Before the 20th^th Century, one of the most common ways of viewing the world was through the lens of stratification, which is the idea that the natural world occurs at different scales or layers. For example, Aristotle divided the world into four scales: 1) the inanimate world of physical objects; 2) the world of living organisms; 3) the world of animals; and 4) humans, whom Aristotle considered “the rational animal.”

Christian scholars have merged Aristotle’s scales of nature with supernatural world of demons, angels and God to give us “the Great Chain of Being”. Here is one of the most famous representations of the Great Chain by Diego de Valadés.

Source: Diego de Valadés/WikiCommons

At the bottom are the layers of hell, where we find the Devil, demons and the damned. Then we move to the natural world and back through Aristotle’s scales. The first layer is the inanimate world of water, rocks and sun. The second layer is the plant world. Then there are the animals, which this representation divides into terrestrial, marine and aerial animals. The fourth layer is the human layer. And above humans are angels and, finally, God.

Interest in these ideas has waned over the years. Why then? In his excellent article, Buried layers: on the origins, rise and fall of stratification theoriesProfessor Martin Wieser tells the history of stratification theories in Germany during the interwar period (i.e. between the 1920s and 1940s). He writes:

Stratification theories spread across a wide range of disciplines during the first half of the 20th century: from ethics and philosophical anthropology, medicine, neurology, psychiatrypsychology and psychoanalysisand from sociology to art and literature studies, stratification theorists aimed to grasp and visualize the world and the human being, human biological and mental development, social organization and creations as part of ‘an integrated visual pattern of “layers”.

As a historian of psychology, Wieser was particularly concerned with how the multilevel view manifested itself in understanding the brain, mind, and psyche. Many neuroscientists, such as Ludwig Edinger, have pointed out that the brain evolved in layers, such that the oldest and lowest layers of the brain were involved in basic motor and sensory functions and instinctive behavior, while that learning, planning and memory were the function of the newer and higher layers. In psychology, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung embraced the idea that the psyche could move from the organic to the animal to the person reflecting self-awareness.

The fall of stratification theories

Stratification frameworks were extremely popular and influential before the 1950s, not only in Germany, but also in England. Despite their influence, these ideas largely died out in the second half of the 20^th Century. What is the cause of the fall?

Three main forces have destroyed the foundations of stratification theories. One of the major problems was that there were many different stratification models. Some had three layers, some four layers, some had six or more. There were also different terms for the different layers, and different dividing lines between them. Furthermore, although these frameworks offered potential for empirical investigation, they were generally not designed in a way that could be tested against each other to determine which representation of the layers was best.

These models were also pushed aside by the rise of scientific empiricism. Empiricism emphasizes observation and testing of ideas via scientific methods. By the 1950s, empiricism was a major force in American psychology. And American psychology became the main force in this field. Weiner describes the “major confrontation” between German stratification psychologists and North American empiricists.

These two groups met in Montreal in 1954 during the 14th Congress of the International Union of Scientific Psychology. After the lectures, Hans Eysenck, a famous empiricist, declared that the “anti-scientific” position of the stratification theorists could never be adopted by the empiricists who preferred to “treat the study of behavior and personality as a branch of science. He publicly stated:

The discussion of stratification theory is extremely obscure, fails to be precise, and leaves the reader without a clear definition of the meaning of the terms used. The reader who expects to be told, briefly and succinctly, what Wellek, Lersch and the other writers advocate, will have great difficulty in obtaining what he is looking for… the position adopted by these writers seems ….to represent a philosophical belief rather than a scientific theory. (Eysenck in David & Bracken, 1957, p. 324)

The final blow to stratification theories was both philosophical and sociopolitical in nature. Theories of stratification clearly suggest a natural hierarchy. It was a policy that, in interwar Germany, aligned itself with Nazism. Because the layers of nature can easily be seen as progress toward a higher ideal, many people with Nazi leanings adopted stratification theories with the idea that the Aryan race was the highest form of humanity.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, which revealed the horrors of Nazism, postmodern sensibility took hold, particularly in Europe. This perspective emphasizes how language and culture help frame ideas and create worldviews. Postmodernism is particularly critical of “grand narratives” that place the author and those like him at the center of the action. Thus, from a postmodern philosophical and social perspective, the “truth claims” of stratification theories have been reduced to justifications used to legitimize the superiority of humans in general, and white men in particular.

Stratification Theory 2.0

As readers of this blog know, I am working to revive a particular vision of stratification. This recent blog characterizes it as a “simple map of reality”. Called the Knowledge Tree Systemit transcends the stratification theories of the last century precisely because it provides the user with a “clear definition of the meaning of the terms used” in direct contrast to the failure of modern empirical psychology to do so. This thus overturns Eysenck’s criticism. In my writingsI have shown why those who do not use the ToK system when talking about things like mind and behavior are the ones who lack clarity and precision.

Furthermore, as postmodern critique suggests, the ToK system presents cultural knowledge as systems of justification. Thus, it allows us to adopt the ideas of postmodernism and transcend them into what is called a metamodern sensibility.

By correcting the errors of historical approaches to stratification and directly emphasizing the precision and clarity of empiricism and integrating postmodern concern and critique, we now have the opportunity to reclaim the power of theories of stratification without their limitations and baggage.

The Tree of Knowledge aligns with Aristotle’s four layers of nature.

Source: Diego de Valadés/WikiCommons/Gregg Henriques