Singh argues that many cultural universals emerge through subjective selection, whereby cultural variants are created, adopted, and retained because people evaluate them as instrumentally useful for achieving recurrent goals such as healing illness, calming infants, or resolving disputes. In this account, traditions such as shamanic rituals, lullabies, and justice systems spread because they appear to “work” for those who practice them, leading to convergence across societies despite historical and ecological variation.
Singh also notes that the cultural manifold includes traditions whose persistence cannot be explained solely by immediate causal efficacy, including religious beliefs, ritual systems, and symbolic practices that address existential concerns rather than practical problems. Building on this observation, I suggest that Singh’s framework can be extended to distinguish cases in which cultural variants are evaluated primarily for instrumental success from cases in which they are evaluated for symbolic coherence and meaning. This distinction is not explicitly articulated by Singh, but it follows naturally from his emphasis on goal-directed evaluation as the driver of cultural convergence.
Practices such as ancestor worship provide a useful illustration of this extension. Cross-cultural research indicates that some form of ancestor veneration occurs in a large majority of documented societies (Norenzayan, Reference Norenzayan2013). These practices persist even though their effects are not directly measurable in instrumental terms, suggesting that their selective appeal lies elsewhere. Prior work in the cognitive and anthropological literature points to several contributing factors: kinship psychology that extends social obligations beyond death (Boyer, Reference Boyer2001), prestige-biased transmission that reinforces respect for admired ancestors (Henrich, Reference Henrich2016), emotionally salient rituals that enhance memory and cultural transmission (Whitehouse, Reference Whitehouse2004), and the provision of ontological coherence by situating the dead within a broader cosmological framework (Geertz, Reference Geertz1973). Interpreted through Singh’s model, ancestor worship can be understood as a case in which subjective selection favors practices that satisfy symbolic and existential goals rather than instrumental ones.
A similar pattern can be observed in the widespread recurrence of cosmological diagrams such as mandalas, yantras, and labyrinths. These symbolic forms appear across diverse cultural contexts despite lacking direct practical function (Boyer, Reference Boyer2001; Lévi-Strauss, Reference Lévi-Strauss1963). Their persistence can be explained by their symbolic appeal: they align with esthetic preferences for symmetry and order, render abstract cosmological ideas perceptually accessible, and support shared cultural identities through collective ritual engagement (Geertz, Reference Geertz1973; Sperber, Reference Sperber1996). Here, again, Singh’s framework accommodates these cases if subjective evaluation is understood to include symbolic satisfaction alongside instrumental success.
Recognizing this distinction clarifies how subjective selection can account for convergence in both practical and symbolic traditions. Instrumentally evaluated practices, such as healing rituals or legal institutions, spread because they appear causally effective, while symbolically evaluated practices persist because they provide meaning, coherence, and emotional grounding (Sperber, Reference Sperber1996). This extension strengthens Singh’s account by showing how the cultural manifold includes universals shaped by both problem-solving and meaning-making processes.
More broadly, incorporating symbolic evaluation into subjective selection enhances cultural evolutionary theory by explaining why non-instrumental traditions recur cross-culturally without treating them as anomalies or vestiges of pre-rational thought (Boyer, Reference Boyer2001; Geertz, Reference Geertz1973). Future research could further investigate how different cultural domains weigh instrumental versus symbolic evaluation, and whether biases toward coherence, beauty, or symbolic fit predict long-term cultural stability (Sperber, Reference Sperber1996; Whitehouse, Reference Whitehouse2004). Without this broader view, accounts of cultural evolution risk explaining only half of the observed universals, overlooking the role of meaning-based evaluation in shaping the cultural manifold.
You have
Access
Singh argues that many cultural universals emerge through subjective selection, whereby cultural variants are created, adopted, and retained because people evaluate them as instrumentally useful for achieving recurrent goals such as healing illness, calming infants, or resolving disputes. In this account, traditions such as shamanic rituals, lullabies, and justice systems spread because they appear to “work” for those who practice them, leading to convergence across societies despite historical and ecological variation.
Singh also notes that the cultural manifold includes traditions whose persistence cannot be explained solely by immediate causal efficacy, including religious beliefs, ritual systems, and symbolic practices that address existential concerns rather than practical problems. Building on this observation, I suggest that Singh’s framework can be extended to distinguish cases in which cultural variants are evaluated primarily for instrumental success from cases in which they are evaluated for symbolic coherence and meaning. This distinction is not explicitly articulated by Singh, but it follows naturally from his emphasis on goal-directed evaluation as the driver of cultural convergence.
Practices such as ancestor worship provide a useful illustration of this extension. Cross-cultural research indicates that some form of ancestor veneration occurs in a large majority of documented societies (Norenzayan, Reference Norenzayan2013). These practices persist even though their effects are not directly measurable in instrumental terms, suggesting that their selective appeal lies elsewhere. Prior work in the cognitive and anthropological literature points to several contributing factors: kinship psychology that extends social obligations beyond death (Boyer, Reference Boyer2001), prestige-biased transmission that reinforces respect for admired ancestors (Henrich, Reference Henrich2016), emotionally salient rituals that enhance memory and cultural transmission (Whitehouse, Reference Whitehouse2004), and the provision of ontological coherence by situating the dead within a broader cosmological framework (Geertz, Reference Geertz1973). Interpreted through Singh’s model, ancestor worship can be understood as a case in which subjective selection favors practices that satisfy symbolic and existential goals rather than instrumental ones.
A similar pattern can be observed in the widespread recurrence of cosmological diagrams such as mandalas, yantras, and labyrinths. These symbolic forms appear across diverse cultural contexts despite lacking direct practical function (Boyer, Reference Boyer2001; Lévi-Strauss, Reference Lévi-Strauss1963). Their persistence can be explained by their symbolic appeal: they align with esthetic preferences for symmetry and order, render abstract cosmological ideas perceptually accessible, and support shared cultural identities through collective ritual engagement (Geertz, Reference Geertz1973; Sperber, Reference Sperber1996). Here, again, Singh’s framework accommodates these cases if subjective evaluation is understood to include symbolic satisfaction alongside instrumental success.
Recognizing this distinction clarifies how subjective selection can account for convergence in both practical and symbolic traditions. Instrumentally evaluated practices, such as healing rituals or legal institutions, spread because they appear causally effective, while symbolically evaluated practices persist because they provide meaning, coherence, and emotional grounding (Sperber, Reference Sperber1996). This extension strengthens Singh’s account by showing how the cultural manifold includes universals shaped by both problem-solving and meaning-making processes.
More broadly, incorporating symbolic evaluation into subjective selection enhances cultural evolutionary theory by explaining why non-instrumental traditions recur cross-culturally without treating them as anomalies or vestiges of pre-rational thought (Boyer, Reference Boyer2001; Geertz, Reference Geertz1973). Future research could further investigate how different cultural domains weigh instrumental versus symbolic evaluation, and whether biases toward coherence, beauty, or symbolic fit predict long-term cultural stability (Sperber, Reference Sperber1996; Whitehouse, Reference Whitehouse2004). Without this broader view, accounts of cultural evolution risk explaining only half of the observed universals, overlooking the role of meaning-based evaluation in shaping the cultural manifold.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests
None.