Population Expansion and the Social System

Through billions of small-scale social interactions society changes in piecemeal ways and often in contradictory directions. Still, the overall thrust of social change can be discerned. In his 1967 paper "Population Expansion and the Social System,"^[6] Engelmann outlined his basic theory. As the world's population increases people interact with each other more and more frequently due to crowding, migration, and travel. Freedom declines, power exercise at first increases but later abates (see also Engelmann and Cash, 1981),^[7]) and violence becomes boundless.

Beyond a certain point totalitarian power structures eclipse authoritarian ones. Sheer amounts of interaction transform vertical power structures into horizontal ones as more and more people exercise power over each other. In "Orwell, Modern Thought, and Totalitarianism" Engelmann drew a stark distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian societies. "Authoritarian police officials aiming at outward compliance suppress activities considered undesirable. Totalitarian leaders look for inner conviction expressed in positive enthusiasm or contrite confession."

Other 1960s papers

In his paper "A Sociohistorical Perspective for East European Developments"^[8] he made his point even more forcefully, "While totalitarianism derives from psychological rigidity, authoritarian rule depends on external enforcement of regulations through power exercise."

His anthropological views were laid out in "The Activity Bias of Ethnography and the History of Society" (1960).^[9] Researchers are prone to focus on the physical manifestations of people's activity, such as pottery, tools, or weapons, but ignore their experiential patterns. As technology becomes more and more developed researchers all too often conclude that society is increasing in complexity. They ignore the possibility that activity expands at expense to experiential intricacy.

Engelmann's historical perspective was especially evident in "The European Empire: From Charlemagne to the Common Market" (1962).^[10] The geographic similarity between Charlemagne's Empire and that of the Common Market almost twelve-hundred years later was attributed to similar phases of migration patterns. Like the outward expansion of Charlemagne's forces, a similar pattern was noticed in the Common Market. Even Charlemagne's capital, Aachen, is a mere 75 miles from NATO headquarters in Brussels. Matthew Omolesky, in his 2009 article about the European Union, "Between Rome and Byzantium," cites Engelmann's observation about the geographic similarity between the Common Market and Charlemagne's Empire too.

A recurring theme in Engelmann's work refers to professional manipulators engaging others in activity for its own sake regardless of its nature or consequences. In his last paper, "Science under Siege",^[11] he warned of two sorts of religion edging their way into science. The first is the supernaturalist view, the sort of view held by Creationists. The second is more subtle. It is the naturalist view. Advocates of either notion urge us to believe things that cannot be put to the test. Whether God created the heavens and the earth in six days or whether there are parallel universes have nothing whatsoever to do with science no matter how gladly true believers would have it so. Central to all science is the testable hypothesis. If it is not there, we are not talking about science.

Sociology of knowledge

Great theories generate numerous testable hypotheses. Engelmann's theory was very successful in that regard. His hypotheses were on target whether about aggression, random violence, cultural closure, anti-intellectualism, diminishing freedoms, or scientific viewpoints. In the late 1960s when riots were common place and everyone blamed everyone else, Engelmann sought answers to questions no one else was asking. Statistically speaking, how do groups emerge? In terms of probability how can they persist? The questions involve two mathematical curves. One represents the likelihood that a subgroup of a specific size will emerge; the other is the probability that it will persist. The product of the two curves provided the answer for the one-third hypothesis in 1967.^[12] Those groups most likely to emerge and to persist are the ones that amount to one-third of the total population, whether they be ethnic enclaves in the city,^[13] students protesting in the streets, social movements coming to the fore, or local governments on the rise.

Most intriguing was Engelmann's concept central to almost all his hypotheses. Both the intensity and complexity of an average individual's behavior cannot increase simultaneously. As one goes up the other goes down. Twenty-three centuries after Aristotle we find an explanation for his assertion, "If we take intense delight in one thing, we cannot do anything else at all."^[14] We also find that behavioral intensity increases with rising interaction frequency even as complexity declines. Therein lies the source of both power exercise and the widespread approval of it in modern times.

Engelmann's sociology of knowledge carefully distinguished between total relativism and intellectually adequate work. In other words, “…ideas limited by one’s own social position will be biased…Engelmann argued that scientific observations (and laws) are societally invariate--true across the entire society.” ^[15]

In Engelmann's office hung two photos, one of Martin Luther King Jr., the other of Albert Einstein. Each in his own way underscored the fact that society is a network of direct and indirect interactions. Their views on society, which were very similar to those of Engelmann, became many years later the source of an article by one of his former students called "The Preacher and the Physicist".^[16]