Emotion (or Life,the Universe,Everything)

Emotions are fundamental to human life; they define its quality and motivate action. In the past, social scientists who have studied emotions have treated them as biological, cultural or social phenomena. These approaches have tended to fall on either side of the culturally recognised division between nature and culture, and so have failed to recognise that emotions bridge this division, that they are thought of as both biological and cultural, as consisting of both physical feeling and cultural meaning. In this article, an alternative approach is presented in which emotions are treated as ecological mechanisms that operate in the relationship between an individual human being and their environment. In this approach, which draws on models of emotion proposed by William James and Antonio Damasio, emotions connect individual human beings to their surroundings and play an important role in learning. A focus on the individual as the centre of analytical attention—often referred to as ‘methodological individualism’—is a logical consequence of the ecological approach to emotion, which also has significant implications for the relationships between ecological anthropology and other branches of the discipline, and between anthropology and other disciplines. In the face of an ecological understanding of emotion, all relations, including social relations, become ecological and social anthropology melts into and is subsumed by ecological anthropology. At the same time, anthropology tends to lose its distinctiveness from biology, psychology and other disciplines by focusing on a phenomenon that is of common interest to all the human sciences.     

The Science of Humanics: Multidisciplinary Renaissance of General Anthropology

Discussions of the scope and proper definition of anthropology make it worthwhile to outline why and how anthropology can be treated as a natural (and exact) science. The paper describes its multidisciplinary components and how the deterministic properties of biological individuality and the probabilistic constraints of the cultural dimensions can be brought together. Such a synthesis enables us to treat values within a biological framework and suggests the old term "humanics" for the multidisciplinary nexus . [anthropological biology, humanics, multidisciplinary synthesis, interaction measurement, behavioral biology]     

Literary study and evolutionary theory

Several recent books have claimed to integrate literary study with evolutionary biology. All of the books here considered, except Robert Storey’s, adopt conceptions of evolutionary theory that are in some way marginal to the Darwinian adaptationist program. All the works attempt to connect evolutionary study with various other disciplines or methodologies: for example, with cultural anthropology, cognitive psychology, the psychology of emotion, neurobiology, chaos theory, or structuralist linguistics. No empirical paradigm has yet been established for this field, but important steps have been taken, especially by Storey, in formulating basic principles, identifying appropriate disciplinary connections, and marking out lines of inquiry. Reciprocal efforts are needed from biologists and social scientists.     

What are cultural attractors?

Concepts from cultural attractor theory are now used in domains far from their original home in anthropology and cultural evolution. Yet these concepts have not been consistently characterised. I here distinguish four ways in which the cultural attractor concept has been used and identify three kinds of factors of attraction typically appealed to. Clarifying these explanatory concepts identifies problems and ambiguities in the work of cultural epidemiologists and commentators alike.     

The Skeleton in the Physical Anthropology Closet1

Abstract

The “new” and “newer” concepts of physical anthropology are oriented to biochemical, genetic and evolutionary studies. While theseareneededand welcome concepts, they often slight the basic tools of anthropometry and typology. Also, the new and newer physical anthropology tends to separate biological factors from their cultural contexts. The writer discusses several questions posed by this shift in emphasis and suggests that the lack of a functional approach lessens the effectiveness of both biologically and culturally oriented investigators.     

Earliest Phases in the Evolution of Sickness and Healing

Sickness and healing constitute the root concepts that center medical anthropological inquiry and give the field its identity. Here, they are held to manifest a biological adaption designed by evolution that requires culture for its final realization. Sickness and healing thus provide anthropology with a bioculturalform that has changed in content and expression during cultural evolution. The early phases of this evolution, those bearing the most apparent influences of the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, are reviewed and analyzed in the article. Some of the implications of this for medical anthropology are discussed.     

University Evolution Education: The Effect of Evolution Instruction on Biology Majors�� Content Knowledge, Attitude Toward Evolution, and Theistic Position

Issues regarding understanding of evolution and resistance to evolution education in the United States are of key importance to biology educators at all levels. While research has measured student views toward evolution at single points in time, few studies have been published investigating whether views of college seniors are any different than first-year students in the same degree program. Additionally, students choosing to major in biological sciences have largely been overlooked, as if their acceptance of evolution is assumed. This study investigated the understanding of evolution and attitude toward evolution held by students majoring in biological science during their first and fourth years in a public research university. Participants included students in a first-year introductory biology course intended for biological science majors and graduating seniors earning degrees in either biology or genetics. The portion of the survey reported here consisted of quantitative measures of students’ understanding of core concepts of evolution and their attitude toward evolution. The results indicate that students’ understanding of particular evolutionary concepts is significantly higher among seniors, but their attitude toward evolution is only slightly improved compared to their first-year student peers. When comparing first-year students and seniors, students’ theistic position was not significantly different.     

Physically strong men are more militant: A test across four countries

There is substantial evidence from archaeology, anthropology, primatology, and psychology indicating that humans have a long evolutionary history of war. Natural selection, therefore, should have designed mental adaptations for making decisions about war. These adaptations evolved in past environments, and so they may respond to variables that were ancestrally relevant but not relevant in modern war. For example, ancestrally in small-scale combat, a skilled fighter would be more likely to survive a war and bring his side to victory. This ancestral regularity would have left its mark on modern men's intergroup psychology: more formidable men should still be more supportive of war. We test this hypothesis in four countries: Argentina, Denmark, Israel, and Romania. In three, physically strong men (but not strong women) were significantly more supportive of military action. These findings support the hypothesis that modern warfare is influenced by a psychology designed for ancestral war.     

The acquisition of conscience and Developmental Systems Theory

Summary Proponents of Developmental Systems Theory (DST) argue that it offers an alternative to current research programs in biology that are built on the historic disjunction between evolutionary and developmental biology. In this paper I illustrate how DST can be used to account for the acquisition of an important component of moral agency, conscience. Susan Oyama, a major proponent of DST, has set moral issues outside the compass of DST. Thus, I examine her reasons for restricting DST to non-moral matters, and argue that they are not decisive. On the positive side, I argue that DST not only is compatible with attempts to describe and explain moral agency but also aids us in understanding it. In particular, I show how DST can provide a fruitful perspective for viewing some significant current findings and theories in moral developmental psychology about the acquisition of conscience. The familiar dichotomies resisted by DST, those between genes and environment, inherited and acquired, innate and learned, and biological and cultural, have also plagued human developmental psychology, including moral development. By bringing a DST perspective to the study of moral development, I illustrate how a DST perspective might offer a promising way to reconceive that phenomenon, and provide some insights into how further work in understanding the development of moral agency might proceed. Thus, I hope to contribute to the current efforts of proponents of DST to integrate developmental and evolutionary considerations.     

Primate Behavioral Ecology: From Ethnography to Ethology and Back

Nonhuman primates occupy a special niche in anthropology because of the comparative insights into humans they provide. Initial anthropological interest in primates targeted the apes for their close phylogenetic relationships with humans, and the semiterrestrial Old World monkeys for their ecological similarities with hominids adapting to life on the ground. From the earliest anecdotal reports of tool use and hunting to more contemporary quantitative analyses of local "cultural" traditions, nonhuman primates have challenged deep-rooted concepts of human uniqueness and redefined the boundaries between us and other animals. Yet, despite the long-standing influence of primate studies in anthropology, approaches to studying primates began diverging from those of earlier ethnographers. Advances in primatology, particularly during the 1990s, have included a much deeper understanding of how ecology, phylogeny, and demography affect behavior. Insights into intraspecific, population-level variation represent an important area of convergence between primatology, other areas of anthropology, and conservation biology. [Keywords: primate behavioral ecology, anthropocentrism, evolutionary theory, systematic methods, biology]     

Culture and sociobiology

Sociobiological concepts are easily misapplied to human behavior because the latter is culturally as well as biologically organized. Because biological and cultural evolution are two linked but conceptually distinct processes, sociobiology is more readily applied to the evolution of cultural capacity than to contemporary cultural behavior. The extent to which the latter is consistent with sociobiological expectation must be determined empirically, although there are theoretical grounds for predicting a limited degree of concordance . [sociobiology, culture, evolution, reductionism, biosocial anthropology]     

Interactional Psychology: Some Implications for Psychological Anthropology

Recent developments in psychology are bringing about a rapprochement between behaviorists, trait psychologists, and psychodynamically oriented theorists. The incipient perspective, which has been labeled "interactional psychology," focuses on persons-in-situations and raises some penetrating questions for psychological anthropology. Attempts by interactionists to reconcile traditional concepts of "personality" with evidence demonstrating the power of situations to pattern behavior are discussed. It is proposed that the interactionist framework fits well with recent trends in anthropology that emphasize the contextualization of behavior and an interest in intracultural diversity, [psychological anthropology, personality, situation, ecology of behavior]     

Altruism across disciplines: one word, multiple meanings

Altruism is a deep and complex phenomenon that is analysed by scholars of various disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, biology, evolutionary anthropology and experimental economics. Much confusion arises in current literature because the term altruism covers variable concepts and processes across disciplines. Here we investigate the sense given to altruism when used in different fields and argumentative contexts. We argue that four distinct but related concepts need to be distinguished: (a) psychological altruism, the genuine motivation to improve others’ interests and welfare; (b) reproductive altruism, which involves increasing others’ chances of survival and reproduction at the actor’s expense; (c) behavioural altruism, which involves bearing some cost in the interest of others; and (d) preference altruism, which is a preference for others’ interests. We show how this conceptual clarification permits the identification of overstated claims that stem from an imprecise use of terminology. Distinguishing these four types of altruism will help to solve rhetorical conflicts that currently undermine the interdisciplinary debate about human altruism.     

On the nature of the species problem and the four meanings of 'species'

Present-day thought on the notion of species is troubled by a mistaken understanding of the nature of the issue: while the species problem is commonly understood as concerning the epistemology and ontology of one single scientific concept, I argue that in fact there are multiple distinct concepts at stake. An approach to the species problem is presented that interprets the term 'species' as the placeholder for four distinct scientific concepts, each having its own role in biological theory, and an explanation is given of the concepts involved. To illustrate how these concepts are commonly conflated, two widely accepted ideas on species are criticized: species individualism and species pluralism. I argue that by failing to distinguish between the four concepts and their particular roles in contemporary biological theory, these ideas stand in the way of a final resolution of the species problem.     

Individuals and the evolution of biological and cultural systems

Recently, it has been suggested that anthropologists could more effectively build scientific theories of cultural evolution by reference to biology rather than social science. In this way, the evolution of cultures might be more usefully viewed as an anolog to the evolution of species. In systematic biology, however, the nature of species continues to be the subject of a long-standing duality of thought. This duality is analogous to the longstanding conflict in anthropology over the nature of culture. We argue, by analogy to Michael Ghiselin’s work on species, that a culture is an individual, not a class, and that cultures, like other individual entities, evolve. This view is highly concordant with concepts of culture formulated in earlier decades of this century. It has also been the philosophical orientation of American archaeology for approximately the last 25 years. We conclude that both biology and anthropology have an equal potential of contributing to a general evolutionary theory.     

Texas Biology and Biological Anthropology Faculty Express Their Views on Teaching Evolution

Unsurprisingly, survey results indicate that Texas biology and biological anthropology faculty with expertise in an evolutionary area strongly support teaching “just evolution” (100%; N = 54) and not creationism/intelligent design. Importantly, they do not think that religious faith is incompatible with acceptance of evolutionary biology (91%; N = 55), even though 50% (N = 52) describe themselves as “not at all religious.” As school boards nationwide debate science standards, it is important that faculty with relevant expertise have a voice. Biological anthropologists should not be overlooked as a public resource in these debates.     

Anthropological structure and culture adaptive strategies of the Neolithic Populations in Central Europe

The present work is the outcome of both biological anthropology and prehistoric research. The theses of cultural ecology became the basis for research on biological and cultural changes of human groups. More than 80 human bones series from the Neolithic cultures of Central Europe have been used here. The role of economic processes (ie: the additional role of cultural system) within the general picture of a given system has been stressed here. As far as anthropological analysis is concerned, the estimation of biological population state and dynamics and the morphological characteristics including the skull morphology, have been used in the present work. In order to observe the mutual interrelations 2 developmental systems for 2 cultural units, the Linear Pottery Culture and the Corded Ware Culture have been constructed. As we think there 2 systems present 2 different adaptational strategies in the Neolithic in Central Europe. The adaptational strategy is understood as socially generated concept of the creation of man-and-environment relation.     

Resolving the Anti-Antievolutionism Dilemma: A Brief for Relational Evolutionary Thinking in Anthropology

ABSTRACT   Anthropologists often disagree about whether, or in what ways, anthropology is "evolutionary." Anthropologists defending accounts of primate or human biological development and evolution that conflict with mainstream "neo-Darwinian" thinking have sometimes been called "creationists" or have been accused of being "antiscience." As a result, many cultural anthropologists struggle with an "anti-antievolutionism" dilemma: they are more comfortable opposing the critics of evolutionary biology, broadly conceived, than they are defending mainstream evolutionary views with which they disagree. Evolutionary theory, however, comes in many forms. Relational evolutionary approaches such as Developmental Systems Theory, niche construction, and autopoiesis–natural drift augment mainstream evolutionary thinking in ways that should prove attractive to many anthropologists who wish to affirm evolution but are dissatisfied with current "neo-Darwinian" hegemony. Relational evolutionary thinking moves evolutionary discussion away from reductionism and sterile nature–nurture debates and promises to enable fresh approaches to a range of problems across the subfields of anthropology. [Keywords: evolutionary anthropology, Developmental Systems Theory, niche construction, autopoeisis, natural drift]     

A statistical model for mapping morphological shape

Background  

Living things come in all shapes and sizes, from bacteria, plants, and animals to humans. Knowledge about the genetic mechanisms for biological shape has far-reaching implications for a range spectrum of scientific disciplines including anthropology, agriculture, developmental biology, evolution and biomedicine.