Reproducers and the evolutionary development of culture

James Griesemer
STS, University of California, Davis

     Full text: Not available
     Last modified: June 14, 2005
     Presentation date: 07/14/2005 11:00 AM in ROZH 105
     (View Schedule)

Abstract
Session: The Evolution of Cultural Novelty (Ken Reisman, William Wimsatt organizers).

The reproducer perspective is designed as an alternative to the “gene’s eye view” for evolutionary processes. In this paper, I argue that material reproducers can be important units of culture and cultural evolution, despite the common assumption that culture depends on transmission of units that are “meme-based,” “language-based,” “non-genetic,” or in some other way “non-biological.” While it is obvious that human organisms are material reproducers, reproduction at the level of social groups is non-trivial. Models of culture require structure at least as rich as the complex organization of biological traits and developmental mechanisms. Individuals may belong to multiple trait-groups, e.g. an academic simultaneously involved in a research team, an administrative committee, and as a course instructor. Social groups can also behave in deme-like ways, sending out “propagules” that form new social groups with varying cultural commitments that exhibit developmental dependencies manifesting as conflicts and constraints for individuals. Models of cultural dynamics must account for these cross-entrenchments in the behavior of social groups and individuals. Since the core idea in the reproducer perspective is material overlap—offspring formed from organized parts of parents, such as cells, rather than by copying of traits—it works well for demic models of group-level reproduction where groups are “parts delimited” rather than “properties delimited.” Social interactions at the heart of culture often appear, however, to fit a trait group model, in so far as participants in the face to face interactions that structure groups according to core tasks can be ephemeral and property-delimited. Probably, neither pure-trait nor pure-deme models of social groups are accurate for culture and cultural evolution. Trait groups might form on the basis of shared cultural traits, but then function as demes sending out small offspring groups carrying those traits. In turn, socially organized offspring groups could develop on the basis of trait differentiation and “cross-referencing” within the deme. Drawing on joint work with William Wimsatt and Linnda Caporael, I argue that hybrid trait/deme models may be useful for studying how social group structures “scaffold” the development of culture in group members who belong to multiple cross-cutting reference groups while creating conditions favorable to demic organization, cultural group reproduction, and cultural evolution.

Multiple Paper Session:
Other papers in this session:
When Does Cultural Selection Explain Cultural Novelty?
Cultural Variation and Epistemic Access
Constraints on Cultural Adaptation
Core Configurations that Can Think, Learn and Create
Generative Entrenchment and the scaffolding of individual development and social institutions