A lobbying theory of cultural evolution: Rhetoric, expediency, and self-interest promote inequality in the prescriptive grammar of complex institutions.

Abstract

Anthropologists have noted, time and again, that cultural norms and institutions often (1) are "functional," providing context-relevant benefits, (2) convergently evolve, and (3) benefit certain individuals over others. In this commentary, I consider inequality, self-interest, and coercion in complex cultural institutions. I extend Chater and Christiansen's theory of social tinkering, taking cues from Mercier and Sperber's argumentative theory of human reason and Singh et al.'s self-interested enforcement hypothesis, to argue that humans are well-adapted "cultural lobbyists."