3.5.1 The evolution of evolutionary theories.

As in other fields of social science modern sociocultural theories are careful to avoid ethnocentrism that is used to make value judgment about cultures and in cross-cultural comparisons. The modern perspective is to view societies within their own historical context. Cultural evolution found in neo-evolutionist theories are now considered multi-lineal as it is determined by many complex sources. Neo-evolutionists discard the deterministic arguments of the preceding century, and suggest that sociocultural evolution is a function of probability where accidental factors as well as the will of members of society play important roles. In place of value judgment the neo-evolutionists emphasize the importance of empirical data constituting measurable information that permits a scientific investigation of sociocultural evolution and associated processes.

Some modern theories (Wilson, 1975) sought to apply biological theory in social sciences by pointing to the evolutionary mechanisms that determines such varied social behaviors like aggression, nurturance and altruism. Sociobiologists argue that humans are the products of both biological evolution, but also analogous sociocultural evolution. Each evolutionary force is distinct and based on separate selective mechanisms and forms of transmission.

3.5.2 Dual inheritance: Approaches to cultural transmission.

The early discussion in this chapter has focused on the genetic architecture of cultural transmission. The challenge is to provide a space for both biological and cultural factors within a single theory. Explanation of cultural transmission requires a complex mathematical model given the complexity of each form of transmission and the interaction between biology and culture. Lumsden and Wilson (1981) argued that human cultural transmission should be understood within the framework of gene-culture transmission tracing human development from the genes to the human mind to resulting culture and is a product of gene-culture co-evolution. Rather than accepting that human beings pursue their interests based on biological needs expressed in many arbitrary culturally acquired behaviors, Lumsden and Wilson argued for the presence of epigenetic rules that provided greater specificity for the canalization of the mind.

Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1981) promoted a quantitative approach to sociocultural evolution since the lateral theory of biological evolution is primarily based on the mathematics of population genetics. Recognizing that it is at best difficult to partition transmission into genetic and cultural factors they sought to understand the dynamics of change by evaluating relative frequencies of cultural traits within given populations. Lumsden and Wilson advocated the concept of cultugens as the basic component of inheritance. The epigenetic rules that provided direction were genetically determined peripheral sensory filters including inter-neuron coding processes, but also cognitive parameters of perception, learning and decision-making. These factors together determined whether units of culture were transmitted or some substitute. From this perspective both genetic and cultural evolution work together as culture is shaped by biological processes and over the long run biological processes change in response to cultural alterations like when societies develop a more efficient food supply.

Boyd and Richerson (1985) advocated what is known as a dual inheritance system. Biological and sociocultural sources of transmission tend toward abstractness and complexity when researchers use a single psychological model. Boyd and Richerson advocated a dual inheritance model that in addition to genetic inheritance posited cultural transmission via the rules for social learning. Specifically they argued for a role of social learning in the transmission of cultural information. What is learned during the lifetime of an individual is obviously not transmitted genetically. However, the capacity for learning may have changed with new innovations like the use of computers. Whereas genetic alterations cannot be observed in a single lifetime, during such a limited time period cultural information can be passed on to the next generation. Cultural information responding to social needs may have consequences for an entire population as can be seen in the political transformation of much of the world. Experiences that are significant can be passed on to cultural offspring, and become part of the cultural heritage, whereas genetic transmission is only possible through differential rates of reproduction of significant traits.

The basic point of departure for Richerson and Wilson for their dual inheritance model is the analogy between genetic and cultural transmission. The relationship between genes and culture presented in their view the most interesting problem for science. The evolution of cultural transmissions in humans is analogous to the evolution of our genetic system. However, genes and culture are distinct systems of inheritance in humanity, and genetic predispositions and cultural predispositions result directly from distinct sources. Richerson and Boyd applied the mathematical standards of population genetics to model the adaptive and selective nature of culture. They argued that cultural evolution exists as a separate arena and is not mechanically related to genetic evolution. Most importantly, cultural evolution is more rapid, and ultimately more influential in social development. From their perspective cultural evolution can be understood by exactly the same processes as genetic evolution since selection for fitness is the ultimate determinant. Hinde (1982) on the other hand suggested that cultural and genetic evolution proceed independently. In summary in sociocultural theories genetics have not been overruled by the force of culture but the contribution of genes can best be understood as the foundation that enables cultural behavior and is manifested in the reciprocal relationship between genes and culture.

The major vehicle of cultural transmission is social learning as articulated by Bandura (1977). It would be too cumbersome a task for children to learn complex social behavior by means of conditioning, and imitation is seen as a much more economic model of cultural transmission. Learning by imitation explains the cultural stability we see in culturally defined behavior patterns. Boyd and Richerson see cultural transmission to be analogous to genetic transmission of information. Although all members of a culture may be exposed to similar culture individual exposure allows for personal variants. The relative variance of the cultural repository would depend on the static or fluid nature of the culture. Very static cultures produce few variants from which to select the most adaptive. Cultural conformity is an option of selection however, where the individual simply follows the behavior of the majority. In turn conformity reduces cultural variance in behavior within the cultural group while increasing variance between other cultural groups.

Evaluating the transmission of culture from these two perspectives seem simplistic considering the complexities of interaction. For example Laland, Odling-Smee, and Feldman (2000) argue that species interact with the environment and in the process create niches that modify the ecological context. Hinde’s (1987) theory emphasizes the importance of levels of social complexity and that at each level of social complexity culture has components not found at lower levels of analysis. Society, groups and individuals must all be considered interacting components in sociocultural evolution yet each with distinct properties. Genetic influences may not be direct and in any event genetic influence decreases in the context of culture. Campbell (1974,) promoted several levels of sociocultural transmission including genetic adaptation, learning and imitation, cultural accumulation, and the changes wrought by science. These influences are all governed by the evolutionary principles of selection of functional traits and the gradual elimination of non-adaptive components. Evidence from cross-cultural research demonstrates the complexity of cultural variation and the difficulty of tracing the interactions between genetic and learned components.

All human social groups have culture, and the essential issue addressed by this chapter is the evolutionary source of sociocultural change over time. Theories must address the origin of change and the transmission of the fundamental elements including the creation of varying social and economic systems, the development of science and religion, moral systems, and most basically the role of language. Similar to genetic evolution, natural selection played a primary role in sociocultural development as groups respond to what is adaptive in their particular environments. The theories discussed above seek to define the relationship between the genetic and cultural co-evolution. However, due to the complexity of interactions there is little empirical support for the formal mathematical models based on population genetics. We are really in the early stages of the formulation of theories that adequately represent the relationships between the two forces of evolution, although the same principles of selection and adaptation may be at play a role in both types. The role of conscious reflection and creativity are fundamental to social development, and likewise the use of symbols and language evolution. These issues are largely overlooked in sociocultural evolutionary theories, although there would be no origin of cultural systems without creative innovation and no transmission of human culture without language.