BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2006) 29, 329–383 Printed in the United States of America Towards a unified science of cultural evolution Alex Mesoudi Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution and School of Psychology, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9JP, Scotland, United Kingdom; and Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri – Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211; and W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z2, Canada. [email protected] www.missouri.edu/mesoudia/ Andrew Whiten Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution and School of Psychology, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9JP, Scotland, United Kingdom. [email protected] www.st-and.ac.uk/aw2/ Kevin N. Laland Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution and School of Biology, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9TS, Scotland, United Kingdom. [email protected] www.st-andrews.ac.uk/seal Abstract: We suggest that human culture exhibits key Darwinian evolutionary properties, and argue that the structure of a science of cultural evolution should share fundamental features with the structure of the science of biological evolution. This latter claim is tested by outlining the methods and approaches employed by the principal subdisciplines of evolutionary biology and assessing whether there is an existing or potential corresponding approach to the study of cultural evolution. Existing approaches within anthropology and archaeology demonstrate a good match with the macroevolutionary methods of systematics, paleobiology, and biogeography, whereas mathematical models derived from population genetics have been successfully developed to study cultural microevolution. Much potential exists for experimental simulations and field studies of cultural microevolution, where there are opportunities to borrow further methods and hypotheses from biology. Potential also exists for the cultural equivalent of molecular genetics in “social cognitive neuroscience,” although many fundamental issues have yet to be resolved. It is argued that studying culture within a unifying evolutionary framework has the potential to integrate a number of separate disciplines within the social sciences. Keywords: cultural anthropology; cultural evolution; cultural transmission; culture; evolution; evolutionary archaeology; evolutionary biology; gene-culture coevolution; memes; social learning. 1. Introduction human culture, and furthermore, that the structure of a science of cultural evolution should broadly resemble Parallels or analogies between biological and cultural evol- the structure of evolutionary biology. In the present ution have been noted by a number of eminent figures paper we attempt to make this comparison explicit, by from diverse fields of study (e.g., Darwin 1871/2003; examining the different approaches and methods used Dawkins 1976; Dennett 1995; Dobzhansky et al. 1977; by evolutionary biologists and assessing whether there is Hull 1982; Huxley 1955; James 1880; Medawar 1982; an existing corresponding approach or method in the Popper 1979; Skinner 1981), and in the last few years a study of cultural evolution. Where such an existing corre- burgeoning literature exploring this relationship has spondence is not found, we explore whether there is the emerged (e.g., Aunger 2000b; 2002; Blackmore 1999; potential to develop one. We also explore potential differ- Boyd & Richerson 2005; Danchin et al. 2004; Mace & ences between biological and cultural evolution. Holden 2005; Mesoudi et al. 2004; Mufwene 2001; Pagel The purpose of this comparison is primarily to stimulate & Mace 2004; Plotkin 2002b; Richerson & Boyd 2005; a more progressive and rigorous science of culture. Runciman 2005; Shennan 2002; Wheeler et al. 2002; Although evolutionary biology has become enormously Ziman 2000). productive since Darwin’s theory of evolution was formu- The implication of this growing body of theory is that lated, the discipline that professes to be most directly culture exhibits key Darwinian evolutionary properties. engaged in the study of culture – cultural or social anthro- If this is accepted, it follows that the same tools, pology – has been much less demonstratively productive methods, and approaches that are used to study biological over the course of the same time period, particularly in evolution may productively be applied to the study of terms of establishing a secure body of data and theory # 2006 Cambridge University Press 0140-525x/06 $12.50 329 Mesoudi, Whiten & Laland: Towards a unified science of cultural evolution that earns and deserves the attention of researchers object that human culture is too complex to be amenable working in sister disciplines. This is increasingly acknowl- to such simplifying assumptions and methods, the relative edged by many of its own practitioners (e.g., Bennett 1999; success of biologists in studying enormously complex bio- Bloch 2000; Kuper 1999). For example, in a recent review logical systems renders such objections open to question. of the history of anthropology, Bennett (1999) states that Second, and particularly relevant to this article, the “the cultural side of the discipline tends to smother its theory of evolution encompasses and integrates a multi- data with personal and arcane theorizing” (p. 951), while tude of diverse subdisciplines within biology, from beha- another anthropologist, Bloch (2000), states that cultural vioural ecology to paleobiology to genetics, with each anthropology “with time, has become theoretically more subdiscipline stimulating and contributing to several and more vague, pretentious and epistemologically unten- others (see Mayr [1982] for further details of this “evol- able” (p. 202). utionary synthesis”). The social sciences, in contrast, Why has biology been so much more successful than have no such general synthesising framework, and the anthropology and many related fields of social science greater part of disciplines such as cultural anthropology, during the past 150 years? We do not believe that bio- archaeology, psychology, economics, sociology, and logists are on average more able than researchers who history remain relatively insular and isolated, both from have traditionally studied culture, nor is biology signifi- each other and from the biological and physical sciences. cantly easier to study than culture. Rather, we suspect Adopting an evolutionary framework can potentially that two factors are of particular importance. First is the serve to highlight how these disciplines are, in fact, study- relative willingness of biologists to make simplifying ing complementary aspects of the same problems, and assumptions and use what may be comparatively crude emphasise how multiple and multidisciplinary approaches but workable methods, in order to make complex to these problems are not only possible but necessary for systems tractable and contribute to the steady accumu- their full exposition. At present, many of the individual lation of reliable knowledge that will ultimately form the studies considered below are the result of independent basis of a sophisticated understanding of the phenomena developments at the fringes of separate fields of study. in question. Although many social scientists frequently Placing these disparate studies side-by-side within a broader evolutionary framework, as is done here, will, we hope, contribute towards creating a coherent unified ALEX MESOUDI is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Univer- movement and bring evolutionary analyses of cultural sity of British Columbia. He was educated at University phenomena into the mainstream. College, London (B.Sc. in Psychology) and the Univer- An evolutionary framework also brings with it a set of sity of Liverpool (M.Sc. in Evolutionary Psychology) before recently completing his Ph.D. in Psychology at proven methods that have rich potential within the study the University of St. Andrews. His research interests of culture. We note below a number of cases in which include the experimental study of human cultural trans- methods developed within evolutionary biology have mission and evolutionary approaches to human culture. been adapted for use in the study of culture, such as phylo- Previously published articles include “Is human cultural genetic analyses or population genetic models. As we shall evolution Darwinian? Evidence reviewed from the see, several of these evolutionary methods have already perspective of The Origin of Species” in the journal contributed to significant advances over more traditional Evolution. He recently has been conducting experi- non-evolutionary methods. mental simulations of changes in the archaeological The left side of Figure 1 illustrates the overall structure record in collaboration with evolutionary archaeologist of evolutionary biology, as described by Futuyma (1998, Michael O’Brien. pp. 12–14) in what is, perhaps, the most widely used ANDREW WHITEN, a Fellow of the Royal Society of undergraduate textbook in the field. The study of biological Edinburgh and the British Academy, is Professor of macroevolution deals with change at or above the species Evolutionary and Developmental Psychology and level, whereas biological microevolution concerns Wardlaw Professor of Psychology at the University of changes within populations of a single species. The St. Andrews. He is the Coordinator of the recently former comprises systematics, paleobiology, and biogeo- established Centre for Social Learning and