Book Review of Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas in Cultural and Social Theory by Marion Blute, New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2010, 239 pp. ISBN: 978-0521-74595-6. $34.99 Reviewed by Kevin Goodman Skidmore College

Abstract

This review of Marian Blutes book, Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution, challenges key assumptions to Blutes defense on the exclusivity of Darwinism in the processes of sociocultural evolution. I question the concreteness of the meme concept because memes have no physicality, though I do not deny their usefulness. Memetics is a key concept for understanding how Blute construes genetic processes as applicable to sociocultural evolution. Blute defends the Darwinism of sociocultural evolution against the possibility that sociocultural evolution is at times inductively self-directed by relating to the possible ways that biological microevolution is inductive, the latter of which relies on genetics, which requires the meme concept to mirror those processes for sociocultural applicability. If an adaptation is induced and is biased for success prior to the occurrence of the adaptation, then this hypothetical adaptation in not a random occurrence, not a blind occurrence, and is therefore not Darwinian. Blute argues that sociocultural innovation is random as there is no statistical evidence for an innovations bias for success. I believe Marian Blute is mistaken on this fact. I show how an examination of the planning involved in the success of an invention, alongside Homo sapiens theory of mind, might challenge Blutes assumption, which she bases on the sum of innovations failure to success ratio with such examples as invention patents and new businesses. This is an example of how statistical evidence can be deceptive. In sum, I do not deny Darwinian sociocultural evolution; however, the exclusiveness of the Darwinian model in its application to sociocultural evolution is far from closed. I suggest that its erroneous to assume that the principals of biological evolution faithfully transfer to the potentially diametric world of ideas.

Book Review of Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas Book Review of Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution

Marian Blute has written a thoughtful book, titled Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas in Cultural and Social Theory, but this books argument has brought me closer to its antithesis. Blute proposes that sociocultural evolution is distinctly Darwinian as opposed to Lamarckian as some scholars have advocated. The problem with evolution by selection of random variation with culture is that human culture appears to have the potential for self-directed plasticity. If culture as an organism can change itself for the better and the next generation inherits that change then the evolutionary process appears to follow Lamarckian heritability. Nick Rose (Rose, 1998) wrote a review detailing the Lamarckian controversy, showing that the issue has been an area of major debate among the preeminent proponents of memetics with Rob Boyd, Susan Blackmore, and Richard Dawkins all weighing in. Blute champions Darwinian theory by examination of theoretical biological and ecological evolutionary processes, which she then suggests are applicable to the sociocultural. There is little comparative analysis to the Lamarckian theory that Blute dismisses. Though inspired by much of the books content, I concluded with more questions than resolution concerning the plausibility of the Lamarckian evolution of culture, which Blute sought to discredit. Blute briefly attacks Lamarckian heritability in the introduction, and in chapter one, as a plausible description for cultural evolution with the proposition that human innovation is random, a Darwinian requirement, which she describes as blind. There is no other mention of Lamarckianism elsewhere in the book until the concluding chapter, where the argument of innovation being random is restated. In fairness, Blutes book does not base its thesis on the Darwinian-Lamarckian argument but is challenged by it; after all, Blute explicitly states that sociocultural evolution is Darwinian rather than Lamarckian and goes so far as to include

Book Review of Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas

Darwinian into the title of her book: this review, therefore, in part, critiques her evidence against Lamarckian theory in the context of sociocultural evolution. Before discussing my disagreement with Blute, I must state that this book is much broader in scope than the Darwinian-Lamarckian argument that potentially confounds significant assumptions within it. I will first outline some of the many positives. Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution has much breadth to it; there is discussion about Darwins theory, various approaches to evolution including ecological and genetic aspects. The nature of evolution is considered within the framework of learning theory and rational choice, of the biological vs. socialconstruction, of realism vs. subjectivism. It is the latter discussion that I found most interesting. Arguing against Dawkins metaphor that each generation filters out maladaptive genes, Blute insists that evolution doesnt just work backwards, but is also inductive. Inductive genetic change is a product of ecological change and phenotype plasticity, according to Blute. It is also possible that change can occur because an organism has altered its environment in a way that changes gene frequency, a process that Blute calls niche construction, which is also inductive. The parallel to the sociocultural is that social-constructions, agreed on perceptions of realityour own creations--are also subject to evolution. Blute masterfully interweaves dimensions of thought as she claims a moderate stance between the debate on realism and subjectivity in the social sciences while advancing the possibility, if not probability, of induction in sociocultural evolution. The problem with induction in evolution is that it superficially resembles the passing on of an acquired trait, Lamarckianism. Blute provides us with a set of Darwinian explanations for induction in evolution but when these are applied to the sociocultural they rely on the existence of memes. While discussion of memes is minimal, their existence is asserted. The discussion on

Book Review of Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas

induction in evolution describes inductive processes as a dormant gene turned active, increased gene frequency, or a genetic recombination induced by the environment. Memetics is the

insistence that micro level units of encoded meaning exist which provide direction for the fabric of culture and society in a way that parallels the gene. When Blutes explanation for evolutionary induction is put to the sociocultural, it implies the necessity of latent but preexisting units of meaning and the increased frequency or recombination of what already exist for the creation of new forms. Much of Blutes defense of memes is implicit to her argument but she does tell us that the argument against them is not persuasive. The problem with Blutes defense of memes is that she fails to acknowledge that meaning is not reduced to a material reality. The meme is purely conceptual in terms of both content and subject and as such, its hard to argue their concrete existence, with exception for the observation of natural laws indicative of their existence and even thenlacking physical substance or direct formal correlation to something materialcould be conceptualized differently. Blutes main argument against Lamarckianism is that innovation is blind, insisting that there is no statistical evidence that innovation is biased for success. Random variation supports Darwins theory. To my surprise, Blute uses innovation in business as an example, insisting that from the onset there is no bias for a businesss success. Blute asserts that most new businesses, inventions and products will be unsuccessful while some will be successful in a way that was unimagined. The proposition that innovation is blind appears to go against the very basis of what science is or strives to become. It is taught in business schools that solid market research and business planning significantly increases the chances for success of an entrepreneurial project. The successful entrepreneur succeeds by identifying the proper market segment and catering to that market segments needs and attitudes while simultaneously introducing something new or

Book Review of Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas

something better than what the competition offers. The proportion of those who succeed with astute planning and market insight vs. nonstrategic or uninformed innovation is likely significant; after all, it is the basis for the business and marketing sciences.

Conclusion Culture and thought is a system of interconnected symbols through which we derive meaning. Humans as symbol users are able to assign symbols to both physical objects and abstract principals and apply these symbols with knowledge to the inference of the laws of nature. Through our ability to infer the future were able to inductively adapt to what we infer even though it has not actually happened. The collection of natural laws our sciences have given us allow us to predict with some accuracy the weather, health, behavior and markets--for example-suggests that we have tools that permit us to innovate with chances for success that are greater than blind. These tools are cognitive in nature. It has been suggested that human intellectual success derives from our uncanny theory of mind, the ability to imagine what others are thinking and thereby predict their behavior (Boyd, 2009). If this is true, then Homo sapiens have always had a better than blind adaptation for social innovation. Human intellect cannot be separated from culture and we have to consider the possibility that much of human culture has at one time been induced, not by descent with modification, but by an imagined future. I have little doubt that evolution is a driving force within sociocultural change but symbols do not have the same constraints as biological organisms. Its erroneous not to consider the differences between biological and cultural organisms. We must expect different processes between the material and the ideal worlds. While some processes may transfer or apply under certain circumstances, its unlikely that theyre exclusively inclusive of one another. The rapid

Book Review of Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas

rate of cultural evolution compared to human biological evolution testifies to a tremendous flexibility. Culture is a significant aspect of the human environment. If ecological changes result in evolutionary induction then its understandable why sociocultural evolution has happened so rapidly as cultural change can result in infinitely cascading adaptations in the cultural environment by an organism with the predisposition to make self-benefiting improvements to that environment. But genotypes, genes, and memes are not necessary to explain this in the context of the immaterial. It seems just as plausible to consider sociocultural evolution as an ecological dialogue through which change is a response to what already existsI suggest this possibility as an evolutionary adaptation of Bakhitins dialogism (Bakhtin, 1981)as opposed to cultural adaptations always being the direct succession of what already exists; Lamarckianism fits as a possibility. Though I dont deny the role of Darwinism as a form of sociocultural change, I do still question its exclusivity.

Book Review of Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas

References Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic Imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Boyd, B. (2009). On the origin of stories: Evolution, cognition, and fiction. Cambridge and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Rose, N. (1998). Controversies in meme theory. Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission 2(1), 66-76.