Cultural selection Agner Fog Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 9 2. THE HISTORY OF CULTURAL SELECTION THEORY 13 2.1 Evolutionism 13 2.2 Social darwinism 22 2.3 Functionalism 24 2.4 Neo-evolutionism 25 2.5 Diffusionism 30 2.6 Sociobiology 33 2.7 Interaction between genetic and cultural selection 36 2.8 Memetics 41 2.9 Sociology and anthropology 45 2.10 Synthesis of sociobiology and anthropology 47 2.11 Social psychology 49 2.12 Economic competition 50 2.13 Universal selection theory 52 2.14 Conclusion 55 3. FUNDAMENTAL MODEL FOR CULTURAL SELECTION 59 3.1 The genetic basis of culture 59 3.2 Cultural selection 60 3.3 Unit of selection 62 3.4 Innovation 65 3.5 Reproduction 67 3.6 Selection 69 3.7 Selection of meme complexes 73 6 3.8 Vicarious selection 74 3.9 Barriers in evolution 75 3.10 Differences between genetic and cultural selection 77 3.11 Cultural selection in animals 79 3.12 The applicability of cultural selection theory 80 4. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 83 4.1 The concept of fitness 83 4.2 Genetic selection models 85 4.3 Genetic r- and K-selection 87 4.4 Cultural selection models 90 4.5 Cultural r- and k-selection 91 4.6 Mechanisms in cultural r/k-selection 94 4.7 Vicarious psychological mechanisms 96 4.8 The paradox of revolution 99 4.9 Typical characteristics of regal and kalyptic cultures 101 4.10 Limitations to the theory 103 4.11 Previously published related theories 104 4.12 Conservativism versus innovativism 108 5. CULTURAL SELECTION THROUGHOUT THE TIMES 110 5.1 The evolution of ever bigger political units 110 5.2 The evolution of religions 113 5.3 Animism 115 5.4 Polytheism 116 5.5 Monotheism 118 5.6 Oriental religions 124 5.7 Religions are created by cultural evolution 127 5.8 Secularization 129 7 5.9 Imperialism 129 5.10 Modern society 131 5.11 Migrations 132 5.12 Economic competition 134 6. DEMOGRAPHY 136 7. SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AMONG BABOONS 139 8. SOCIOLOGY OF DEVIANCE 143 8.1 The fight over defining reality 143 8.2 Defining reality in terms of science 145 8.3 Myth making 146 8.4 Witch-hunts and moral panics 149 8.5 The role of the mass media 153 8.6 The objects of witch-hunts 154 9. MASS MEDIA 156 9.1 Advertising and sponsoring 166 9.2 The competition for attention 167 10. SEXUAL BEHAVIOR 169 10.1 Psychological mechanisms 174 10.2 Selection of discourses 176 10.3 Social scripts 177 10.4 Taboo and sacredness 178 11. ART 189 11.1 The function of art 189 11.2 Styles and social stratification 194 11.3 Visual art 195 11.4 Music and singing 199 11.5 Dance 209 8 11.6 Architecture 215 11.7 Clothing 218 11.8 Other arts 221 12. PLAY, GAMES AND SPORT 222 12.1 Play 222 12.2 Games 227 12.3 Sport 229 12.4 Comparison with other cultural phenomena232 13. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 235 13.1 Cultural r/k-selection 236 13.2 Cultural transmission media 239 13.3 The pleasure principle 241 13.4 Are we slaves of the culture? 242 13.5 Testability and sources of error 243 13.6 Explanatory power 249 14. THE FUTURE 251 14.1 Security policy 252 14.2 Population policy 253 14.3 Immigration policy 254 14.4 Economic policy 255 14.5 Media policy 255 14.6 Disadvantages of kalypticity 257 14.7 Hazards by applying the r/k-theory 259 15. EXPLANATION OF WORDS 261 16. LITERATURE 271 17. KEYWORD INDEX 308 INTRODUCTION 9 1. INTRODUCTION This book describes a new interdisciplinary theory for explaining cultural change. In contrast to traditional evolutionist theories, the present theory stresses the fact that a culture can evolve in different directions depen- ding on its life conditions. Cultural selection theory explains why certain cultures or cultural ele- ments spread, possibly at the expense of other cultures or cultural elements which then disappear. Cultural elements include social structure, traditions, religion, rituals, art, norms, morals, ideologies, ideas, inventions, knowledge, technology, etc. This theory is inspired by Charles Darwin's idea of natural selection, because cultural elements are seen as analogous to genes in the sense that they may be reproduced from generation to generation and they may undergo change. A culture may evolve because certain cultural elements are more likely to spread and be reproduced than others, analogously to a species evolving because individuals possessing certain traits are more fit than others to reproduce and transmit these traits to their offspring. In a society with a free market economy, competition plays a major role in determining the course of social and economic evolution. Selection theory is indispensible for analyzing this process because the result of each competition event is a selection. The same applies to democratic elections. Each election is a selection event, and an analysis of the selection criteria is necessary for a scientific analysis of the deve- lopment of a democratic society. In primitive societies without a monetary system and without democracy, the course of development may be determined by other political systems or by the outcomes of conflict and war - still different kinds of selection. Obviously, a systematic application of selection theory in social science is long overdue! A cultural selection process can be viewed from two opposing angles. Assume, for example, that we ask two different persons why a particular pop song has become a hit. Person A says it is because people like that kind of music, while B says it is because this song has a catchy tune. In reality they are both saying the same thing, because a catchy tune is indeed defined as a tune people like. But A is seeing the selection of this song as due to a characteristic of the persons: they have a taste for this tune, while B sees it as a characteristic of the song: it has a tune 10 CHAPTER 1 that matches people's taste. A's interpretation can be called anthropocentric while B's point of view is the opposite. We can take the non-anthropocentric view even further by comparing pop songs or fashions or other cultural phenomena with parasites competing for access to people's minds. Of course a song or a fashion does not have some kind of magic soul or a will to become popular - this is just a metaphor which turns out to be very useful for explaining certain irrational or unintended social phenomena. Humans have a peculiar ability to rationalize unconscious motives, i.e. to invent rational reasons justifying their irrational behavior. Most actions therefore seem rational and planned - even if they are not. Not all social changes are planned and decided on in a democratic manner to the benefit of all. Unconscious motives in the social participants, unintended consequences of rational choices, unintended macroscopic conse- quences of the sum of the actions of many individuals, uncontrollable consequences of conflicts, ecological factors, economic competition, and many other mechanisms influence the evolution of societies in directions that may be unforeseen, and that may not be beneficial to everyone. The powerful paradigm of cultural selection theory challenges traditional sociology by its superior ability to explain such irrational factors in social evolution. Phenomena like religion, ideology, politics, morals, and norms play a fundamental role in any culture, and the study of cultural change is impossible without a study of changes in these rules of conduct and philosophies of life. You cannot describe a belief or ideology in its own terms without loosing the scientific objectivity. It is necessary to achieve a scientific distance - an external viewing-angle - in order to study why a belief system evolves in a certain direction, and in order to compare different belief systems on equal terms. The scientist has to see himself as an atheistic nihilist or as a biologist studying the most peculiar animal on Earth in order to maintain a sufficient degree of objectivity towards different ideologies and philosophies. The non-anthropocentric stand- point may be very helpful here. Unfortunately, we often have a problem accepting this way of thinking because it is incompatible with our anthropocentric worldview. A considerable amount of abstract thinking is needed here. It is hardly possible to obtain complete objectivity when studying social phenomena. Unfortunately, the acknowledgment of this fact has led INTRODUCTION 11 several scholars to totally drop the requirement for objectivity, and consciously mingle science with ideology. Feminism and marxism1 are well-known examples. In my opinion, this subjective tendency is dangerous for science, and I will therefore strive towards the highest possible degree of objectivity, especially when studying controversial ideological or religious phenomena. You will notice that I am combining theories from several different scientific disciplines without any regard to the ideological conflicts that prevail between certain of these disciplines, and without any regard to the fact that some disciplines are 'in' and others are 'out' for ideological reasons. There is a huge gap between the natural sciences where tradition dictates exactness in models and definitions, and on the other hand the social and humanistic sciences where exact models would be rejected for being reductionistic and for ignoring human diversity and unique- ness. My attempt to combine theories from so different sciences has therefore been quite a challenge. The distance between the exact and the soft sciences is so immense that any compromise between these two points of view will be unacceptable to both parties.