Social cycle theories are among the earliest social theories in sociology. Unlike the theory of social evolutionism, which views the evolution of society and human history as progressing in some new, unique direction(s), sociological cycle theory argues that events and stages of society and history generally repeat themselves in cycles. Such a theory does not necessarily imply that there cannot be any social progress. In the early theory of Sima Qian and the more recent theories of long-term ("secular") political-demographic cycles, an explicit accounting is made of social progress.
Historical forerunners Interpretation of history as repeating cycles of Dark and Golden Ages was a common belief among ancient cultures. Kyklos (Ancient Greek: κύκλος [kýklos], "cycle") is a term used by some classical Greek authors to describe what they considered as the cycle of governments in a society. It was roughly based on the history of Greek city-states in the same period. The concept of the kyklos is first elaborated by Plato, Aristotle, and most extensively Polybius. They all came up with their own interpretation of the cycle, and possible solutions to break the cycle, since they thought the cycle to be harmful. Later writers such as Cicero and Machiavelli commented on the kyklos. The more limited cyclical view of history defined as repeating cycles of events was put forward in the academic world in the 19th century in historiosophy (a branch of historiography) and is a concept that falls under the category of sociology. However, Polybius, Ibn Khaldun (see Asabiyyah), and Giambattista Vico can be seen as precursors of this analysis. The saeculum was identified in Roman times. In recent times, P. R. Sarkar in his social cycle theory has used this idea to elaborate his interpretation of history.
Plato
Plato describes his cycle of governments in his work Republic, Book VIII and IX. He distinguishes five forms of government: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, and writes that governments devolve respectively in this order from aristocracy into tyranny. Plato's cycle of governments is linked with his anthropology of the rulers that come with each form of government. This philosophy is intertwined with the way the cycle of governments plays out. An aristocracy is ruled by aristocratic people whose rule is guided by their rationality. The decline of aristocracy into timocracy happens when people who are less qualified to rule come to power. Their rule and decision-making is guided by honour. Timocracy devolves into oligarchy as soon as those rulers act in pursuit of wealth. Oligarchy devolves into democracy when the rulers act on behalf of freedom. Lastly, democracy devolves into tyranny if rulers mainly seek power. Plato believes that having a philosopher king, and thus having an aristocratic form of government is the most desirable.
Polybius According to Polybius, who has the most fully developed version of the kyklos, it rotates through the three basic forms of government: democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, and the three degenerate forms of each of these governments: ochlocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. Originally society is in ochlocracy but the strongest figure emerges and sets up a monarchy. The monarch's descendants, who lack virtue because of their family's power, become despots and the monarchy degenerates into a tyranny. Because of the excesses of the ruler, the tyranny is overthrown by the leading citizens of the state, who set up an aristocracy. They too, quickly forget about virtue, and the state becomes an oligarchy. These oligarchs are overthrown by the people, who set up a democracy. Democracy soon becomes corrupt and degenerates into ochlocracy, beginning the cycle anew. Polybius's concept of the cycle of governments is called anacyclosis. Polybius, in contrast to Aristotle, focuses on the idea of mixed government: the idea that the ideal government is one that blends elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Aristotle mentions this notion but pays little attention to it. Polybius saw the Roman Republic as the embodiment of this mixed constitution, and this would explain why the Roman Republic was so powerful and why it remained stable for a longer amount of time. Polybius' full description can be found in Book VI of his Histories.
Cicero Cicero describes anacyclosis in his philosophical work De re publica. His version of the anacyclosis is heavily inspired by Polybius' writings. Cicero argues, contrary to Polybius, that the Roman state can prevail and will not succumb to the harmful cycle despite its mixed government, as long as the Roman Republic will return to its ancient virtues (mos maiorum).
Machiavelli Machiavelli, writing during the Renaissance, appears to have adopted Polybius' version of the cycle. Machiavelli's adoption of anacyclosis can be seen in Book I, Chapter II of his Discourses on Livy. Although Machiavelli adopts the idea of the circular structure in which types of governments alternate, he does not accept Polybius' idea that the cycle naturally devolves through the exact same pattern of governments. He mixes the concept of the "cycle of regimes" with the cycle of civilizations, which are two separate and distinct concepts.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
