Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pztms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T15:34:16.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is cultural group selection enough?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Dwight Read
Dwight Read*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and Department of Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095. dread@anthro.ucla.edu https://ucla.academia.edu/DwightRead
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Richerson et al. propose cultural group selection (CGS) as the basis for understanding the evolution of cultural systems. Their proposal does not take into account the nature of cultural idea systems as being constituted at an organizational, rather than an individual level. The sealing partners of the Netsilik Inuit exemplify the problem with their account.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e48
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Balikci, A. (1970) The Netsilik Eskimo. Doubleday.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940) The Nuer: A description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lane, D., Maxfield, R. M., Read, D. & van der Leeuw, S. (2009) From population to organization thinking. In: Complexity perspective in innovation and social change, ed. Lane, D., Pumain, D., van der Leeuw, S. E. & West, G., pp. 11–42. Springer.Google Scholar
Leaf, M. & Read, D. (2012) Human thought and social organization: Anthropology on a new plane. Lexington Press.Google Scholar
Read, D. (1984) An algebraic account of the American kinship terminology. Current Anthropology 25:417–40.Google Scholar
Read, D. (2005) Some observations on resilience and robustness in human systems. Cybernetics and Systems (Special Issue) 36:773–802.Google Scholar
Read, D. (2012) How culture makes us human. [Big Ideas in Little Books series]. Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Read, D. (2013) Reconstructing the Proto-Polynesian terminology: Kinship terminologies as evolving logical structures. In: Kinship systems: Change and reconstruction, ed. McConvell, P., Keen, I. & Hendery, R., pp. 59–91. University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Read, D., Fischer, M. D. & Chit Hlaing, F. K. L. (2014) The cultural grounding of kinship: A paradigm shift. L'Homme 210(2):63–89.Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. (2014) The cultural evolution of emergent group-level traits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37(3):243–95. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X13001544.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. J. (2014) Evolution of the social contract . Doctoral dissertation, University of Bath, England.Google Scholar
White, L. (1959) The evolution of culture. McGrew-Hill.Google Scholar