Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 493–512 | Cite as

Is cultural evolution Lamarckian?

Original Paper

Abstract

The article addresses the question whether culture evolves in a Lamarckian manner. I highlight three central aspects of a Lamarckian concept of evolution: the inheritance of acquired characteristics, the transformational pattern of evolution, and the concept of directed changes. A clear exposition of these aspects shows that a system can be a Darwinian variational system instead of a Lamarckian transformational one, even if it is based on inheritance of acquired characteristics and/or on Lamarckian directed changes. On this basis, I apply the three aspects to culture. Taking for granted that culture is a variational system, based on selection processes, I discuss in detail the senses in which cultural inheritance can be said to be Lamarckian and in which sense problem solving, a major factor in cultural change, leads to directed variation.

Keywords

Cultural evolution Inheritance of acquired characteristics Lamarckism Memes Problem solving Transformational evolution directed variation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amundson, R.A.: (1989). The trials and tribulations of selectionist explanations, in K. Hahlweg and C. Hooker (ed.), Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology, SUNY Press, Albany, pp. 413–432Google Scholar
  2. Aunger, R.: 2002, The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think, Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Avital, E. and Jablonka, E.: 2000, Animal Traditions: Behavioural Inheritance in Evolution, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackmore, S.: 1999, The Meme Machine, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackmore, S.: 2002. Meme, in M. Pagel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Evolution, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 713–716Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J.: 1985, Culture and the Evolutionary Process, University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J.: 2000, Memes: Universal acid or a better mousetrap?, in R. Aunger (ed.), Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 143–162Google Scholar
  8. Briskman, L.: 1981, Creative product and creative process in science and art, in D. Dutton & Krausz, M. (ed.), The Concept of Creativity in Science and Art, Martinus Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht, pp. 129–155Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, D.T.: 1960, Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes, repr. in G. Radnitzky and W. Bartley (ed.): 1987, Evolutionary Epistemology: Rationality and the Sociology of Knowledge, Open Court, LaSalle, pp. 91–114Google Scholar
  10. Crick, F.: 1958, On protein synthesis, Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 12, 138–163Google Scholar
  11. Darwin, C.: 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwin, C.: 1868, The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication, 2 vols, Orange Judd & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawkins, R.C.: 1976, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawkins, R.C.: 1982, The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawkins, R.C., 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Dennett, D.C.: 1995, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Durham, W.H.: 2002, Cultural variation in time and space, in R. G. Fox and B. J. King (ed.), Anthropology beyond Culture, Berg, Oxford, pp. 193–206Google Scholar
  18. Fracchia, J. and Lewontin, R.C.: 1999, Does culture evolve, Hist. Theory, 38, 52–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Futuyma, D.J., 1998, Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Gould, S.J.: 1979, Shades of Lamarck, Nat. Hist. 88, 22–28Google Scholar
  21. Hull, D.L.: 1982, The naked meme, in H. C. Plotkin (ed.), Learning, Development, and Culture, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 273–327Google Scholar
  22. Hull, D.L.: 2001, Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Hull, D.L., Glenn, S.S. and Langman, R.E.: 2001, A general account of selection, Behav. Brain Sci. 24, 511–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jablonka, E. and Lamb, M.J.: 1995, Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Jerne N.K. 1967. Antibodies and learning: Selection versus instruction. in: Quarton G.C., Melnechuk T. and Schmitt F.O. (eds), The Neurosciences: A Study Program, Rockefeller University Press, New York, pp. 200–205Google Scholar
  26. Kimura, M.: 1983, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamarck, J.d.: 1809, Philosophie Zoologique, Culture et Civilisation, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  28. Landman, O.E.: 1991, The inheritance of acquired characteristics, Annu. Rev. Genet. 25, 1–20Google Scholar
  29. Lewontin, R.C.: 1970, The units of selection, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1, 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewontin, R.C.: 1983, The organism as the subject and object of evolution, repr. in R. Levins and R. C. Lewontin (ed.): 1985, The Dialectical Biologist, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 85–106Google Scholar
  31. Mayr, E.: 1972, Lamarck revisited, repr. in E. Mayr (ed.): 1976, Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 222–250Google Scholar
  32. Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Medawar P. 1953. A commentary on Lamarckism, repr. in Medawar P. 1981, The Uniqueness of the Individual, Dover, New York, pp. 63–87.Google Scholar
  34. Medawar, P. 1977. Unnatural science, repr. in Medawar P. 1982, Pluto’s Republic, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 167–183.Google Scholar
  35. Richards, R.J.: 1977, The natural selection model of conceptual evolution, Philos. Sci. 44, 494–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rindos, D.: 1985, Darwinian selection, symbolic variation, and the evolution of culture, Curr. Anthropol. 26, 65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruse, M.: 1998, Meme, in P. Bouissac (ed.), Encyclopedia of Semiotics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 404–405Google Scholar
  38. Skagestad, P.: 1978, Taking evolution seriously, Monist, 61, 611–621Google Scholar
  39. Sperber, D.: 2000, An objection to the memetic approach to culture, in R. Aunger (ed.), Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 163–174Google Scholar
  40. Sternberg, R.J.: 1998, Cognitive mechanisms in human creativity, J. Creat. Behav. 32, 159–176Google Scholar
  41. Thagard, P.: 1988, Against evolutionary epistemology, in P. Thagard, Computational Philosophy of Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 101–111Google Scholar
  42. Toulmin, S.: 1972, Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  43. Weismann, A.: 1892, Das Keimplasma: Eine Theorie der Vererbung, Gustav Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  44. Winther, R.G.: 2000, Darwin on variation and heredity, J. Hist. Biol. 33, 425–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zirkle, C.: 1946, The early history of the idea of the inheritance of acquired characters and of pangenesis, Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 35, 91–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for the History of ScienceBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations