[Review] Bringing Darwin into the social sciences and the humanities by Stefaan Blancke & Gilles Denis

Bringing Darwin into the social sciences and the humanities: 

cultural evolution and its philosophical implications 

by Stefaan Blancke & Gilles Denis

Original Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40656-018-0195-0

 


What is the main point(s) of the reading/theory?

In this paper, the author deals with the fact that various schools have recently referred to the idea of biological evolution to advance the study of human cultural evolution. Indeed, the authors say that it is worth harnessing the biological evolution of organisms for us to understand human cultural evolution and derive valuable insights. However, the author explains throughout this paper that there is a lot of room for discussion and research in various academic/scientific fields about how to graft the thought of biological evolution into the thought of cultural evolution.

 When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in the 19th century, some scholars thought that his “survival of the fittest” idea of biological evolution could be applied to social evolution. Herbert Spencer, as we know it, is one of the leading scholars who argued this. Unfortunately, however, Spencer's theory of social evolution became a tool for Western powers to assert their legitimacy to dominate their colonies, and in the end, people in many countries suffered. However, recently, scholars have begun to refocus the thought of biological evolution for the study of cultural evolution. However, during the recent resurgence of research, scholars begin to study and discuss very specific points of view.

 The main points that are emerging among researchers these days are:

In the evolution of an organism, only those that can simply adapt to the changing environment among numerous diverse descendants survive, and as these selective progeny survival is repeated, the organism evolves. In practice, this evolution is very passive and takes a very long time. However, unlike other living things, humans can learn or imitate knowledge based on language and writing. As a result, humans can respond flexibly to environmental changes as well as actively create an environment favorable to survival because their survival know-how is passed down over several generations. In addition, humans accumulate cultural transformations, selections, and inheritance, allowing them to gradually evolve their cultures. Finally, we can use the tools, methods, and approaches used to study biological evolution to explain and understand culture.

 Nevertheless, scholars point out many limitations to the ongoing research on cultural evolution based on biological evolution.

One of the factors that greatly influence cultural evolution is the power, social relations, and inheritance of ancestral social abilities in human society, which should be considered independent of the biological point of view. In addition, there were many logical abstractions to adopt the theory of biological evolution from the earliest social evolutionary theory, which appeared at least in the 19th century. It is necessary to refine the logical abstraction between these two different theories. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to apply some microscopic assumptions and models borrowed from evolutionary biology to the theory of cultural evolution.

 

What is the evidence that the theory is valid?

We use the ‘mental model’ to quickly recognize complex problems and quickly generate ideas based on a lot of information. I think this tells us that the structure of our thoughts and experiences are vast and complex incomparable to those of living things. It is clear evidence that it is difficult to use the same theory (biological evolutionary theory) to understand the evolution of two groups of organisms that are so different from each other (humans and the rest of life).

 

How does that point appear in historical, contemporary or potential future social changes?

If the cultural evolution theory based on the biological evolution theory that scholars are currently studying makes progress, we will be able to explain in more detail the cause of evolution from human history in the past to modern culture. With the same logic, it seems that we can create more accurate future scenarios by combining our current culture and environmental changes.

 

What part of the reading/theory doesn't make sense or might even be wrong?

It may be a strange idea, but as I read this article, the following questions came to mind.

In biological evolution, organisms reproduce more and more offspring over time, but those that do not adapt to their environment disappear. In other words, living organisms respond passively to changes in the environment, increasing or decreasing the total population. However, present-day humans certainly dominate the environment, and are located at the top of the Earth's ecosystem pyramid. Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries, populations are steadily declining. Is it because they don't adapt to the environment? Or is it because there is another law that we haven't figured out?

 

What does this reading/theory assume about people or society that distinguishes it from other theories?

Frankly, when I first encountered Spencer's theory, I thought that the principles of human social evolution could apply the same logic as Darwin's biological evolutionary theory. But as I read this article, I realized that I was thinking too simplistically. I expect that many social evolutionary researchers are conducting research with a ‘hypothesis’ similar to mine.

But,

In his book Sapiens, Yuval Harari mentioned that the biggest difference between humans and other creatures on Earth is the ability to virtualize and imagine things that do not exist in our heads. I think the biggest reason why it is difficult to apply biological evolution to social/cultural evolution is because of this unique ability of humans. I think it is very important to include this as a new core assumption in the study of social/cultural evolution.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[Interview] Yunsik Choi, a Korean futurist

Image
An interview with a Korean futurist: Yunsik Choi Interviewee Profile As Korea's most popular futurist, he is the author of more than 50 books (including futures scenario books such as ‘2030 A Bold Future’). His books have been published in South Korea, China and Japan. In addition, he served as the president of the Institute for Future Technology Management, State University of New York in Korea, research professor at the State University of New York in in Korea, and head of the executive course at the International Business School. Recently, he founded the Asian Future Research Institute to train futurists and study future scenarios. In addition, he communicates with the public through various lectures. He graduated from the University of Houston with a BA in Foresight.  Q: How did you find out about foresight, and how did you start your career as a futurist? Q: It seems that foresight is not widely known in South Korea. Do you agree with my opinion? And where do you see the cause...
Read more

The Future of Northeast Asian Countries - (2) Domain description and scope of the project

Image
Title  The Future of Northeast Asian Countries Sub Title Korea's Direction to Secure an Advantageous Position in Competition in Northeast Asian Countries Domain Definition At least three countries are located within the Northeast Asian region. These countries have been in fierce competition since thousands of years ago. In fact, none of these countries have ever been a permanent winner, and none have always been losers. Because of this fierce competition, most of the countries in the region had to be very belligerent and strong. This competition will continue in the future as well. The present winners and losers in this area may not be valid in the future. In addition, the current country-specific relationship and ecosystem structure will also change. A wide variety of influencing factors and interests will affect these future changes. Therefore, this project aims to establish scenarios of the future Northeast Asia from the perspective of South Korea and to think about countermeasu...
Read more

[Book Review] A Crude Look At The Whole by John H. Miller

Image
A Crude Look At The Whole by John H. Miller Who is the author? John H. Miller holds a B.A. in Economics and a B.S. in Finance from the University of Colorado. He received his PhD in Economics from the University of Michigan in 1988. Since then, he has joined the Santa Fe Institute as a doctorial fellow and is currently Professor of Economies and Social Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. His research fields are as follows, and we can see that his research fields are very broad. Agent-based Modeling, AI/Machine Learning, Behavior, Biology, Economics, Evolution, Finance, Psychology, Risk & Uncertainty, Social Science, Strategy/Decision Making, Complex Adaptive Social Systems (Source: Santa Fe Institute website) Why did the author write this book? As an economist, his main research field is focused on the study of economic mechanisms or finding and studying economic patterns based on the theory of complex systems. In fact, we all know that the economy is only a small fraction (or ...
Read more