Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Is Culture Learned? The Neglected Role of Evoking Events
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Is Culture Learned? The Neglected Role of Evoking Events
Do you wish to request the book?
Is Culture Learned? The Neglected Role of Evoking Events
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Is Culture Learned? The Neglected Role of Evoking Events
2024
Overview
Although no one disputes that the transmission of culture depends on social learning, a capacity that has enabled humans, unlike other animals, to modify cultural practices across generations, this review argues that cultural change can also be evoked by environmental events leading to an alteration in the configuration of an habitual behavioural repertoire. An evoked mechanism allows latent or normally suppressed behaviour to emerge. Cannibalism and warfare are put forward as examples. Evoked mechanisms have largely been ignored by one of the few attempts to reconcile biology and culture, namely
cumulative cultural evolution
(CCE). This review endorses CCE's aim of developing a
biocultural
conceptual framework but criticises this model for failing to produce a credible analysis of culture into ‘units’ or ‘variants’. The critique of CCE is situated within a discussion of the long-standing separation within academia of science and arts disciplines, each focusing at different levels of analysis and with different aims. It is suggested that the main obstacle to developing a biocultural framework can be attributed to an incompatibility between
nomothetic
and
idiographic
research methods, the former being typical of the biological sciences, the latter of the arts. A successful
biocultural
conceptual framework would therefore have to accommodate the particular and the general. It is suggested that progress in this direction would be made if agreement could be reached on ways of observing or inferring behaviours rather than pursuing an analysis in terms of hypothetical constructs such as mental representations or units of ‘cultural information’.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
