Verified by 
Philosophy
What Happened to the Stratification View of Nature?
The rise, fall, and revival of the stratification view of nature.
Updated November 1, 2024 Reviewed by Tyler Woods
Prior to the 20th Century, one of the most common ways of seeing the world was through the lens of stratification, which is the idea that the natural world comes in different scales or layers. For example, Aristotle divided the world up into four scales: 1) the inanimate world of physical objects; 2) the world of living organisms; 3) the world of animals; and 4) humans, who Aristotle considered the “rational animal.”
Christian scholars merged Aristotle’s scales of nature with the supernatural world of demons, angels, and God to give us “the Great Chain of Being.” Here is one of the most famous depictions of the Great Chain by Diego de Valadés.
.jpg?itok=acbidyNT "Diego de Valadés/ WikiCommons")
At the bottom are the layers of hell, where we find the Devil, demons, and the damned. Then, we move into the natural world and up through Aristotle’s scales. The first layer is the inanimate world of water, rocks, and the sun. The second layer is the world of plants. Then there are the animals, which this depiction divides into those on land, in the sea, and in the air. The fourth layer is the human layer. And above humans are the angels, and, finally, God.
The interest in these ideas has fallen over the years. Why is that? In his excellent article, Buried Layers: On the Origins, Rise, and Fall of Stratification Theories, Professor Martin Wieser tells the history of the stratification theories in Germany during the interwar period (i.e., between the 1920s and 1940s). He writes:
Theories of stratification spread over a wide range of disciplines during the first half of the 20th century: From ethics and philosophical anthropology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, psychology and psychoanalysis, and from sociology to art and literature studies, theorists of stratification aimed to grasp and visualize the world and the human being, human biological and mental development, social organization and creations as parts of one integrated visual scheme of “layers.”
As a historian of psychology, Wieser was particularly concerned with how the layered view showed up in understanding the brain, mind, and psyche. There were many neuroscientists, like Ludwig Edinger, who emphasized that the brain had evolved in layers, such that the older and lower layers of the brain were involved in basic motoric and sensory functions and instinctual behavior, whereas learning, planning, and memory were the function of the more recent and higher layers. In psychology, both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung embraced the idea that the psyche could be layered from organic into the animal into the self-consciousness reflecting person.
The Fall of Stratification Theories
Stratification frameworks were immensely popular and influential prior to 1950s, and not just in Germany, but in England as well. Despite their influence, these ideas largely died out in the back half of the 20th Century. What caused the fall?
There were three main forces that tore at the foundation of stratification theories. One major problem was that were many different models of stratification. Some had three layers, some had four layers, some had six or more. There were also different terms for the different layers, and different dividing lines between them. In addition, although these frameworks provided potential for empirical investigation, they generally were not framed so that they could be tested against one another to determine which depiction of the layers was best.
These models also received pushback from the rise of scientific empiricism. Empiricism emphasizes observation and the testing of ideas via the methods of science. By the 1950s, empiricism was a major force in American psychology. And American psychology was becoming the primary force in the field. Weiner describes the “major confrontation” between psychologists from Germany who embraced stratification and the empiricists in North America.
These two groups met in Montreal in 1954 at the 14th Congress of the International Union of Scientific Psychology. After the talks were given, Hans Eysenck, a famous empiricist, stated that the “anti-scientific” stance of stratification theorists could never be embraced by empiricists who preferred “to treat the study of behavior and personality as a branch of science.” He went on record as saying:
The discussion of stratification theory is extremely obscure, fails to come to a sharp focus, and leaves the reader without any clear-cut definition of meanings of the terms used. The reader who expects to be told, briefly and succinctly, what it is that Wellek, Lersch and the other writers are advocating, will find it very difficult to obtain 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. Stratification theories clearly suggest a natural hierarchy. It was one that, in the interwar period in Germany, became aligned with Nazism. Because the layers in nature can readily be framed as progress toward a higher ideal, many with Nazi tendencies embraced the stratification theories with the twist that the Aryan race was the highest human form.
In the wake of WWII, which revealed the horrors of Nazism, the postmodern sensibility took hold, especially in Europe. This perspective emphasizes how language and culture work to frame ideas and create worldviews. Postmodernism is particularly critical of “grand narratives” that place the author and his ilk at the center of the action. Thus, from a postmodern philosophical and social vantage point, the “truth claims” of stratification theories were reduced to justifications people 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 Tree of Knowledge System, it transcends the stratification theories of the last century precisely because it provides the user with a “clear-cut definition of meanings of the terms used” and does so in direct contrast to the failure of modern empirical psychology to do so. Thus, it turns Eysenck’s criticism upside down. In my writings, I have shown why those who fail to use the ToK System when talking about things like mind and behavior are the ones who are lacking in clarity and precision.
In addition, much as the postmodern critique suggests, the ToK System frames cultural knowledge as systems of justification. Thus, it allows us to embrace the insights of postmodernism and transcend them into what is called a metamodern sensibility.
By correcting the errors of the historical approaches to stratification and also directly emphasizing the precision and clarity of empiricism and folding in the postmodern concern and critique, we now have the opportunity to reclaim the power of stratification theories without their limitations and baggage.
