Goethe | 1809 | Winiarski | 1898 | ||
Beg | 1987 | Thims | 2015 | ||
A representative selection of physicochemical sociology turning "physicochemical humanities" centric books, all employing the methodology of using the principles of the physicochemical sciences as a basis to understand and interpret social phenomena. |
“The social system thus defined and characterized is clearly an instrument that may be employed, within limits, similar to those explained [by Gibbs] for the physico-chemical system, in studying all the subjects of the first class (history, literature, economics, sociology, law, politics, theology, education, etc.). For like history, literature, law, and theology, all these subjects are conversant with the interactions of individuals in their manifold relations, with their sentiments and interests, with their sayings and doings, while none can dispense with considerations of the mutual dependence of many factors.”— Lawrence Henderson (1935), Pareto’s General Sociology: a Physiologist’s Interpretation [7]
“Researching the analogy of physical chemistry to sociological studies of human societies is a very attractive area particularly assuming the role of thermodynamic links, which can be functional until the relation between inherent particles and independent people, is overcome by the conscious actions of humans because people are not so easily classifiable as are mere chemicals. Such feedback between the human intimate micro-world to the societal macro-state can change the traditional form of thermodynamic functions, which, nevertheless, are here considered only in a preparatory stage of feelings. Therefore this sociology-like contribution can be classified as a very first though rather simplified approach to the problem whose more adequate solution will not, hopefully, take another century [2105] as was the development of the understanding of heat and the development of the concept of the early elements.”
“Everything in this universe has its regular waves and tides. Electricity, sound, the wind, and I believe every part of organic nature will be brought someday within this law. The laws which govern animated beings will be ultimately found to be at bottom the same with those which rule inanimate nature, and as I entertain a profound conviction of the littleness of our kind, and of the curious enormity of creation, I am quite ready to receive with pleasure any basis for a systematic conception of it all. I look for regular tides in the affairs of man, and, of course, in our own affairs. In ever progression, somehow or other, the nations move by the same process which has never been explained but is evident in the oceans and the air. On this theory I should expect at about this time, a turn which would carry us backward.”— Henry Adams (1863), “Letter to Charles Gaskell” (Oct) [1]
“Social chemistry—the mutual attraction of equivalent human molecules—is a science yet to be created, for the fact is my daily study and only satisfaction in life.”— Henry Adams (1885), “Letter to Clover Adams” (Apr 12) [2]
“On the physico-chemical law of development and dynamics, our society has reached what is called the critical point where it is near a new phase or equilibrium.”— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Charles Gaskell” (Sep 27) [3]
American historian Henry Adams spent some five decades (1863-1910) self-educating himself about how to go about reformulating the study of the humanities, the rise and falls of civilizations and history in particular, in terms of pure physics and chemistry, people defined explicitly as either "molecules" (see: human molecule) or "phases" (see: human phase or social phase), depending, a subject he defined as "physico-chemical social dynamics" (aka physicochemical humanities), even going so far as to recruit one of Willard Gibbs' graduate students, namely Henry Bumstead, to read and review his drafts on the phase rule applied to history. |
“The solution of mind is certainly in the magnet.”— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Gaskell (or Cameron (check))” (Sep)
“I have run my head hard up against a form of mathematics that grinds my brains out. I flounder like a sculpin in the mud. It is called the ‘law of phases’, and was invented at Yale [by Gibbs]. No one shall persuade me that I am not a phase.”— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Elizabeth Cameron” (Sep 29) [4]
“I’m looking for a ‘young and innocent physico-chemist who wants to earn a few dollars by teaching an idiot what is the first element of theory and expression in physics.’”— Henry Adams (1908), “Note to John Jameson” (Dec) [3]
“My essay ‘The Rule of Phase [Applied to History]’ is a ‘mere intellectual plaything, like a puzzle’ [to Brooks]. I am interested in getting it into the hands of a ‘scientific, physico-chemical proofreader’ and I am willing to pay ‘liberally for the job’ [to Jameson].”— Henry Adams (1909), Notes to Brooks Adams and John Jameson [3]
“I have been studying science for ten years past, with keen interest, noting down my phrases of mind each year; and every new scientific method I try, shortens my view of the future. The last—thermodynamics—fetches me out on sea-level within ten years. I’m sorry Lord Kelvin is dead. I would travel a few thousand-million miles to discuss with him the thermodynamics of socialistic society. His law is awful in its rigidity and intensity of result.”— Henry Adams (1909), “Letter to Charles Gaskell” (May 2) [5]
“There are no laws in history similar to the laws of physico-chemical science. The causality of history is teleological.”
“This mumbo-jumbo of medieval phraseology connecting causality with purpose in history is another evidence of that professorial phenomenon, while the body moves and breaths in the twentieth century, while the mind is five hundred years behind its time.”
“It is curious that in political economy, we have not yet succeeded in establishing very general laws, analogous to the fundamental principles of the physico-chemical sciences.”
In 1935 to 1938, American physical chemist Lawrence Henderson taught a physico-chemical humanities like course called “Sociology 23” at Harvard University, based on a synthesis of Willard Gibbs and Vilfredo Pareto, together employed as a universal framework to describe and explain social phenomena. | |
“Another characteristic of many ideal systems that is, in general, indispensable in order that conditions shall be determinate is the establishment and use of some definition of equilibrium or some criterion of equilibrium, whether in the case of statical equilibrium or in the case of dynamical equilibrium. This criterion is often of such a character that some function like entropy or energy assumes a maximum or a minimum value or, as in the case of the derivatives or variations of such functions, vanishes.
In the case of Pareto’s social system the definition of equilibrium takes a form that closely resembles the theorem of Le Chatelier in physical chemistry, which expresses a property of physico-chemical equilibrium, and which may be deduced from the work of Gibbs.”
A depiction of John Q. Stewart's 1950s Princeton social physics department. |
“As expected, they had no clue to them and this prompted me to write a few notes, related physico-chemical terminologies to those of human behavior.”This resulted in one booklet: Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology (1976), several journal articles: “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology” (1979), “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Assimilation” (1980), “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Affinity, Free Energy Changes, Equilibria, and Human Behaviour” (1981), “Physico-Chemical Processes and Human Behaviour Part—IV: Muslim Society, its Formation & Decline” (1983), and one magnum opus book: New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior (1987). The following are a few representative quotes:
“Physicochemical laws can be extended to a variety of human relations and interactions.”— Mirza Beg (1987), New Dimensions in Sociology (pg. 22)
“Affinities and fugacities characterize the behavior of individuals in a society.”— Mirza Beg (1987), New Dimensions in Sociology (pg. 95)
“To a materialist no thing is real but atoms in a void and we are but molecular people controlled by the actions of natural physicochemical law.”— George Scott (1985), end poem: “Molecular People” dedicated to Lucretius
“Since my name is not Socrates or Einstein and I hold only one of the seven or eight PhD degrees this problem requires, readers are quite justified in questioning my qualifications to testify as such a multidisciplinary expert.”— George Scott (1985), mini-introduction (pg. viii) to Atoms of the Living Flame
A depiction of the inherent "religious" conflict of the physicochemical approach to the humanities, namely that in the process of Gods energy being usurped by Gibbs energy an entire reconceptual understanding of mechanistic nature of right (natural) and wrong (unnatural) needs to accrue, per the Rossini hypothesis, wherein enthalpy (H) is the measure of "security" in social interactions and entropy (S) is a measure of "freedom" in social interactions. |
“In treating society as a system, Pareto was doing for sociology what Gibbs had done for physical chemistry, what Bernard had adumbrated for physiology. Pareto’s social system was in important respects analogous to Gibbs’ physicochemical system. As Gibbs considered temperature, pressure, and concentration, so Pareto considered the manifestations of sentiments through words and deeds, verbal elaborations, and economic interests. Now within the confines of a physicochemical system it is quite clear that all the factors involved are in a condition of mutual dependence which defies explanation by means of a cause-and-effect relationship. Change in one variable means change in all others. For example, if a stopper is thrust deeper into a thermos bottle containing ice, soda water, and whiskey—thus increasing the pressure—the concentration in both liquid and gas phases will change, the temperature will change, and the concentration of the solid phase will change. Similarly, the social system does not operate in terms of cause and effect; social conditions, like physicochemical conditions, are the result of simultaneous variations in mutually dependent variables.”— Cynthia Russett (1966), summary of the Pareto-Gibbs-Henderson humanities methodology [8]
“At first glance it might seem surprising that it is a British scholar [Adler] of German literature who tackles this particular aspect of the ‘German genius’, Goethe, but unfortunately enough in Germany the division between the ‘Two Cultures’ is still considerably deeper than in the English-speaking world. Recently, however, the attempts in interdisciplinary research to build a bridge and to indicate the fertile interplay between science and poetry are increasing, even in Germany. Adler’s book represents an important step in this direction.”— Karin Figala (1988), book review of Jeremy Adler’s Goethe’s Elective Affinities and the Chemistry of its Time [14]