Homogeneous middleman groups as superorganisms, endogamous ethnic groups, and trust networks: Reply to comments on Janet Landa’s target article, ‘The bioeconomics of homogeneous middleman groups as adaptive units’
- 71 Downloads
This article responds to some of the very valuable comments on my target article (Landa, J Bioeconomics 10(3):259–278, 2008) on homogeneous middleman groups (HMGs) as adaptive units. In addition to viewing HMGs as adaptive units, I discuss the idea of viewing HMGs as superorganisms and as endogamous ethnic groups, as well as re-emphasizing the importance of HMGs as trust networks. My theory of HMGs as adaptive units shares some similarities with biologists’ ‘biological market theory’ of mutualistic interactions between species.
KeywordsEthnocentrism Epigenetic rules Cultural and biological group selection Patrilineages Stability of coalitions
JEL ClassificationD71 J15 L14 Z13
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Borofsky R. (2008) Studying “culture” scientifically is an oxymoron: The interesting question is why people don’t accept this. In: Brown M. J. (eds) Explaining culture scientifically. University of Washington Press, Seattle, pp 275–296Google Scholar
- Bshary R., Noe R. (2003) Biological markets: The ubiquitous influence of partner choice on the dynamics of cleaner fish-client reef fish interactions. In: Hammerstein P. (eds) Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 167–184Google Scholar
- Ensminger J. (1997) Transaction costs and Islam: Explaining conversion in Africa. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 153: 4–29Google Scholar
- Firth R. (1946) Malay fishermen: Their peasant economy. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Ghiselin M. T. (1989) Intellectual compromise: The bottom line. Paragon House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Greif A. (1993) Contract enforceability and economic institutions in early trade: The Maghribi traders. American Economic Review 83: 525–548Google Scholar
- Höllbobler B., Wilson E. O. (2009) The superorganism: The beauty, elegance, and strangeness of insect societies. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Hooper J. (2002) Of moths and men: An evolutionary tale, the untold story of science and the peppered moth. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Landa J. T. (1998) The co-evolution of markets, entrepreneurship, laws and institutions in China’s economy in transition: A new institutional economics perspective. University of British Columbia Law Review 32(2): 391–421Google Scholar
- Lumsden, C. J., & Wilson, E. O. (2005). Genes, mind and culture: The coevolutionary process (25th anniversary ed.). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
- Noe R. (2001) Biological markets: Partner choice as the driving force behind the evolution of mutualisms. In: Noe R., Hooff Jan A. R. A. M., Hammerstein P. (eds) Economics in nature: Social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 93–118Google Scholar
- Sober E., Wilson D. S. (1998) Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Sosis R. (2005) Does religion promote trust? The role of signaling, reputation, and punishment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1: 1–30Google Scholar
- Wilson E. O. (1985) The ergonomics of caste in the social insects. The American Economic Review 68(4): 25–35Google Scholar
- Wilson, D. S. (2009a). Convergent cultural evolution and multilevel selection: Reply to comments on Janet Landa’s ‘The bioeconomics of homogeneous middleman groups as adaptive units: Theory and empirical evidence viewed from a group selection framework.’ Journal of Bioeconomics 11(2). doi: 10.1007/s10818-009-9063-z.
- Wilson, D. S. (2009b). Truth and reconciliation for group selection. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/#blogger_bio.