Thesis
The core thesis is that the basic structures of pre-modern societies show elements which are themselves driving forces for a constant change of these societies. At the same time, the kind of change was of a specifically pre-modern nature. In line with sociological theory, this can be called ‘inherent dynamism’. The second assumption is that the continuous restructuring of the society leads to these structures becoming clearer. In a way, pre-modern society came into its own only by the end of the period under observation (ca. 700 to ca. 1700), shortly before the comparably rapid emergence of a functionally differentiated modern age.
‘Inherent dynamism’ means that the phenomenon itself, e.g. by interplay of specifiable elements, caused specific changes. In contrast to the term emergence, applied to an entity that has properties that its parts do not have on their own, things brought about by inherent dynamisms can be traced back to features on which the changes are based. And quite often the results of these changes follow certain patterns.
When working with inherent dynamism, a central point is to identify what belongs to these dynamisms and what does not. To be sure, in some cases inherent dynamism may work within the limits of a certain social entity. However, very different phenomena on both sides of the boundaries of such a unit may contribute to self-propelled processes. Instead of looking for a social group or territory even, it seems more adequate to identify a (limited) number of different, but important processes that together, as a cluster, lead to such dynamisms.

Premises
We presume that most pre-modern societies of different world regions had a number of basic structures in common and singled out three: First, membership in a group comprehensively determined the overall quality of the person, and that groups and persons are arranged in an estates-based hierarchy. Second, despite the ubiquity of (violent) conflicts, a general orientation to consensus (e.g. delegitimizing dissenting opinions) can be observed. Third, a culture of presence that integrated the use of written texts was another hallmark of these societies.
Among others, the three elements shaped pre-modern inherent dynamisms in a decisive way. Historicizing the concept thus underscores the similarity of premodern societies with regard to their potential for change and establishes a distance to similar phenomena in modernity. We further assume that in most premodern societies, change over time resulted in increased complexity. There was a growing number of groups and estates, but also an increase of qualitatively different associations
and ranks. At the same time, it seems as if both, associations and estates, gained a sharper profile. Nevertheless, these changes took place within the structures stated above. Thus, it is not about writing a genesis of modernity but about analysing change in pre-modern times as a genuinely pre-modern phenomenon.

Relevance
If self-propelled processes prove to be a crucial element shared by many pre-modern societies, this will shed a new light on the relationship between the pre-modern and modern, and this twofold: First, in pointing out fundamental similarities of pre-modern societies particularly concerning the driving force for change. Second, in emphasizing that in no region these changes were immediately connectable to modernity; on the contrary, they rather affirmed the structures of pre-modern societies. Thus, modernity itself is contoured as a recent phenomenon which emerged rather suddenly. Further, this approach would help to overcome particularistic narrations so ubiquitous in many world regions today.

The situation only allows for a hybrid workshop, concentrating on discussion rather than on paper-giving. Each talk will consist of summarizing a draft paper of six pages, circled beforehand, followed by a discussion of approximately 35 minutes.
For details see:
https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/(de)/ZiF/AG/2021/01-28-Arlinghaus_Flyer.pdf