Kline's integrated theory in the target article has the potential to focus future research on species differences (and similarities) in teaching. This is welcome in a field that is peppered with controversy, sometimes unpleasantly. Focusing on the specific adaptive problems that teaching behaviors address, rather than the psychological capacities involved, Kline provides a friendly reframing for cross-species comparisons. The framework is less successful in creating a new approach to understanding human cultural variation in teaching, however.
Kline's evolutionary analysis focuses heavily on inter-individual competition, and ponders how teaching can be adaptive both for the pupil and the instructor. The theoretical assumption is that the two are independent actors, and that the behaviors of the teacher facilitate (consciously or not, intentionally or not) learning in the pupil. Certainly a large number of teaching situations across cultures are asymmetrical in this way (Tomasello et al. Reference Tomasello, Kruger and Ratner1993). Either the teacher or the learner is focused on some skill or activity, some behavioral adjustment by one or the other is made, and the result is behavioral change in the learner. No coordination of intentions between the two is required. Kline's detailed typologies of asymmetrical teaching engagements like this are useful.
A problem arises. This type of social and intellectual independence will not support the transmission of human cultural elements that are highly valued, such as languages, faith, art, and science. These cultural products were collectively created through members' shared intentions and reflections on them (Tomasello Reference Tomasello2014). Transmitting that knowledge also requires shared intentions and reflections.
Consider how a child learns an abstract cultural concept, such as a taboo. A taboo is a belief created and shared collectively and for which there often is no objective referent. To transmit this belief, teacher and learner must coordinate thinking, not just adjust behaviors (Kruger & Tomasello Reference Kruger, Tomasello, Olson and Torrance1996). The teacher's knowledge of the taboo is represented in mind – and through cooperation (usually linguistic), the teacher and the learner come to a shared understanding of it. Later, the learner will evaluate his/her own behavior as conforming (or not) to the collective value that is represented in the taboo. Through this process, the learner becomes part of the collective, and the teacher and learner have jointly recreated culture. Vygotsky's compelling description (Reference Vygotsky1978) of this process, obuchenie, is not easily translated into English. It refers to the communion (Kruger Reference Kruger and Garrels2011) of teacher and learner. Their engagement in a we-centric space (Gallese Reference Gallese2001) is neither teaching alone nor learning alone, nor even teaching plus learning, but teaching-learning.
Teaching as cooperation is problematic (see target article, sect. 6) only when the theoretical lens is focused on inter-individual competition. If we grant that humans evolved in a cultural niche and that obuchenie coevolved to support culture transmission, we need a more articulated theory of this distinctively human engagement. To study cultural variation in direct teaching, an elaborated theory is needed of how and when and for what purpose teaching-learning takes place. Kline has started the process.
You have
Access
Kline's integrated theory in the target article has the potential to focus future research on species differences (and similarities) in teaching. This is welcome in a field that is peppered with controversy, sometimes unpleasantly. Focusing on the specific adaptive problems that teaching behaviors address, rather than the psychological capacities involved, Kline provides a friendly reframing for cross-species comparisons. The framework is less successful in creating a new approach to understanding human cultural variation in teaching, however.
Kline's evolutionary analysis focuses heavily on inter-individual competition, and ponders how teaching can be adaptive both for the pupil and the instructor. The theoretical assumption is that the two are independent actors, and that the behaviors of the teacher facilitate (consciously or not, intentionally or not) learning in the pupil. Certainly a large number of teaching situations across cultures are asymmetrical in this way (Tomasello et al. Reference Tomasello, Kruger and Ratner1993). Either the teacher or the learner is focused on some skill or activity, some behavioral adjustment by one or the other is made, and the result is behavioral change in the learner. No coordination of intentions between the two is required. Kline's detailed typologies of asymmetrical teaching engagements like this are useful.
A problem arises. This type of social and intellectual independence will not support the transmission of human cultural elements that are highly valued, such as languages, faith, art, and science. These cultural products were collectively created through members' shared intentions and reflections on them (Tomasello Reference Tomasello2014). Transmitting that knowledge also requires shared intentions and reflections.
Consider how a child learns an abstract cultural concept, such as a taboo. A taboo is a belief created and shared collectively and for which there often is no objective referent. To transmit this belief, teacher and learner must coordinate thinking, not just adjust behaviors (Kruger & Tomasello Reference Kruger, Tomasello, Olson and Torrance1996). The teacher's knowledge of the taboo is represented in mind – and through cooperation (usually linguistic), the teacher and the learner come to a shared understanding of it. Later, the learner will evaluate his/her own behavior as conforming (or not) to the collective value that is represented in the taboo. Through this process, the learner becomes part of the collective, and the teacher and learner have jointly recreated culture. Vygotsky's compelling description (Reference Vygotsky1978) of this process, obuchenie, is not easily translated into English. It refers to the communion (Kruger Reference Kruger and Garrels2011) of teacher and learner. Their engagement in a we-centric space (Gallese Reference Gallese2001) is neither teaching alone nor learning alone, nor even teaching plus learning, but teaching-learning.
Teaching as cooperation is problematic (see target article, sect. 6) only when the theoretical lens is focused on inter-individual competition. If we grant that humans evolved in a cultural niche and that obuchenie coevolved to support culture transmission, we need a more articulated theory of this distinctively human engagement. To study cultural variation in direct teaching, an elaborated theory is needed of how and when and for what purpose teaching-learning takes place. Kline has started the process.