Discussion on morphogenetic methodology and its implications for understanding real historical time.
In this article, I discuss Archer's morphostatic/morphogenetic approach (M/M) and the concept of time. I argue that M/M is a methodology of temporality; of phase, order and sequence. As such, it is deployed to incorporate time into accounts of and research on society, but is not itself an explicit theory of time. This notwithstanding, M/M is, however, a variant on analytical or logical time that is intended to work in the service of real historical time. Having made this point, I then discuss various elements of a critical realist theory of time and the issue of real historical time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jamie Morgan (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: