In:Controversies and Interdisciplinarity: Beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model
Edited by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 16] 2020
► pp. 133–154
Chapter 7Human evolution
A role for culture?
Published online: 15 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.16.07abr
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.16.07abr
Abstract
This paper presents a range of approaches going from the complete rejection of any role culture could have played in human evolution, to the other extreme in the range in which the very dichotomy between nature and culture is rejected. We will also go through middle-range standpoints, such as that of gene-culture coevolution theorists, that attach to culture a central role in human evolution. The clash between these approaches is still going on in the contemporary scene, with implications for the way boundaries are set inside disciplines such as Anthropology, as well as for conceiving how it is related to Psychology and Biology, among other disciplines. We will show that some debates in the Philosophy of Biology, concerning an extension of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, have contributed to clarify the issues, and have been followed by some anthropologists who are also concerned by the way human development and evolution are separately addressed in orthodox approaches.
Article outline
- Dichotomization
- 1.Culture as superorganic
- Concepts of culture
- 1.Culture as superorganic
- De-dichotomization
- 2.Gene-culture coevolution
- 3.Biosocial evolution
- Philosophers of Biology are implicated in the debate
- Final remarks
Notes References
References (53)
Abrantes, P. (2013). Human evolution and transitions in individuality. Contrastes. [Suplemento: Filosofía actual de la biología. Antonio Dieguez y Vicente Claramonte (Eds.)], xviii, 203–220.
Bernal, C.; Abrantes, P. (2018). Imágenes en la explicación del comportamiento prosocial humano y su evolución. Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, 18 (37), 227–260. [URL]
Boyd, R.; Richerson, P. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Buckley, T. (1996). The little history of pitiful events In: Stocking (Ed.), Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition [History of Anthropology, v. 8] (pp. 257–296). Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Dascal, M. (2008). Dichotomies and types of debate. In van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (Eds.), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1998). Types of polemics and types of polemical moves. In Cmejrkova, S., & Hoffmannova, J., & Mullerova, O., & Svetla, J. (Eds.), Dialogue Analysis VI [Proceedings of the 6th Conference, Prague 1996], 1 (pp. 15–33). Tubingen: Max Niemeyer.
Degler, C. (1991). In search of human nature: the decline and revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Durham, W. (1991). Coevolution: genes, culture and human diversity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Foley, R. (2005). Unknown Boundaries: exploring human evolutionary studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2013). Blurring the biological and social in human becomings. In Ingold, I., & Palsson, G. (Eds.), Biosocial becomings (pp. 42–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2016). The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, Ethnography, and the Human Niche: Toward an Integrated Anthropology. Current Anthropology, 57(13), S13–S26.
Geertz, C. (1964). The transition to humanity. In Tax, S. (Ed.), Horizons of Anthropology (pp. 37–48). Chicago: Aldine.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2001). On the status and explanatory structure of developmental systems theory. In Oyama, S., & Griffiths, P., & Gray, R. D. (Eds.), Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution (pp. 283–297). Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 205, 581–598.
Griffiths, P., & Gray, R. (1988). Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. In Hull, D., & Ruse, M. (Eds.) The Philosophy of Biology (pp. 117–145). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2005). Discussion: Three ways to misunderstand developmental systems theory. Biology and Philosophy, 20, 417–425.
(1994). Introduction to humanity. In Ingold, T. (Ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology (pp. 3–13). Londres: Routledge.
(2000a). ‘People Like Us’: the concept of the anatomically modern human. In Ingold, T. The perception of the environment. Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill (pp. 373–91). London and New York: Routledge. [Published originally in Cultural Dynamics, (1995)].
(2000b). From complementarity to obviation: on dissolving the boundaries between social and biological anthropology, archaeology and psychology. In Oyama, S., & Griffiths, P., & Gray, R. (Eds.), Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution (pp. 255–279). Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. [Published originally in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1998].
(2001). From the transmission of representation to the education of attention. In: Whitehouse, H. (Ed.), The debated mind: evolutionary psychology versus etnography (pp. 113–153). Oxford: Berg.
(2004). Beyond biology and culture. The meaning of evolution in a relational world. Social Anthropology, 12(2), 209–221.
(2013). Prospect. In Ingold, T., & Palsson, G. (Eds.) Biosocial becomings (pp. 1–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2016). Interview with Tim Ingold. In Fuentes, A., & Visala, A. Conversations on human nature (pp. 105–116). Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.
Kroeber, A., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions. Cambridge (MA), Peabody Museum.
Krohs, U. (2006). Philosophies of particular biological research programs. Biological Theory, 1(2), 182–187.
Laland, K., & Brown, G. (2002). Sense and nonsense: evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laland, K., & Odling-Smee, F. J., & Feldman, M. (2000). Niche construction, biological evolution and cultural change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 131–175.
Laland, K., & Odling-Smee, F. J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature reviews-Genetics, 11, 137–148.
Odling-Smee, F. J., & Laland, K., & Feldman, M. (2003). Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Oyama, S. (1996). On the concept of the anatomically modern human: a discussion on Tim Ingold’s ‘People like us’ (1995): Human History, History or history? Cultural Dynamics, 8, 353–361.
(2000). The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Durham: Duke University Press. [Published originally in 1985].
(2003). On having a hammer. In Weber, B., & Depew, D. (Eds.), Evolution and learning: the Baldwin effect reconsidered (pp. 169–191). Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. (Eds.). (2010). Evolution: the extended synthesis. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Richerson, P.; Boyd, R. (2002). Culture is Part of Human Biology: Why the Superorganic Concept Serves the Human Sciences Badly. In Goodman, M., & Moffat, A. Probing human origins (pp. 59–85). Cambridge (MA): The American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Richerson, P., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Segerstråle, U. (2001). Defenders of the truth: the sociobiology debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
