The Study of Culture and Evolution across Disciplines

A. Mesoudi
{"title":"The Study of Culture and Evolution across Disciplines","authors":"A. Mesoudi","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/epdfv","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A source of continued tension within the evolutionary human behavioural / social sciences, as well as between these fields and the traditional social sciences, is how to conceptualise ‘culture’ in its various manifestations and guises. One of the earliest criticisms of E O Wilson’s sociobiology project was the focus on presumed genetically evolved behavioural universals, and lack of attention to cultural diversity and cultural (as opposed to genetic) history. As sociobiology split into different fields during the 1980s, each developed their own approaches and assumptions. Human behavioural ecologists employed the ‘phenotypic gambit’, assuming that culture is a proximate means by which natural selection generates currently-adaptive behavioural strategies. Evolutionary psychologists distinguished between transmitted and evoked culture, the former involving the social transmission of information, the latter involving the triggering of genetically-prespecified behaviours in response to different environmental cues (typically ancestral cues, such that behaviour may no longer be currently adaptive). Evoked culture has been the focus of most research in evolutionary psychology. Cognitive anthropologists have a similar notion of ‘cultural attraction’, where universal aspects of cognition evoke predictable responses due to individual learning. Finally, cultural evolution (or gene-culture coevolution) approaches stress the causal role of transmitted culture. Here, human cognition is assumed to be relatively domain-general and content-free, with genetic evolution having shaped social learning processes to allow the rapid spread of locally adaptive knowledge (although occasionally allowing the spread of maladaptive behaviour, due to the partial decoupling of genetic and cultural evolution). All the while, the traditional social sciences have remained steadfastly unwilling to accept that evolutionary approaches to human behaviour have any merit or relevance, and indeed have abandoned the scientific method in favour of more politically motivated interpretive methods. Most curiously, the social sciences have abandoned the concept of culture, as they define it. I will discuss all of these approaches in terms of (i) the extent to which they give causal weight to genetic inheritance, individual learning and social learning, and how these process interact; (ii) their assumptions about the domain-specificity of human cognition; (iii) ultimate-proximate causation; (iv) specific debates over language evolution, cooperation and the demographic transition; and (v) prospects for reconciliation and integration of these tensions across the evolutionary human sciences and the social sciences more broadly.","PeriodicalId":263808,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/epdfv","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

A source of continued tension within the evolutionary human behavioural / social sciences, as well as between these fields and the traditional social sciences, is how to conceptualise ‘culture’ in its various manifestations and guises. One of the earliest criticisms of E O Wilson’s sociobiology project was the focus on presumed genetically evolved behavioural universals, and lack of attention to cultural diversity and cultural (as opposed to genetic) history. As sociobiology split into different fields during the 1980s, each developed their own approaches and assumptions. Human behavioural ecologists employed the ‘phenotypic gambit’, assuming that culture is a proximate means by which natural selection generates currently-adaptive behavioural strategies. Evolutionary psychologists distinguished between transmitted and evoked culture, the former involving the social transmission of information, the latter involving the triggering of genetically-prespecified behaviours in response to different environmental cues (typically ancestral cues, such that behaviour may no longer be currently adaptive). Evoked culture has been the focus of most research in evolutionary psychology. Cognitive anthropologists have a similar notion of ‘cultural attraction’, where universal aspects of cognition evoke predictable responses due to individual learning. Finally, cultural evolution (or gene-culture coevolution) approaches stress the causal role of transmitted culture. Here, human cognition is assumed to be relatively domain-general and content-free, with genetic evolution having shaped social learning processes to allow the rapid spread of locally adaptive knowledge (although occasionally allowing the spread of maladaptive behaviour, due to the partial decoupling of genetic and cultural evolution). All the while, the traditional social sciences have remained steadfastly unwilling to accept that evolutionary approaches to human behaviour have any merit or relevance, and indeed have abandoned the scientific method in favour of more politically motivated interpretive methods. Most curiously, the social sciences have abandoned the concept of culture, as they define it. I will discuss all of these approaches in terms of (i) the extent to which they give causal weight to genetic inheritance, individual learning and social learning, and how these process interact; (ii) their assumptions about the domain-specificity of human cognition; (iii) ultimate-proximate causation; (iv) specific debates over language evolution, cooperation and the demographic transition; and (v) prospects for reconciliation and integration of these tensions across the evolutionary human sciences and the social sciences more broadly.
跨学科的文化与进化研究
在进化的人类行为/社会科学中,以及这些领域与传统社会科学之间,一个持续紧张的根源是如何将“文化”的各种表现形式和伪装概念化。对威尔逊社会生物学项目最早的批评之一是,它关注的是假定的基因进化的行为共性,而缺乏对文化多样性和文化(与基因相反)历史的关注。随着社会生物学在20世纪80年代分裂成不同的领域,每个领域都发展了自己的方法和假设。人类行为生态学家采用了“表型策略”,假设文化是自然选择产生当前适应性行为策略的近似手段。进化心理学家区分了传递文化和诱发文化,前者涉及信息的社会传递,后者涉及触发基因预先指定的行为,以响应不同的环境线索(通常是祖先的线索,这样的行为可能不再是当前的适应性)。诱发文化一直是进化心理学研究的焦点。认知人类学家也有类似的“文化吸引力”概念,即认知的普遍方面由于个体学习而引起可预测的反应。最后,文化进化(或基因-文化共同进化)方法强调传播文化的因果作用。在这里,人类认知被认为是相对普遍和无内容的,遗传进化形成了社会学习过程,允许局部适应知识的快速传播(尽管偶尔允许传播适应不良的行为,由于遗传和文化进化的部分脱钩)。一直以来,传统的社会科学始终坚定地不愿意接受人类行为的进化方法有任何优点或相关性,并且实际上已经放弃了科学方法,转而支持更具政治动机的解释方法。最奇怪的是,社会科学已经抛弃了文化的概念,正如他们所定义的那样。我将从以下方面讨论所有这些方法:(I)它们在多大程度上赋予基因遗传、个体学习和社会学习的因果权重,以及这些过程如何相互作用;(ii)他们对人类认知的领域特异性的假设;(iii)最终-近因关系;关于语言演变、合作和人口转变的具体辩论;(五)在进化人文科学和更广泛的社会科学中对这些紧张关系进行和解和整合的前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信