Anthropological Evolutionary Ecology: a Critique
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Ecological Anthropology Volume 4 Issue 1 Volume 4, Issue 1 (2000) Article 1 2000 Anthropological Evolutionary Ecology: A Critique Suzanne Joseph University of Georgia, Department of Anthropology Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jea Recommended Citation Joseph, Suzanne. "Anthropological Evolutionary Ecology: A Critique." Journal of Ecological Anthropology 4, no. 1 (2000): 6-30. Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jea/vol4/iss1/1 This Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Ecological Anthropology by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 6 Journal of Ecological Anthropology Vol. 4 2000 ARTICLES Anthropological Evolutionary Ecology: A Critique SUZANNE JOSEPH1 Abstract The goal of this paper is to critically evaluate Anthropological Evolutionary Ecology (AEE) as a paradigm by utilizing the method for theory framework developed by Pickett et al. (1994). While AEE can contribute in some ways to our understanding of human behavior through methods and techniques derived from neo- Darwinian theory (as well as current approaches in animal behavior and decision theory), AEE as a para- digm remains theoretically ill-equipped for the study of human ecology. This critique will focus on Anthropo- logical Evolutionary Ecology, however, references will be made to Biological Evolutionary Ecology (BEE) since AEE relies heavily on theoretical components derived from BEE. Introduction A critique of Anthropological Evolution- increasing completeness of theory. Box 1 de- ary Ecology (AEE) as a theoretical paradigm scribes the major components of theory that are should begin with a definition of paradigm. Fol- referred to in the rows of Figure 1. Box 2 de- lowing Kuhn (1970), the definition reads: a para- scribes the stages of maturation depicted in the digm is the world view, belief systems, series of columns of Figure 1. During the early stages of assumptions, methods, techniques and exem- theory development, the emphasis is on the ad- plars for problem solution held in common by a dition of components. By the consolidating stage scientific community. The critique here is meant of theory development all of the components are to apply to AEE as a theoretical paradigm in in place. Subsequently, refinement of compo- general, often referred to as evolutionary behav- nents is emphasized. ioral ecology and to its submodels and Thus, as theory develops, it becomes more subtheories, in particular optimal foraging and more complete, by the addition and refine- theory and life history theory. ment of theoretical notions, constructs, derived The critique is divided into seven sections, constructs, and structure. Increasing richness closely paralleling the structure of Figure 1. This of components is a hallmark of maturing theory. scheme depicts the general components of theory For AEE, notions, assumptions, facts, and hy- and their degrees of development. Basically, as potheses developed early, with assumptions be- theory develops, it changes in two major ways: ing the first to be fully developed. But notions 1) through the addition of theoretical compo- are not yet fully explicit, and confirmed gener- nents (see rows in Figure 1); and 2) through the alizations, models, translation modes, domain refinement of components (see columns in Fig- and the framework are still in the process of be- ure 1). This scheme shows both increase in the ing refined. number and refinement of components as theory The stages of maturation depicted in the matures. The column headings from left to right columns of Fig. 1 can be thought of as an ideal- represent increasing development of theory, ized developmental sequence. Theory change is whereas the rows from top to bottom indicate actually often chaotic, reflecting a combination 1Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, [email protected]. Vol. 4 2000 Joseph / Anthropological Evolutionary Ecology 7 DEGREE OF DEVELOPMENT Status Pre- Intuitive Consolidating Empirical- Confirmed Component theoretic Interactive or Rejected Notions ///// ///// ///// ///// /////////// Assumptions ///// ////// ///////// ///////// /////////// Definitions ///// ////// ///////// /////////// Concepts ///// ////// ///////// /////////// Facts ///// ///// ////// ///////// /////////// Confirmed Generalizations ///// ////// /////////// Hypotheses ///// ///// ////// ///////// /////////// Models ///// ////// ///////// /////////// Theorems ///// ////// /////////// Framework ///// ////// /////////// Domain ///// ///// ////// /////// /////////// Translation ///// ////// /////////// Modes FIGURE 1. COMPLETENESS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEORY. See Box 1 for a description of the components. Degree of hatching denotes increased refine- ment and precision in theory development (modified from Figure 4.1 of Pickett et al. 1994). BOX 1. COMPONENTS OF THEORY (modified from Pickett et al. 1994, Box 3.2). Basic Conceptual Devices • assumptions–conditions or axioms needed to build theory • definitions–conventions and prescriptions necessary for the theory to work with clarity • concepts–abstract ideas generalized from regularities in phenomena, or conceived through reflection and imagination Empirical Content • facts–confirmable records of phenomena, checked and re-checked • confirmed generalizations–condensations and abstractions from a body of facts that have been checked and re-checked Derived Conceptual Devices • hypotheses–testable statements derived from or representing various components of theory • models–conceptual constructs that represent or simplify the world or subject matter of concern • theorems—ideas or propositions deduced or proposed as demonstrable deductions Framework and Structure • framework–nested causal or logical structure of a theory • domain–the scope in space, time and phenomena addressed by a theory • translation modes–procedures and concepts needed to move from the abstractions of a theory to the specifics of application or test 8 Journal of Ecological Anthropology Vol. 4 2000 BOX 2. STAGES TO THEORY MATURITY (based on Pickett et al. 1994, Box 4.1 and Figure 4.1). Pre-theoretic—represented by rudimentary development of a few components Intuitive—simple and fundamental components present, including concepts, definitions and models Consolidating—derived conceptual devices begin to mature Empirical-Interactive—with concepts, definitions, and domain increasingly clarified, hypotheses are more amenable to evaluation Confirmed or Rejected—judgement by the community of the adequacy of evaluation and strength of those outcomes for a mature theory; confirmed theories often permit practical application of different empirical pursuits and different paper is its failure to delineate a domain. I first subtheories, and in the case of AEE, more com- came across AEE during the course of my gradu- plex or highly derived components have not yet ate training in ecological anthropology. I found accompanied simpler ones. Draw-ing on other particularly attractive a field that seemed to hold theories for components has also resulted in the promise (both implicitly because of its name transfer problems, where those components have and explicitly in its purported goal) of adding acquired different meanings and interpretations methodological and theoretical rigor to ecologi- problematic in their new context. Nonetheless, cal anthropology. Here, I thought, I will find the key idea is that the jobs a theory is able to the best of what anthropology has to offer the do depend upon its stage of maturity (Box 2); study of human evolution and ecology. How- that is, the richness of its roster of theoretical ever, it soon became clear that AEE was not what components and their refinement. it seemed (i.e., a broad framework which in- As a theory begins to take shape and to be cludes an amalgam of sophisticated approaches used it often becomes clear that existing com- to understanding human variation and change). ponents must be replaced or refined. Theory may While the purpose of this paper is not to de- emerge from pre-theoretic notions by adding velop an alternative framework for the study of components, without showing much refinement. human ecology and evolution, Figure 2 provides At the consolidating stage basic conceptual com- a brief glimpse into a more inclusive human evo- ponents are refined, empirical content is refined lutionary ecology; what I naïvely imagined the and expanded, derived conceptual components domain of anthropological evolutionary ecology are added and refined, and the theoretical frame- to look like. Potential contributions to the study work and structure begin to take shape. of human ecology and evolution are listed ac- Mature theories have well-defined basic cording to social hierarchies of major human conceptual constructs and derived conceptual ecological paradigms: population and ecosystems devices, as well as well-delineated domains, with (for a discussion of the characteristics of “popu- internal structure and empirical content, allow- lation” and “ecosystem” paradigms in biological ing the development of hypotheses that can be ecology and their integration see Pickett et al. confirmed or rejected. Confirmed mature theory 1994: 3-25;151-165). has developed through prior phases of pre- Thus, I will begin the second section with theory, intuition, consolidation and empirical- a critical discussion of the domain