libb Thims (21 Apr 2016) to make the Odum abstract more complete and up-to-date.

1. Odum, Howard W. and Jocher, Katharine C. (1929). An Introduction to Social Research (thermodynamics, pgs. 108-109; spirit, 31+ pgs). H. Holt and Co.

TDics icon ns

More pages