Wilson and coauthors suggest adopting a more inclusive view of evolution, framed not by genetic inheritance alone but also by the epigenetic, learning, and symbolic modes of inheritance discussed by Jablonka and Lamb (Reference Jablonka and Lamb2005). They argue, by analogy with the immunological system, that behavior is produced through an innate component (the modularity model of the brain) coupled with the capacity for individuals to exhibit novel, short-term behaviors (the blank slate model). They place particular importance on the symbolic mode and introduce the term symbotype to refer to a network of symbolic relations with the combinatorial capacity, using a few symbolic elements, to produce substantial variation for selection to act on, much like the combinatory possibilities provided in the genetic system by having two alleles at each locus in a chromosome.
There are two problems with their characterization of the symbolic domain. First, they assume that what is expressed in the symbolic/cultural domain is an epiphenomenon of prior patterning: “These higher-order [symbolic] relations are abstracted from immediate physical properties, becoming somewhat independent of them, and once established are maintained by their utility, coherence, and role in a social community” (sect. 2.4, para. 2, emphasis added). They posit a sequence going from patterned behavior to cultural traits maintained through their functionality, much like the supposed Baldwin Effect (Simpson Reference Simpson1953) for genetic assimilation. Viewing culture as codification of already existing patterns of behavior assumes culture change stems from selection acting directly on behavior: “symbotypes evolve based on what they cause the organism to do” (sect. 2.4, para. 2). Second, despite the reference to symbolic systems and the constraints on their formation, the authors' analogy with the immunological system implies variation – derived through combinations of symbolic elements – is determined primarily from interaction with the external environment. The immunological system generates variation guided by novel external inputs, not in an independent, sui generis manner. Of course, the material consequences of interaction with the external environment are critical to any society, regardless of its cultural framework, ideology, or beliefs.
Missing is delineation of both how the posited interaction is culturally mediated and the way one part of a group's adaptation can become the impetus for other aspects of its cultural adaptation. For example, the adaptation of the Netsilik Inuit to the extremes of an Arctic coastal environment required them to obtain large quantities of salmon during their summer runs, caribou during their migration to the south, and seals through their breathing holes in the Arctic ice during the winter (Balikci Reference Balikci1970). The labor required for obtaining resources varied from one or two families for obtaining salmon to around 20 families for winter seal hunting (Balikci Reference Balikci1970). Each activity, especially seal hunting, was culturally framed with regard to participants and the distribution of resources obtained (Read Reference Read2005). For seal hunting, seal meat and blubber were distributed through a culturally defined system of sharing, referred to as niqaiturvigiit (Damas Reference Damas1972), via sealing partners who were distant or nonrelatives and represented the parts of the seal a man would receive from a seal obtained by his partner (Balikci Reference Balikci1970; Van de Velde Reference Van de Velde1956) – with the meat distributed by the wife of a hunter to the wives of the sealing partners (Van de Velde Reference Van de Velde1956), thereby being defined as belonging to an extended family (Damas Reference Damas, Lee and DeVore1969). Each person in a winter camp, then, knew in advance who would get what parts when a seal was killed. Both with seal meat and other resources, complementarity between males and females was expressed through their respective roles as producers and maintainers of resources (Read Reference Read2005).
The Netsilik increased the likelihood of surviving under Arctic conditions by skewing the biologically determined sex ratio toward males (Smith & Smith Reference Smith and Smith1994) by the equivalent of extended abortion targeted against a newborn female before she was named, the latter being the point at which a newborn took on the status of being human and became part of their moral world (Balikci Reference Balikci1970). The resulting shortage of females and the high value placed on sons as hunters were an impetus for cousin marriage (Read Reference Read2005), which had the effect of reducing the size of the network of close kin relations, thereby requiring winter sealing camps to include families without close, culturally defined kinship ties in a society in which even distant kin, let alone strangers, could be the source of personal violence (Rasmussen Reference Rasmussen1931). The Netsilik greatly reduced the risk of conflict among distantly related families over any perceived inequity of shared seal meat by their system of sealing partners and meat distribution through wives. In this instance, a solution to one aspect of their interaction with the Arctic environment (skewing the sex ratio) had consequences for the structural organization of their society with regard to marriage (cousin marriage) that, in turn, affected how they interacted with their environment with regard to seal hunting that required large winter camps composed of sealing partners for its success (Read Reference Read2005).
More generally, the problem with assuming that what is expressed in the cultural, symbolic domain derives from prior patterning is underscored by the cultural kinship systems that evolved as part of the transition from face-to-face social systems that characterize primate societies to the relational systems central to human systems of social organization (Leaf & Read Reference Leaf and Read2012; Read Reference Read2012; Read et al. Reference Read, Lane, van der Leeuw, Lane, Pumain, van der Leeuw and West2009). Cultural kinship systems have a generative logic that accounts for the structural properties of a kinship terminology system (Bennardo & Read Reference Bennardo and Read2007; Leaf & Read Reference Leaf and Read2012; Read Reference Read1984; Reference Read, Feinberg and Ottenheimer2001; Reference Read2007; Reference Read2010; Reference Read2013; Read & Behrens Reference Read and Behrens1990; Read et al. Reference Read, Lane, van der Leeuw, Lane, Pumain, van der Leeuw and West2009; Reference Read, Leaf and Fischer2013), hence is neither emergent from nor due to the codification of patterns of behavior. Using Clifford Geertz's distinction, culturally determined systems of kinship are models for, not models of, behavior (Reference Geertz1973).
The goal of developing a science of intentional behavior is laudable, but depends on having a better understanding of the rich detail regarding the interplay among environment, social context, and cultural construct.
Wilson and coauthors suggest adopting a more inclusive view of evolution, framed not by genetic inheritance alone but also by the epigenetic, learning, and symbolic modes of inheritance discussed by Jablonka and Lamb (Reference Jablonka and Lamb2005). They argue, by analogy with the immunological system, that behavior is produced through an innate component (the modularity model of the brain) coupled with the capacity for individuals to exhibit novel, short-term behaviors (the blank slate model). They place particular importance on the symbolic mode and introduce the term symbotype to refer to a network of symbolic relations with the combinatorial capacity, using a few symbolic elements, to produce substantial variation for selection to act on, much like the combinatory possibilities provided in the genetic system by having two alleles at each locus in a chromosome.
There are two problems with their characterization of the symbolic domain. First, they assume that what is expressed in the symbolic/cultural domain is an epiphenomenon of prior patterning: “These higher-order [symbolic] relations are abstracted from immediate physical properties, becoming somewhat independent of them, and once established are maintained by their utility, coherence, and role in a social community” (sect. 2.4, para. 2, emphasis added). They posit a sequence going from patterned behavior to cultural traits maintained through their functionality, much like the supposed Baldwin Effect (Simpson Reference Simpson1953) for genetic assimilation. Viewing culture as codification of already existing patterns of behavior assumes culture change stems from selection acting directly on behavior: “symbotypes evolve based on what they cause the organism to do” (sect. 2.4, para. 2). Second, despite the reference to symbolic systems and the constraints on their formation, the authors' analogy with the immunological system implies variation – derived through combinations of symbolic elements – is determined primarily from interaction with the external environment. The immunological system generates variation guided by novel external inputs, not in an independent, sui generis manner. Of course, the material consequences of interaction with the external environment are critical to any society, regardless of its cultural framework, ideology, or beliefs.
Missing is delineation of both how the posited interaction is culturally mediated and the way one part of a group's adaptation can become the impetus for other aspects of its cultural adaptation. For example, the adaptation of the Netsilik Inuit to the extremes of an Arctic coastal environment required them to obtain large quantities of salmon during their summer runs, caribou during their migration to the south, and seals through their breathing holes in the Arctic ice during the winter (Balikci Reference Balikci1970). The labor required for obtaining resources varied from one or two families for obtaining salmon to around 20 families for winter seal hunting (Balikci Reference Balikci1970). Each activity, especially seal hunting, was culturally framed with regard to participants and the distribution of resources obtained (Read Reference Read2005). For seal hunting, seal meat and blubber were distributed through a culturally defined system of sharing, referred to as niqaiturvigiit (Damas Reference Damas1972), via sealing partners who were distant or nonrelatives and represented the parts of the seal a man would receive from a seal obtained by his partner (Balikci Reference Balikci1970; Van de Velde Reference Van de Velde1956) – with the meat distributed by the wife of a hunter to the wives of the sealing partners (Van de Velde Reference Van de Velde1956), thereby being defined as belonging to an extended family (Damas Reference Damas, Lee and DeVore1969). Each person in a winter camp, then, knew in advance who would get what parts when a seal was killed. Both with seal meat and other resources, complementarity between males and females was expressed through their respective roles as producers and maintainers of resources (Read Reference Read2005).
The Netsilik increased the likelihood of surviving under Arctic conditions by skewing the biologically determined sex ratio toward males (Smith & Smith Reference Smith and Smith1994) by the equivalent of extended abortion targeted against a newborn female before she was named, the latter being the point at which a newborn took on the status of being human and became part of their moral world (Balikci Reference Balikci1970). The resulting shortage of females and the high value placed on sons as hunters were an impetus for cousin marriage (Read Reference Read2005), which had the effect of reducing the size of the network of close kin relations, thereby requiring winter sealing camps to include families without close, culturally defined kinship ties in a society in which even distant kin, let alone strangers, could be the source of personal violence (Rasmussen Reference Rasmussen1931). The Netsilik greatly reduced the risk of conflict among distantly related families over any perceived inequity of shared seal meat by their system of sealing partners and meat distribution through wives. In this instance, a solution to one aspect of their interaction with the Arctic environment (skewing the sex ratio) had consequences for the structural organization of their society with regard to marriage (cousin marriage) that, in turn, affected how they interacted with their environment with regard to seal hunting that required large winter camps composed of sealing partners for its success (Read Reference Read2005).
More generally, the problem with assuming that what is expressed in the cultural, symbolic domain derives from prior patterning is underscored by the cultural kinship systems that evolved as part of the transition from face-to-face social systems that characterize primate societies to the relational systems central to human systems of social organization (Leaf & Read Reference Leaf and Read2012; Read Reference Read2012; Read et al. Reference Read, Lane, van der Leeuw, Lane, Pumain, van der Leeuw and West2009). Cultural kinship systems have a generative logic that accounts for the structural properties of a kinship terminology system (Bennardo & Read Reference Bennardo and Read2007; Leaf & Read Reference Leaf and Read2012; Read Reference Read1984; Reference Read, Feinberg and Ottenheimer2001; Reference Read2007; Reference Read2010; Reference Read2013; Read & Behrens Reference Read and Behrens1990; Read et al. Reference Read, Lane, van der Leeuw, Lane, Pumain, van der Leeuw and West2009; Reference Read, Leaf and Fischer2013), hence is neither emergent from nor due to the codification of patterns of behavior. Using Clifford Geertz's distinction, culturally determined systems of kinship are models for, not models of, behavior (Reference Geertz1973).
The goal of developing a science of intentional behavior is laudable, but depends on having a better understanding of the rich detail regarding the interplay among environment, social context, and cultural construct.