Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
outline is most clearly conveyed in Boyd and Richerson's influential body of work
(Boyd and Richerson
1985
), in which they propose that much cultural behaviour can
be thought of as “baggage”, unexpected but tolerable spin-offs from the powerful
success of applying simple frugal heuristics for social learning, fitting the scenario
of (2b). The same pattern is expressed by a number of theorists who share the con-
viction that an evolutionary explanation does not mean simply seeking a function
for each trait and behaviour of the human individual. For example, Pinker (
1998
)
explains music as evolutionary cheesecake: something that is pleasurable and com-
pelling not because it is adaptively useful in itself, but because it combines a number
of existing adaptive traits. Being creative, he proposes, we have found new ways to
excite the senses, and continue to do so. Thus, controversially, music joins more
obviously maladaptive and sinister “inventions”, such as drugs and pornography.
At the same time, Boyd and Richerson (
1985
) posit that social learning can al-
ter individual human evolutionary trajectories by coordinating and homogenising
certain aspects of behaviour across a group, counteracting the effect of disruptive
selfish behaviour, and explaining how groups of individuals can consolidate col-
lective interests over evolutionary time. This fits the scenario in (2a). Others have
explored how the social structures enabled by more complex social behaviours can
lead to the evolution of increasingly group-cooperative behaviour. For example, Ha-
gen and Bryant (
2003
) explain music as a means for groups to demonstrate the
strength of their coalition as a fighting unit. The basis for their theory is that since
practising complex coordinated behaviour such as dance and music takes time and
individual commitment, a well-coordinated performance is a clear—or
honest
in
evolutionary terms—indicator of how cohesive the group is. Honest indicators of
fighting strength and commitment, like a dog's growl, can serve both parties weigh-
ing up their chances in a fight, by indicating the likely outcome through indisputable
displays (Zahavi
1975
, Krebs and Dawkins
1984
, Owings and Morton
1998
).
A growing body of research into the relationship between music, early social-
isation (such as mother-infant interaction) and group cohesion supports this basic
thrust (Dissanayake
2000
,Cross
2006
, Parncutt
2009
, Richman
2001
,Merker
2001
,
Brown
2007
), although it may be manifest in alternative ways. Such theories are
evolutionarily plausible despite being seemingly “group-selectionist”, because they
can be understood in terms of kin-selection and honest signalling taken to increas-
ingly extended and complex social structures (e.g. Brown
2007
, Parncutt
2009
).
As Dunbar (
1998
) has demonstrated, vocal communication in humans may form
a natural extension to the kinds of honest signalling of allegiance found amongst
primates, correlating with both group size and brain size. These theories are also
commensurate with the widely consistent observations of anthropologists that the
representation of social structure, such as in totem groups and myths, is a universal
cultural preoccupation (Lévi-Strauss
1971
,Coe
2003
).
14.3.2.2 Social Groups as Adaptive Units
Organised and cohesive social groups frequently coordinate and structure individual
creative behaviour, and increasingly so in more complex societies, which are able to
