Darwinian Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology - Research Paper Example

Darwinian Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology: What’s the Difference? This paper discusses two major views of the cultural development of humans, which are Darwinian Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology. This paper examines both theories and finds that they have similarities, the most obvious of which being the basis of said development on the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. Each has its own justifiable points on human development; likewise each has its fallacies. It is the intent of this paper to explore these similarities and differences as well as the ramifications thereof. On his famous trip to the Galapagos Islands in the mid-1800’s, Charles Darwin witnessed tangible evidence for his theory regarding the origin of all species. The 13 islands are relatively close in proximity but are vastly different geographically, some had desert-like conditions, others more tropical, some sandy, some rocky for example. Darwin noticed the variations of the same species which had adapted to the different conditions on different islands over time and eventually evolved into a new species. He proposed that animals adapt to a new environment over long periods of time, millions of years, through a process which he named natural selection. The exact method by which evolution occurred and continues to occur is still argued among scientists. Some scientists suggest that mutations are responsible for evolution. An animal is born with a specialized new trait that happens to be beneficial for its survival such as a longer neck, larger teeth, thicker fur, higher developed senses, etc. This animal thrives and produces offspring that carries the same inherited trait therefore live longer and produce more offspring than others of its species. Eventually the new type ‘wins out’ over the original species and a new species has born. Darwinian anthropologists suggest that humans develop based upon behavioral outcomes and thus behavior remains an aspect of genetic change while evolutionary psychologists suggest humans develop as a process of changing the mental tools we already have to address different issues and environments. Darwinian Anthropology Based largely upon Darwin’s theory of evolution, Darwinian anthropology holds that ancestral adaptation was specific to the environment in which they lived. Behavior was shaped by the needs and expectations of this environment and was based on best fitness to survive. This survival element was based upon environmental conditions first and then brought about adaptations based upon this environment. Therefore, “the way to look for adaptations is not to try to find ancient mental mechanisms but to look at current behavior in relation to local environmental conditions” (Cartwright, 2000). Rather than being dependent on inborn traits and attributes, Darwinian anthropology holds that the individual adapts their behavior based upon new learning and new skills to cope with the environment in which they find themselves. Moving the individual out of this environment creates difficulty as in the case of immigration. Although first generation immigrants often have difficulty incorporating into their new society, being taken advantage of and generally proving unfit to survive in their new society based upon the degree to which their childhood differs from their new country, successive generations gradually develop the adaptive tools necessary for better survival within this new world. Under the umbrella of Darwinian anthropology, “culture should be viewed a part of a fitness maximization program. Humans are flexible opportunists and so optimality models can be used” to predict behavior (Cartwright, 2000). There is a much greater concentration on behavioral outcomes when taking a Darwinian anthropology approach. This is significantly different from the approach taken in evolutionary psychology, which places stronger emphasis on beliefs, values or emotions among other things. Evolutionary Psychology While Darwin’s theory of evolution is largely based on physical data, the study and practice of psychology is based principally on more abstract theories. The general conclusions and assumptions of psychological theories, unlike other sciences such as biology, chemistry or physics, are not widely accepted because the instigating factors determining human behaviors are varied and complex. As an example, evolution employs genetic comparisons to test theories but the psychological explanation of the unconscious mind cannot be as accurately defined or confirmed. In addition, the theories of other sciences are more tangible. Gravity is a theory that has yet to be proven yet the fact that it occurs is universally accepted. By contrast, the most basic questions concerning behavior have yet to be answered or accepted by the whole of the professional and academic psychological community. Disagreements abound regarding the existence and functions of the unconscious mind, the genesis of human motivations and whether behavior is influenced more by genetic, social or physiological causes. Unlike other sciences, there are many viable systematic methods of explaining human behavior. Evolutionary psychology attempts to bridge this gap to some extent by tracing human behavior back to its ultimate physical roots. The foundation of evolutionary psychological theory relies on the principle that considerable components of human cognitive capabilities are inherent, derived from genetic coding. This logic is based on the assumption that the brain/mind, much as the body, evolves functional modifications so as to adapt to its environment. The evolution theory applies to the body at least to a great degree but to draw an evolutionary connection to the mind is, by some estimations, flawed reasoning. People have the ability to learn and generally pass along learned behavioral guidelines to subsequent generations. The passing of learned behavior from generation to generation is commonly referred to as ‘culture.’ The process of learned and cultural adaptations occur much more rapidly than does evolution via genetic means therefore are much more proficient in producing practical adaptations. Consequently, learned behavioral modifications are more influential than inherited mental capacities and thus are dominant. Because genetic alterations of the mind are unnecessary there is no scientific reasoning that could explain the need for evolution by this method. “Since learning and cultural adaptation and functional degradation of unselected abilities are all fast processes in evolutionary scale, we shouldn’t expect innate mental abilities that can be learned with or without cultural effects to exist at all” (Dawkins, 1989). The study of evolutionary psychology is not without its detractors. However, it has contributed to science in that it aids in the development of pertinent questions regarding human behavior which can then be further addressed by researchers. There have been many fields of psychological study in which the evolutionary model has spawned innovative theories. The study of evolutionary psychology has led to noteworthy insights into cognitive explanations for behavior and initiated new guidelines for further research and understanding of human behavior. An example is in the area of psychological distinctions involving gender. The study of evolutionary psychology has been employed to explain why men and women become jealous when infidelity is introduced to a long-term relationship. In both cases jealousy emanates because of reproductive issues that date back to ancestral times and through genetics which still exist in the human mind today. Men, it is theorized, experience jealousy for sexual reasons because the offspring of the partner is in question therefore stifling his ability to reproduce. Women become jealous for emotional reasons stemming from their fear that a female rival will reproduce while they will not and thus gain the support of the male. The need to produce offspring was strong and necessary for the propagation of the species when humans lived in small, isolated groups. This emotion, much as the ‘fight or flight’ reaction is a leftover from the beginnings of mankind yet survives in the genetic code (Buunk et al, 1996). “This view assumes that the human mind is composed of a number of domain-specific, highly tuned systems designed by selection to solve specific sets of problems that would have recurrently confronted ancestral humans in their natural environment” (Barkow et al, 1992). Thus, evolutionary psychology has provided viable reasoning for the emotion of jealousy and the subsequent behavioral response. Applying the evolutionary principle allows the interjection of novel concepts to help explain the very complex sphere of behavior where many external and internal factors are in play. An example can be found when studying the topic of violent actions against children by adults that lead to the death of a child, a very puzzling behavioral issue. Research that does not employ evolutionary thinking suggests that because society, historically speaking, has condoned parents disciplining their children by means of corporal punishment, deaths are at times the consequence when the situation escalates beyond the norm, a simplistic answer that does not address the underlying causes. Evolutionary psychology rejects this explanation because the innate need to reproduce generated the need to protect offspring, an emotion as strong today as it was in the earliest beginnings of mankind, maintained through an inherited trait. This trait is common in most mammals. Killing one’s own children is inconsistent with the evolution theory. A study found that a child who lived with a step-parent was 100 times more likely to be killed by their parents and 40 times more at risk to experience severe physical maltreatment than are children who live with their biological mother and father. The study reported that “living in a household with a step-parent was the single most significant risk factor for being abused as a child” (Daly & Wilson, 1999). If not for the evolutionary point of view, the original question that initiated research such as this likely would not have been asked. Because of evolutionary psychology, this and other insights to human behavior have been uncovered such as in the area of antisocial personality obsessive-compulsive and eating disorders, anxiety and depression. This controversial genre of psychological study has been helpful in that it has opened the doors to questions that might not otherwise have been asked and answers that expand the understanding of human behaviors. Application of Theory Although several examples have already been provided that illustrate the difference between evolutionary psychology and Darwin’s theory of evolution, a closer look into a single issue helps to illustrate how these concepts work together to both broaden and refine human knowledge. It is well known within the scientific community and among the public as well that animals communicate often and in exceptionally intricate ways. However, human language involves more than complex methods of vocal communication. Grammar specialist Noam Chomsky and other Darwinian Anthropologists believe that the evolution of specific portions of the human brain have allowed for a unique understanding of language. Evolutionary psychology suggests that language is a tool that was developed as were other tools, by utilizing preexisting physical structures and areas of psychological responsibility within the brain. The competing schools of thought can be described using the familiar ‘nature vs. nurture’ (biological vs. environment) model. The nature explanation of Darwinian anthropologists is that language ability has evolved over thousands of generations in accordance with Darwin’s theory of evolution. The evolutionary psychological position argues that there is no inherent language usage ability. It began as a means of social survival and evolved throughout the centuries by means of cultural associations (Knezek, 1997). If the latter is true, humans’ closest biological cousins, chimpanzees and apes, could potentially learn language and communicate with humans. The debate centers on the whether or not animals have the ability to think on a similar cognitive level as humans. In answering this question, Chomsky cited the French philosopher Rene Descartes, “the word is the sole sign and certain mark of the presence of thought … the basic lack of anything resembling grammar and syntax in animal communication precludes non-human species from higher cognition” (cited in Hawes, 1995). As this debate continues, several apes have been taught and are successfully utilizing, via sign language, vocabularies that consist of many hundreds of words. They are communicating their thoughts by means of human language which has challenged the conventional wisdom regarding the characteristics of animal cognition. Again, the precise definition of language muddies the debate. Apes do not hold intellectual conversations similar to television cartoon characters but they are communicating using sign language based upon vocal human language. There are many identifying components that are required to formally label communicative skills as language. The intent to communicate must be exhibited along with an attached meaning, in other words, an exchange of ideas is necessary. Vocalizing language is not a requirement because the deaf and mute use sign language to communicate and their ability to use language is not in question (Fromkin, 1997). Whatever medium is utilized, meaning must be attached to the communication for it to be considered language. The ability to teach language to others is another component when deciding if language is actually understood. To a large extent, the apes and chimpanzees that have been taught human language have passed all these tests. There is, however, the issue of syntax usage. Science has not yet conclusively proven that apes have mastered the grammatical complexities of human language. “There has yet to be an ape that can create the complex and novel sentences that seem effortless even to a three or 4-year-old human child” (Fromkin, 1997). Kanzi the chimpanzee is but one example of primates that have been taught to use language. Whether or not one believes that animals can effectively communicate by language, all must agree that language is taught, whether or not it is an innate biological ability. Kanzi, by age six, had developed a 200 word vocabulary, had the ability to combine words and could construct complex, logical sentences using sign language.  “Kanzi’s language was initially dependent upon contextual cues, but that once he mastered a substantial vocabulary, he could respond accurately to 70 percent of novel commands from a concealed speaker” (Kosseff, 2005). Critics counter this saying that these accomplishments, though impressive, do nothing to prove that primates have the ability to use human language because the essential element of language capability is creating it on one’s own without prompt, not simply comprehending it. In addition, primates do not have the propensity to mimic sounds thus will never be able to become skilled at verbal communication nor can they replicate human vocal cords sounds. Because of vocalizing limitations, animals cannot speak in the same way as humans, but if this is the only criteria used to determine language usage, then those persons that have no power of speech for whatever reason must be categorized similarly. If the mute are discerned to use language then the same reasoning must be applied to animals that lack the vocal apparatus necessary for full vocal speech (Premack, 1983). Considering language and communication, it seems all children are born with the ability to quickly learn various methods of connecting with their caregivers and others. This seems to suggest the theories of evolutionary psychology are correct in that children seem born with the necessary tools to survive which are then selectively employed based upon the environment in which they are found. Infants’ communication is necessarily based on physical actions and tone of cry when the child is very small, but as they grow older, children begin to demonstrate that they understand gestures and the words of others even before they have voiced their first word. According to Gordon Wells (1986), the entire function of learning language and interacting socially is necessary in order to make connections with other people and help the individual make sense of their experiences, which seems to support the Darwinian anthropology theory. “Language occurs through an interaction among genes (which hold innate tendencies to communicate and be sociable), environment, and the child’s own thinking abilities” (Genishi, 2006). While some of this behavior can be attributed to the child’s natural imitation of the caregivers, there remain aspects to the way language and communication develops that haven’t yet been sufficiently explained. Generally speaking, language is nothing more than a set of symbols, usually auditory, that are commonly understood and are used to share or warehouse information (Eccardt, 2003). “The symbols are words, and their meanings cover everything we humans deal with … Generally, the above definition puts the label ‘language’ on English, Spanish, Chinese, etc. It also covers sign languages for deaf people” (Eccardt, 2003). This definition does not necessarily include the alphabet, writing or other forms of mechanical expression. On the other hand, most experts define the term communication as a method of conveying meaning through the use of diverse channels. These tools can include language, gestures, written words or other symbols. “There are three key elements in this definition: process, meaning and message … Note that ‘process’ is a verb of action. Somebody does something. That ‘doing something’ involves meaning and messages … Meaning is a subjective experience in our lives … Messages contain coded meaning and allow us to express or convey the meaning within us. Messages require rules like syntax and semantics” (Booth-Butterfield, 2007). Within this system, several elements must be mastered. Syntax and semantics, which are elements of language as well as communication, will be discussed in a moment along with other elements of language. The scientific study that brings all of these concepts into a conceptual whole regarding how language and communication are developed is known as linguistics. These are the fine points of language that Chomsky suggests the apes are lacking. In order to participate in language or to be able to adequately express oneself to others, children must learn five basic elements of language conjointly. These elements are known as phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Every known language in the world is comprised of these five elements. “Language acquisition progresses across these components with increasing quantity (e.g. sounds, words, and sentence length) and gradual refinement, and understanding of the subtler and more complex points of usage (e.g. using ‘taught’ rather than ‘teached’)” (Popp, 2004: 41). A ‘phoneme’ is a specific sound which can refer to the sound associated with a particular letter like /t/ or the sound associated with a specific group of letters /ch/. The field of study that investigates the basic speech patterns of different languages or dialects and the rules of pronunciation is known as phonology (Snow et al, 2002: 22). This level of language study exists at the very basics of language development. The next step is morphology in which these small sounds take on new meaning. Examples of this would be small words like ‘dot’ and the additional meanings of prefixes and affixes ‘dotted’ or ‘dots’. Grammar, word order and other rules regarding how sentences are formed is the property of syntax. Semantics refers to the meaning behind the words, introducing the abstract concept of levels of meaning within a sentence. “It is our understanding of semantics that allows us to recognize that someone who is ‘green with envy’ has not changed hue, or that ‘having cold feet’ has less to do with the appendage at the end of our legs and more to do with our anxiety about a new experience” (Popp, 2004: 42). Tone of voice, style of speech, individual modes of expression and ‘unofficial’ language usage fall within the context of pragmatics. “The way we speak to our parents is not the same as the way we interact with a sibling, for example” (Popp, 2004: 42). Because of their developmental stages, most researchers tend to focus only on phonology (sounds), syntactical development (grammar usage) and the progression of semantics (the understanding of levels of meaning) when studying young children. The idea that children might be born with the ability to learn language from the people around them was argued perhaps best by Noam Chomsky, who felt children had a Universal Grammar hard-wired into them that helped them acquire their first language within their first three years of life. “As a materialist he is required to believe that this grammar is somehow concealed in the physical workings of the brain itself, and that it is the end-product of a succession of evolutionary accidents ... In accepting [these assumptions], he is faced with the task of explaining how this Universal Grammar might operate. He does this, as do materialists the world over, by making use of mechanistic imagery” (Cruse, 2007). Although this idea was harshly criticized, new research seems to be supporting this idea. In the article “Born to Speak” (1998), studies were cited that indicated children who had never been taught complex interpretations were able to make their own assessments as early as age 3. While the answer to whether children are born with an inherent tool to help them learn language may continue to be debated for many years, the normal development of language is children has been shown to be dependent on several other factors as well. Theories regarding how children learn how to communicate have been formed in just about every field of science. Among the behaviorists, B.F. Skinner suggests that learning is a function of change in overt behavior (Skinner, 1953). His theory regarding positive behavior reinforcement indicate that when a child learns that repetition of the sound ‘ma’ into ‘ma-ma’ earns him a warm hug as reward, he will be more inclined to repeat that behavior the next time he wants a warm hug. Thus, language development occurs as a process of the child making the association with the behavior (hey, saying ma-ma earns a hug), the reinforcement of the expected behavior (I said ma-ma and I got a hug!) and imitation (I’m going to say ma-ma again so I can have a hug). Cognitive theories about language development such as those advocated by Schank (1975), Ausubel (1963) and Landa (1974) focus on concepts of meaning, rule structure and schema. Hatch (1983) and Vygotsky (Wertsch, 1985) suggest that children learn most of their language from simply participating in it. As they interact with others, they learn and expand on their knowledge intuitively. According to Jerome Bruner, there is a “plausible hypothesis that the evolution of play might be a major precursor to the emergence of language and symbolic behavior in higher primates and man” (1976: 21). Without a clear idea of how language and communication develops, it comes as no surprise that there are several conflicting ideas of how development can best be encouraged. In Charles Darwin’s studies, which lead to the theory of evolution, his examination of the linguistic-like characteristics in primates confirmed his historic, groundbreaking theory on the ancestry of mankind. Even the skeptic Chomsky admits that a better comprehension of the cognitive and intellectual aptitude of chimpanzees and other apes may allow for a deeper appreciation of the human thought process. Although animals have not as yet communicated vocally via human language, they have demonstrated the ability to converse with people to an amazingly large degree. They understand language and reply appropriately. Can animals use language? The answer remains dependent on how strict a definition one assigns the concept of language. These studies attempting to discover which theory is more correct, Darwinian anthropology or evolutionary psychology, prove that while neither theory is able to successfully answer all possible questions, the points at which they converge as well as the points at which they separate help us to develop new questions and approaches to knowledge that expand our understanding of how and why humans develop and behave the way they do. References Ausubel, D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1992) The Adapted Mind : Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York : Oxford University Press. Booth-Butterfield, Steve. (2007). “Human Communication: I Talk Therefore I Am.” Healthy Influence: Communication for a Change. V. 2. “Born to Speak: Cornell Studies Provide Evidence of Babies’ Innate Capability to Learn Language.” (February 17, 1998). Science Daily. Cornell University News Service. Bruner, Jerome S.; Jolly, Alison; and Sylva, Kathy (Eds.). (1976). Play – Its Role in Development and Evolution. New York, NY: Basic Books. Buunk, A. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., et al. (1996) “Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany and the United States.” Psychological Science. Vol. 7, pp. 359-363. Cruse, Don. (March/April 2007). “Chomsky and the Universal Grammar.” Southern Cross Review. Vol. 52. Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1988) Homicide. New York : Aldine De Gruyter. Dawkins, Richard. (1989). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eccardt, Thomas. (2003). “Definition of a Language.” The Museum of Human Language. Yale University. Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1997). An Introduction to Language. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Canada. Genishi, Celia. (2006). “Young Children’s Oral Language Development.” Child Development Institute. Hatch, E. (1983). Pyscholinguistics: A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hawes, Alex. (September / October 1995). “Machiavellian Monkeys & Shakespearean Apes: The Question of Primate Language.” Zoogoer Magazine. Smithsonian National Zoological Park. Knezek, Malia. (Fall, 1997). “Nature vs. Nurture: The Miracle of Language.” Psychology. North Carolina: Duke University. Kosseff, Lauren. (November 9, 2005). Primate Use of Language. Available May 4, 2009 from Landa, L. (1974). Algorithmization in Learning and Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Popp, Patricia. (December 2004). Chapter 5. Reading on the Go! Students who are Highly Mobile and Reading Instruction. Greensboro, NC: National Center for Homeless Education. Premack, D., Premack, A.J. (1983). The Mind of an Ape. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Schank, R.C. (1975). Conceptual Information Processing. New York: Elsevier. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan. Snow, C.; Burns, S. & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2001). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. (6th Printing). Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Wells, G. (1986). The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using Language to Learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Cultural, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. Read More