Is the Theory of Cultural Evolution Inherently Ethnocentric - Research Paper Example

Is the theory of cultural evolution inherently ethnocentric? The concept of cultural evolution-the idea that culture evolves and positive parallels can be drawn between biological and cultural change has always been a bone of contention in the history of social sciences. Right after the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, several scholars tried to understand cultural change through the ideas from biological evidences. For more than a century, evolutionary approaches to culture remained not only a leading paradigm to study culture, but also severely detested and considered nearly a taboo. Several theories of cultural evolution ranging from progressive theories of cultural evolution to more recent memetics also emerged. However, Mesoudi argues that none of these approaches were close to evolution as Darwin or modern biologists would identify.1In 20th century, Friedrich A. von Hayek proposed a theory of cultural evolution2often regarded as one of the most significant social theories in twentieth century.3 However, there is severe criticism on cultural evolutionary approaches. Main points of objection include: theory turned out to be heavily ethnocentric due to the generalizations and judgments about different societies, and its consideration of western society as the ultimate; the assumption that all cultures follow same stages of progress and hold same goals; material culture as a standard of civilization; and it equated survival as a measure of fitness and superiority which regard to the inherent misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. This research paper examines whether the theory of cultural evolution is inherently ethnocentric, and concludes that evolutionary theory is severely infected with ethnocentrism due to political and social agendas of the time it emerged in, however, we didn’t find ethnocentrism to be its inherent attribute. Culture and Ethnocentrism Over the past three centuries, human population and its standards of living has improved unprecedentedly as a result of gradual evolution of rules of behaviour and some other institutions.4 “Culture is information capable of affecting individuals’ behaviour that they acquire from other members of their species through teaching, imitation, and other forms of social transmission.”5 Here, the ‘information’ refers to any kind of mental state, whether conscious or otherwise, that humans acquired or adapted by social learning, and that influenced their behaviour.6 Ethnocentrism is often defined as, “the feeling that one’s group has a mode of living, values, and patterns of adaptation that are superior to those of other groups.”7“The norms of the ‘other’ are commonly perceived as moral failures.”8The feeling of rejecting others is not new as first Western anthropologist (and historian) Herodotus found that people from all ages were convinced that their own ways are far surpasses all of others.9 Development of the Theory of Cultural Evolution In order to understand evolutionary theory, we have to get back to what Darwin called “one long argument”10The argument has three fundamental elements, variation, competition, and inheritance. Variation refers to the idea that in any specie, individuals vary in their characteristics. Competition explains the struggle or rivalry over food, mates, nesting space, or any other limited source. Due to the limited nature of resources, all individuals won’t have equal chances of survival and reproduction. Moreover, individual characteristics influence the likelihood of success in this competition. Finally, offspring from any specie inherit the characteristics of its parents. Over a period of time, from this continuous cycle of variation, competition, and inheritance emerges evolutionary change. Evolutionary change refers to the change in the occurrence of a trait in population over a period of time. When any of the three fundamental elements is missing, the evolution is not happening. This point is absolutely critical but often ignored which leads to the falsification of the theory of evolution.11 Since we have to focus on Darwin’s survival of the fittest here, therefore, element of competition in culture is crucial. In culture, competition is found at the psychological level in the form of competition for space and memory. Moreover, there are effects of competition that manifests itself as extinction of various cultural practices and forms. We can say that cultural traits also compete and struggle for survival. Darwin drew several parallels between biological and cultural evolutions. Many cultural evolutionary theories were proposed by Edward Burnett Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan. However, it important to note that the evolutionary ideas that they applied to culture were not of Darwin’s but more inclined towards “progressive” evolutionary ideas of Herbert Spencer. The saw evolutionary process as some inevitable progress towards ever-increasing complexity, for instance, Morgan presented seven stages through which a society has to go through or will go through in the future.12More recently, Friedrich Hayek proposed a theory of cultural evolution that is regarded as the most significant in twentieth century.13 Theory of Cultural Evolution Horst Feldmann developed a synopsis of the theory of cultural evolution in his essays.14According to Hayek’ theory, humans and their hominid ancestors used to live in small groups millions of years before where every member of the group knew each other personally.15In those groups, life was identified on the basis on concrete shared goals and common perception of the environment. All members of the group recognized environment as a potential source of food and danger at the same time. Cooperation and responsibilities in the group was narrowly restricted. During this period, some particular instinctive behaviour evolved and became a fixed part of genetics. These instincts adapted to life and worked to make sure that the group coexist with consistency. These instincts include those of solidarity and altruism that applies to a certain group but not to others. Hayek believes that today’s civilization emerged only because some of those groups developed other modes of behaviours in a gradual manner. It gave rise to the tradition of learned rules that enabled the people to acquire skills and knowledge to gain power over the environment and facilitated individuals’ cooperation with others. The rules were then passed to next generations through teaching or mere imitation of what they observed. Over time, these activities improved and involved larger number of people. The groups that adopted such rules were able to increase in number more than others. They proved to be more successful in procreation and they attracted people from other groups as well. A vast majority of these learned rules replaced and overruled innate instincts were specific moral rules, for instance, honest, truthfulness, and contractual fidelity. In addition, other social institutions, such as, family, law, language, market, private property, and money also established in the same manner and played a critical role in the process of cultural evolution. Most of the times, recent rules adopted by groups repealed certain former prohibitions. Instead of eliminating certain rules and recommending others, certain rules were adopted during the course of cultural evolution. These rules provided more protection against arbitrary violence from third parties and enabled people to create a protected area where others were not allowed to interfere and within this field, people had the right to apply their knowledge for their own purpose. For instance, acceptance of barter trade with members of other groups; respect of defined private property, in particular, land; acceptance of competition by other skilled people within the same trade; enforcement of contractual duty; and lending the money, especially against the condition of interest payment. Hayek argues that all these innovation in behaviours were infringement of innate instincts or already established rules in the beginning. Furthermore, such rules that led to the emergence and shaping of the civilization were not adopted in a deliberate or purposeful manner. In most cases, they were discovered by chance and gradually established, from there, these rules were passed on to the next generations even when their functions were not completely revealed and understood. Hayek stresses that reason was not the driving force behind cultural evolution, but the fact is that it coevolved during the process of cultural evolution.16 Criticism and Objections The most critical objection of Hayek’s evolutionary theory is that it attributes everything that survives the process of cultural evolution as superior, thus survival proves the status of being superior. The critics argue that there is the absence of an independent point of reference that can examine the results of cultural evolution and political reforms proposals. Moreover, theory does not authorize us to figure out any political reform proposals. They criticize Hayek to be accused of implying what ‘is’, ‘ought’ to happen. They believe that by doing so, Hayek favours an uncritical Panglossianism, and committed a naturalistic fallacy. In other words, he believes that this is the best of all the possible worlds that we are living in. In order to be consistent with the assumptions, we have to accept totalitarian and socialist regimes that evolved during the process of this cultural evolution.17On the other hand, Hayek strongly rejected the charge of committing a naturalistic fallacy when he states: “I have no intention to commit what is often called the genetic or naturalistic fallacy. I do no claim that the results of group selection of traditions are necessarily ‘good’-any more than I claim that other things that have long survived in the course of evolution, such as cockroaches, have moral value. I do claim that, whether we like it or not, without the particular traditions I have mentioned, the extended order of civilization could not continue to exist...; and that id we discard these traditions, out of ill-considered notions (which may indeed genuinely commit the naturalistic fallacy) of what is to be reasonable, we shall doom a large part of mankind to poverty and death.”18 It is absolutely critical to consider that if preservation and progress of today’s people is accepted as a normative standard, then it is completely possible to deduce solid political reforms proposals from Hayek’s theory. However, one must consider to that evolutionary process cannot be directed by reason in terms of Hayek’s theory since reason itself emerged during the evolutionary process. The development o traditional institution was not a result of deliberate action. Moreover, their importance and interdependence wasn’t completely comprehensible for people, and present time is no exception.19While explaining this point, Hayek states, “[M]an has not only never invented his most beneficial institutions, from language to morals and law, and even today does not yet understand why he should preserve them when they satisfy neither his instincts not his reason.”20The process of cultural evolution cannot be controlled or directed since future conditions to which these institutions should adapt cannot be determined.21 While analysing evolutionary approaches, it is important to note that the evolutionary schema apply standards from ‘outside’ which is arguable. For instance, cultural evolution theory treats Polynesia, Wessex, Iron Age Denmark, and the ‘Anasazi’ as they are from same stage of evolution. Moreover, same factors and mechanisms for change are investigated in every context-class conflict, environmental stress, and establishment of managerial elite and everything else. Therefore, it is argued that cultural evolutionary models have ‘flatten out’ all societies from the past. Similarly, the views of past people about themselves are regarded as unimportant. Moreover, unique qualities of certain cultures, for instance, their artistic or cultural accomplishments, are either ignored or considered as capable of being generalized. In this way, these schemas fail to cover the particularity of historical sequences. There are moral and political aspects of cultural evolution theory. Indigenous people, who are the ‘subjects’ of comparative ethnography, believe that this ‘flattening out’ has ignored or somewhat suppressed the unique qualities of their ancestral traditions and ways of life. Furthermore, rather than presenting their mode of life as meaningful and pulsating that should be studied as a valuable source, it is considered to a remnant from past and outdated way of living. In this way, the only way forward towards evolution seems to be the ‘modern’ western culture or way of living.22 Secondly, cultural evolutionary models in their early forms often ignore the possibility of contingency or historical accident. It appears that societies had been on an even, always high, and unalterable path to state formation. Some scholars argue that history could have been formed in an entirely different way, merely by chance. Some attribute this approach as implicitly teleological. A teleological perception of history assumes that there is has always been a strong sense of direction of human kind who kept moving unflinchingly towards predefined goals or telos. Thirdly, cultural evolutionary models are inclined to completely ignore diffusion and cultural contact. If we assume evolutionary model’s idea that societies go through similar set of stages, to be true, how can we explain contact between societies and how such contact can prevent or alter the course of social change?23 Fourthly, it is stressed that human is also ignored in evolutionary models since they are presented merely as pawns who are captives of some unchangeable evolutionary process, with no control whatsoever. As a consequence to these criticisms, early models of cultural evolutions, in particular, uni-linear ones were completely abandoned. After that, archaeologists utilized evolutionary theory in two ways, either they abandoned it entirely, or they came up with cultural evolutionary ideas that dealt with the criticism, such as, multi-linear evolution.24 Modern anthropologists criticize cultural theory of evolution as ethnocentric since they believe that all cultures have the potential to grow at the same level as the Western civilization, Post-Enlightenment and Modernist era. The theory implies that other cultures are primitive and not developed enough as compared to the western societies. When it comes to religion, the theory holds Christianity as an ideal one for humankind. In other words, it may refer to today’s Jew as an uncivilized one, while regards the Christians today as those who have not fully achieved their cultural potential. James Ferguson also criticizes this point of view that sees one society as higher than the other.25 The idea of supremacy leads to the cultural hegemony of west over the rest of the world, in the form of colonization and continuing imperialism. The idea still holds true in this global village where west is still considered more civilized and holds a right to influence rest of the world, in particular, third world. The world is in chaos because of the west’s sense of superiority and its efforts to implement their version of higher levels of being in world, such as, democracy, and morality, while looking down upon other cultures and their trends.26 20th Century and Boas on Cultural Evolution Postmodernists in today’s world question that if the idea of evolution and society has an inherent meaning, and whether these evolutionary models explain about the person in action, or the thing being described. The culture that is observing and the one being observed is considered to lack significant cultural similarities which are required to transmit their concerned priorities easily.27For instance, “observation of very different ideas of mathematics and physics in indigenous people led indirectly to ideas such as George Lakoff’s “cognitive science of mathematics”, which asks if measurement system themselves can be objective.” 28 Early 20th century marked the rejection of widespread generalizations of the uni-lineal theories of socio-cultural evolution and inaugurated a period of systematic critical examination. Cultural anthropologists, such as, Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict and Margret Mead emerged as leaders of anthropology’s rejection of classical social evolutionism. With the help of sophisticated ethnography and extensive empirical methods, they argued that Spencer, Tylor, and Morgan’s theories were not only speculative, but they also distorted ethnographic data in a systematic manner. They regarded evolutionary theories dealing with the ‘stages’ of cultural evolution as illusions. Most importantly, with regard to this research, they rejected the division between “primitive” and “civilized” or modern. Contrary to evolutionary theory, Boas stressed that so-called primitive contemporary societies are not less evolved and have as much history as so-called civilized societies. Therefore, they stressed that any effort to apply social evolutionary theory to reconstruct the histories of those regarded as non-literate (refers to those who leave no historical document) is entirely speculative and unscientific.29 Boas and his fellows observed the idea of postulated progression in the process of cultural evolution that usually ended on a stage that is very similar to that of modern Europe. They regarded such ideas of progression as ethnocentric. Moreover, they highlighted that the theory assumes societies to be circumscribed and unique; however, the fact is that cultural traits and forms tend to cross such limitations and diffuse among many different societies. In addition, it happens quite often, and thus becomes a vital mechanism of change in societies. In an effort to resolve this issue, Boas came up with the cultural history approach that focused on fieldwork among natives to identify and acknowledge real cultural and historical process rather than speculative stages of growth from evolutionary models. Baos’s approach shaped American anthropology during first half of 20th century; therefore, high-level generalizations and “system building” became nearly non-existent as compared to past.30 After Boas, scholars observed that evolutionary theory’s assumption of distinct and circumscribed societies was emerged at the time when European powers were colonizing non-western societies; therefore, this assumption had hidden interests. Uni-lineal cultural and social evolution theory is often considered a Western myth that lacks significant empirical evidence. Critics stress that notions of social evolution are merely self-serving justification to gain power for those who were the elites of the society. At last, devastating World Wars, deaths, genocide, and destruction of industrial infrastructure snatched Europe’s self-confidence, and consequently, the concept of progress appeared to be dubious at its best.31 Considering a plethora of theoretical problems, modern socio-cultural evolutionism discards most of classical social evolutionism. These theoretical problems include: theory turned out to be heavily ethnocentric due to the generalizations and judgements about different societies, and its consideration of western society as the ultimate; the assumption that all cultures follow same stages of progress and hold same goals; material culture (cities, and technology) as a standard of civilization; and last but not the least, it equated survival as a measure of fitness and superiority which regard to the inherent misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.32 Mesoudi also finds that these early “progress” theories of cultural evolution are flawed. Mainly because of they are infected by racist and colonialist social ideas of the Victorian societies. It may have happened due to the time period they emerged in. The idea that non-western societies are less evolved than contemporary America or Britain justifies the objection of ethnocentrism. Irrespective of their political implications, it is critical to understand that these cultural evolutionary theories or rather progress theories show little resemblance to either theory of cultural evolution presented in Darwin’s book, The Origin, or with that of what modern biologist consider evolution.33As For biological evolution, Stephen Jay Gould repeatedly argues that it is, “explicitly non-progressive”34 It is absolutely critical to understand that species don’t progress on a fixed path or stages, whether it is a simple microorganism or complex animals and plants. Contrary to popular belief, humans are not at the top of some evolutionary ladder because there is no ladder at all. There is only local adaptation to local environments, and this adaptation does not necessarily equate into global enhancement of fitness. Moreover, it does not lead to an inevitable and completely predictable evolutionary change along some predetermined route.35 Franz Boas also argued that there is little historical and ethnographic evidence that different societies go through similar stages in the similar order. Moreover, contemporary non-Western societies cannot be significantly compared with ancient non-Western societies.36In addition, “more fundamentally, societies do not constitute self-contained wholes in the form of distinct stages. Ideas, technologies, and people can move from one society to another, such that different societies may share some aspects of culture and may differ in others.”37Finally, these “progressive” theories are insufficient because they don’t identify the processes that facilitate the “cultural progresses”. It appears as if societies somehow magically move from one stage to another once there were sufficient number of inventions, such as, pottery and use of fire.38 Progress theories of biological evolution instantly purged from biology, on the other hand, progress theories of cultural evolution stayed into the twentieth century.39 Contemporary anthropologists and sociologists may wary of modern theories of cultural evolution considering their (unidentified) association with the 19th century progression of cultural evolutionary theory since they are charged with political motivation or scientific doubt. Here, it is crucial to recognize that progressive Spenserian theory of evolution is differentiated form Darwin’s population-based theory of evolution.40 Mark Pluciennik goes to the point of completely rejecting the idea of any kind of evolutionary thinking.41 This harsh criticism stems from different aspects of cultural evolution theory. Most of the criticism of cultural evolution resonates with postprocessual critiques of archaeology as a whole. For instance, “The concept of function, adaptation, and evolution have no expletory role in a consideration of the social and need to be either completely abandoned or reduced to a simple descriptive vocabulary.”42 Trigger agrees with Shanks and Tilley and associate the rejection of socio-cultural evolution with the extreme relativism of post-processual archaeology. He believes that there is little chance that socio-cultural evolution theory has lost its status in archaeology.43 Trigger’s provides a critical historical analysis in his book Socio-cultural Evolution. He analyzed the concept of socio-cultural evolution in its political and social context, its development and application in terms of collecting date from past. He also corroborates that various political and social agendas have used socio-cultural evolution, and therefore, the concept is laden with the baggage of ethnocentrism.44However, he observes that the problems arise from the political use of the concept which does not deal with the shape and direction of mankind. Trigger asserts that racism and ethnocentrism cannot be considered as inherent to socio-cultural evolution.45Furthermore, Trigger stresses that sociocultural evolution is a vital concept that serves to understand human history, therefore, its advocates must analyze value judgement, ideas of determinism, and inevitable directions of change. After a thorough study of these ideas, they can study socio-cultural evolution within the historical context of real human life. Moreover, he suggests that the reality of socio-cultural evolution will make the false allegations that human kind is at the end of history and free enterprise is waiting for us in future.46 Conclusion Modern anthropologists criticize cultural theory of evolution as ethnocentric since they believe that all cultures have the potential to grow at the same level. It is evident that cultural evolutionary models in their early forms often ignore the possibility of contingency or historical accident. Moreover, cultural evolutionary models are inclined to completely ignore diffusion and cultural contact. Most importantly, humankind is ignored, and ‘flatten out’. During early 20th century, Franz Boas and his fellows Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict and Margret Mead rejected generalizations of the uni-lineal theories of socio-cultural evolution and promoted systematic critical examination. Their sophisticated ethnography and extensive empirical methods proved that Spencer, Tylor, and Morgan’s theories speculative and lacked scientific evidence. They attributed postulated progression as ethnocentric. Boas and his fellows criticism is supported by many in later times, such as, Trigger and Mesoudi. However, they believed that evolutionary theories emerged when European powers were colonizing non-western societies; therefore, this assumption had hidden political interests. Mesoudi also agrees that theories of cultural evolution are flawed. Mainly because of they are infected by racist and colonialist social ideas of the Victorian societies. The very notion that non-western societies are less evolved than contemporary America or Britain justifies the objection of ethnocentrism. Trigger stresses the need to differentiate Darwinian evolutionary process form that of Spenserian. However, it is evident that evolutionary theories are inherently ethnocentric. Contemporary anthropologists and sociologists are also wary of modern theories of cultural evolution considering their (unidentified) association with the 19th century progression of cultural evolutionary theory since they are charged with political motivation or scientific doubt. Despite the severe criticism, Trigger associates its rejection with extreme relativism of post-processual archaeology. The research found that there is consensus on the fact that cultural evolutionary theory is infected with ethnocentrism due to the hidden social and political agendas of the time it emerged in; however, we cannot claim that it is an inherent attribute of evolutionary theory. Bibliography Deji,F. Olanike,2012. Gender and Rural Development: Advanced Studies VII.Zurich. LIT VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG Wien. Feldmann, H., n.d.Hayek’s theory of cultural evolution: a critique of the critiques. In J. Backhaus, ed. 2005.Entrepreneurship, money and coordination: Hayek’s theory of cultural evolution. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.pp.1-46. Ferguson, James. "Anthropology and Its Evil Twin" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. p. 144. Gould, S.J., 1990. Wonderful Life: The burgess shale and the nature of history. New York. W.W.Norton. Gil-White, J.F., n.d.Is Ethnocentrism Adaptive: An Ethnographic Analysis. [pdf]AHRC,Centre for the Evolution of Cultural Diversity. Available at: < www.ceacb.ucl.ac.uk/cultureclub/files/CC2005-11-22-Gil-White.pdf> [Accessed 25 November 2014]. Hayek,Friedrich, 1988. The Fatal Conceit: The errors of Socialism. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Hayek,Friedrich, 1979.Law, Legislation and Liberty.A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy, Vol. III: The The Political Order of a Free People, London : Routledge & Kegan Paul. Herodotus. 2009. The Histories, Book 1.Digireads Publishing. "Introduction" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. p. 5-32 Johnson, Mathew., 2010.Archeological theory: An Introduction.2nd ed. Sussex. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Mesoudi, Alex,2011. Cultural Evolution: how Darwinian Theory can explain human culture & synthesize the social sciences.Chicago,London. University of Chicago Press. McGuire,H. Randall,Marx,Childe, and Trigger.n.d. In R. Williamson and M. Bisson, ed.2006.The Archeology of Bruce Trigger. Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press.pp.61-79. Richerson, P.J. and R.Boyd, 2005.Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. Chicago, London. University of Chicago Press. Trigger, Bruce, 1995.A reply to Tilley and Nencel. Critique of Anthropology, 15(4), pp.347-50. Trigger,Bruce,1998. Sociocultural Evolution: Calculation and Contingency. Oxford. Basil Blackwell Publishers. White, L.A.,1995. The Evolution of Culture. New York.McGraw-Hill. Zink Holly, 2010.Cultural Evolution.Pbworks.com. PB Works blog, [blog], Available at: http://anthrotheory.pbworks.com/w/page/29531638/Cu#footnote-anchor-32 [Accessed 23 November.2014] Read More