Culture

J. McCreery 

“Information capable of affecting individuals’ behavior that they acquire from other members of their species through teaching, imitation and other forms of social transmission.”

Culture has always lay as a key subject of debate, yet in the 21st century it has risen to the spotlight. 

Calls for its protection have exploded as globalisations takes hold of nations, triggering interconnectedness and transfers of ideas. Many view this as a threat to the ‘nationalist sovereignty’ of countries, instilling culture dilution and weakness. In trend, cultural interaction has been restricted and preservations of tradition placed as an ambition. For example, local content rules in Australia limit television, a key shaper of ‘culture’, such that at least 55% of content in Australia between 6am and 12pm. 

This is cast by conventional media as a positive, righteous cause, but as in economics, is sheltering industry from external competition because it can’t compete. No, instead it produces inferior consumer outcomes and affirms ineffective practices. Is defending this ambiguous notion of ‘culture’ for old-times sake letting archaic worldviews and obsolete ways of life unduly control our lives?

Proponents of the Cultural Evolution Society attest that it does.

“The core idea of cultural evolution is that cultural change constitutes an evolutionary process that shares fundamental similarities with … genetic evolution. As such, human behaviour is shaped by both genetic and cultural evolution. The same can be said for many other animal species; like the tool use of chimpanzees, of Caledonian crows, or the complex social organisation of hives for ants, bees, termites and wasps.”

It is a Darwinian notion which posits that inherited variations over time, in response to varied stimuli, create biological responses which help humanity adapt and function better in an ever-changing world. However, many factors determine the rate of change in a population, “including section-like transmission biases, natural selection, migration, drift, transformation and invention.”

Analysts of CES use the example of someone in a population who invents or acquires a new / better skill, such as the ability to make string and rope that is faster than the currently common technique and results in stronger cordage. “This new skill will tend to increase in the population, perhaps because (a) users can sell more cordage than competitors and use the resulting proceeds to rear larger families who perpetuate the technique; and also because (b) unrelated individuals become aware of the new skill and its success and imitate those who have this skill. 

Evidently this process is much more complex than genetic evolution, offspring exposed to an extremely high level of exogenous stimuli. There are no simple recessive and dominant alleles which can be easily tracked, rather a combination of nature, nurture and exposure to prevailing culture define the action of the next generation. 

A new model of biases is also born, illustrated below where orange and purple represent two forms of an arbitrary cultural trait. A PNAS report claims that “Conformity bias predicts that learners will copy the most common trait, and novelty bias predicts they will copy the most rare. Prestige bias predicts learners will copy an individual of high social status (indicated by crown) whereas success bias predicts they will copy a successful individual (indicated by gold medal).

In contrast to cultural evolution, the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory subverts linear historical analysis – which conceptualises society as either ever improving or declining from a past high – to embrace ancient and traditional beliefs that time was cyclical, “just like the waxing and waning of the moon, the rising and setting of the sun, the birth and death of living creatures, the planting and harvesting of crops, and the seasons of the year.” (McKay)

“All human things are a circle” – inscription upon the temple of Athena.

Research papers, Generations and Fourth Turing, published in the 1990s by William Straus and Neil Howe outline such thought. The culture of the time merely a product of periodically shifting social inclinations.

Four generational archetypes are laid out which are to repeat sequentially in fixed patterns every 80-100 years, the length of a long human life – a saeculum. Although the idea of segregation by age isn’t popular in a woke, highly individualised society, it is ignorant to say that generations do not share common characteristics. As put by McKay, “in every generation there are three groups of people: those who set the tone for the generation, those who follow the tone steers lead, and those who rebel against the generational mold altogether.”

Archetypes 

• Prophet; Missionaries, passionate crusaders during cultural awakenings, rebels                                                                   
• Nomad; Lost generation, independent, pragmatic with conformist tendencies   
• Hero; Hubris, hope, “defenders of a wholesome but conformist culture”                                                                
• Artist; Progressive, with flexible, consensus-building leadership and focus on expertise     

Although they sound like star signs, I assure you there are two 500 page books of analysis which support these claims and although there are holes in logic, broad trends are clearly found over an incredibly large sample size. 

So, one must question the drivers of culture – is it an evolutionary process or a cyclical one – and should we interfere through protection at the risk of stalling progression. (or is protectionist sentiment just another step in evolutionary habits?)